There is nothing wrong with consumerism.

As long as it makes you happy, correct

It's expensive.

I don't really care about consumerism, the structure of the workplace and production is the major problem.

marxisthumanistinitiative.org/the-left-and-the-masses-the-question-of-consumerism

>>9185081
post-marxist leftist hacks convenient forgot about production so that they only had to talk about symbolism

>blinks

File: 1-Check em Daisies in milk tub.jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>9185093
This

>avant-garde movements in art are immediately co-opted by corporations and turned into a commodity
>art is more about what sells well than what is actually thought-provoking, boundary-pushing etc
>degenerate nigger music is dominating the market while classical becomes more or less irrelevant
>nothing wrong with this
kys

File: 1488177052149.jpg (39KB, 470x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 470x500px

>>9185324
dumb sadposter

>>9185324
There is definitely art made with the specific purpose of avoiding the market and commodification. 'Art' often refers to any sort of creative pursuit like entertainment these days -- film, television, objects. They're non-art.

File: 1481077896869.jpg (90KB, 634x636px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 634x636px

>>9185324
Yeah dude, your avante-garde art is so brave and boundary-breaking. Seeing people fuck in the streets really gets the ol' neurons firing.

File: emojimovie-900x620.jpg (74KB, 900x620px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 900x620px

>>9185081
Yes there is. When everything is a commodity, nothing matters but profit, and nothing is made but for the lowest common denominator. Culture dies a little more each year.

>>9185342
>wilfully demonstrating your ignorance on this level

>>9185348
>Culture dies a little more each year.
Translation: Oh no! Society at large is going against my ideals. We can't have that!

>>9185348
The world is a farm of farms and you are either the farmer or the cattle or most likely one of the infinite in between mixtures of both

>>9185370

So, are you a sincere exponent of total commodification or is noncommittal ironic detachment your thing?

>>9185480
How is total commodification avoidable?
I mean, no one but maybe the amish would stop you from living with the amish

>>9185480
Yeah I'd say I'm a sincere exponent. Raising numbers to powers is definitely my kinda thing.

>>9185348
Consumerism has given people unprecedented freedom to shape their identities, to become what they really are regardless of their gender, color or creed. The anti consumer left are reactionaries in sheep's clothing, bitter elitists who want people to stop liking what they don't like. And invariably, they always focus their self righteous wrath on the culture associated with marginalised communities: women, the young, the working classes, queers and people of color. They long for a time when art existed as an (implicitly white, straight and male) contemplative self serious pursuit of abstract 'beauty'. But they don't realise just how liberating culture can be. The elitist will dismiss Beyoncé as a manufactured corporate product, while dismissing her agency as a woman of color and an artist together with the very real joy and empowerment she brings to marginalised people. It's like when you read Adorno's cultural criticism, it's obvious he came from a background of wealth and privilege.

>>9185515

Fair enough.

>>9185500

I'm not the guy who complained about culture dying incidentally. I don't know if it can be arrested or reversed anytime soon, to be honest. I hope it can be.

It seems like it necessarily must result in progressively greater serfdom, social atomisation, animal morality, cultural deracination and ecological disaster (in concert with interrelated phenomena, at least). Nothing new.

>>9185081
Nobody cares about consumerism. This isn't the 90's where it's trendy to poke fun at petty bourgeois morons who consistently vote and buy against their own interests.

The problem today is that consumerism for the vast majority of people is no longer feasible.

>>9185093
this.

>>9185217
and this.

>>9185569
>Beyonce brings empowerment to marginalized people

Gimme a fucking break, seeing a pig like Beyonce dance in degenerate clothing on national TV under the guise of female or black empowerment is not only disgusting, but also insulting.

>See, a successful black woman! She represents you! Now ignore all the actual social and economic inequality

kys, disgusting liberal

>>9185093
commodification is really bound up with those two, though. One of the things that makes the modern workplace so draining, is the fact that it demands total involvement, destroying the work/life distinction and making your innermost feeling and the expression thereof into a commodity.

File: avedons_pound_1958.png (566KB, 914x557px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 914x557px

>>9185324
>degenerate nigger music is dominating the market while classical becomes more or less irrelevant

>>9185661
>pig
>degenerate
>disgusting
>insulting
Great arguments. You should probably save yourself the time of bothering with us and move on to people on equal intellectual footing with you in /pol/ and /r9k/.

>>9185678
>"Fuck the elites!"
>acts elitist

Okay.

File: b15798dd35aa391fe1a4d1eec01198db.jpg (47KB, 530x348px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 530x348px

>>9185569
> Consumerism has given people unprecedented freedom to shape their identities, to become what they really are regardless of their gender, color or creed.

>>9185569
>Consumerism has given people unprecedented freedom to shape their identities, to become what they really are regardless of their gender, color or creed.
No it hasn't. It's given them the desire to model themselves after what they see in adverts and sitcoms, wanting what they're told they ought to want.

>The anti consumer left are reactionaries in sheep's clothing, bitter elitists who want people to stop liking what they don't like.
By definition an "elite" is the person making the stuff to be consumed, not the person being pushed to consume it.

>And invariably, they always focus their self righteous wrath on the culture associated with marginalised communities: women, the young, the working classes, queers and people of color. They long for a time when art existed as an (implicitly white, straight and male) contemplative self serious pursuit of abstract 'beauty'. But they don't realise just how liberating culture can be. The elitist will dismiss Beyoncé as a manufactured corporate product, while dismissing her agency as a woman of color and an artist together with the very real joy and empowerment she brings to marginalised people.
To some extent you have an actual point here. But that joy and empowerment is ultimately just the product of some record exec's desire to make money - the music (or whatever example you want to use) isn't allowed to exist unless it's profitable, regardless of its actual quality. To be really "liberating", culture needs to exist on its own terms, for its own sake.

File: hot.jpg (210KB, 897x1206px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 897x1206px

I'm extremely shy and introverted. Without commodification and consumerism I would starve, since I would never be charismatic enough to get my necessities in a gift economy.

Communists are always charismatic and attractive individuals who have more to gain by ending money.

>>9185688
>fails to make a coherent argument
>switches to contrarian polemics
Go on.

>>9185692
>By definition an "elite" is the person making the stuff to be consumed, not the person being pushed to consume it.
retarded_child.jpg

>>9185661

>insulting.
to white dudes who use leftism as a cover for their racism and misogyny it is. And that's a plus for me.

>>9185692

>But that joy and empowerment is ultimately just the product of some record exec's desire to make money

I feel like there's a double standard going on in here. Serious Dude Art also depends on consumerism, but you won't hear people criticising it at least not in the way the criticise art associated with women POC or queers. In the art world, white masculinity is still the default. Moonlight got the Oscar for Best Picture, but due to a 'mixup' the award was given to La La Land instead. We still got a long way to go.

File: 1488506184106.gif (486KB, 238x155px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 238x155px

>>9185767
>opening the wrong envelope is racist

Holy fuck you're dense.

File: 1487930642553.png (167KB, 347x359px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 347x359px

>>9185767
>Moonlight got the Oscar for Best Picture, but due to a 'mixup' the award was given to La La Land instead. We still got a long way to go.

This shit can't be serious.

File: 1488346207725.jpg (158KB, 810x749px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 810x749px

>>9185081
Only if it isn't viewed as an end goal.

>>9185767
>We still got a long way to go.

>muh "progress" narrative

It's the 21st century faggot. Progressivism is behind the times.

File: 1ee8caff198b2f7d883f65235b350bff436387aac7b7c7e403ba6471338d3521.jpg (24KB, 257x338px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 257x338px

>>9185808

>>9185569
In the end this sort of attitude is just a breathless affirmation of the culture industry as it exists wrapped up in a patronising ''just look at [abstracted identity category] they eat their slop and enjoy it too, in fact they think the slop is meaningful and really speaks to them on a deep spiritual way, so maybe you should eat your slop as well''

>>9185767
There's got to be a limit to these pol-reactionaries

>>9185847
>implying statistical majority is capable and/or willing to spend time closely analyzing cultural goods
Consumerism is there because it satisfies and satiates the masses. There's nothing wrong with it.

>>9185900
Commodity fetishism has penetrated every single aspect of our lives by this point, even during the middle ages, Christianity wasn't this pervasive. The 'counterculture' if it really even existed, is just another marketing demographic. The most conspicuous consumers are those who fancy themselves above consumerism. Middle class pathologies like 'nerd culture' or the muh 'organic' 'artisanal' foodie crap, exposed brick and chalkboards crowd being the most glaring examples.

>Consumerism is there because it satisfies and satiates the masses.

Except it doesn't. The masses, overmedicated and prodded around like cattle are still restless and seem likely to get more restless in the near future. That's why people feel this strange admiration for those who truly dared to 'go postal' on their fellow lab rats.

I think there is something wrong with it insofar that we're capable of recognizing something is wrong with it.

Its fairly obvious that human beings were born to consume.
Never could the species have made it so far without doing so.
So then why must they feel guilt for their own nature? Thats the real question.

Do these "intellectuals" who decry consumerism and capitalism not participate in consumerism as well? Are the suits they wear, the houses they live in, the fancy dinners they buy, the books they read not a part of this consumerism?

>>9186013
it's literally impossible not to participate in it within a capitalist society

>>9186013
Yes but that's beside the point. There's a difference between being a consumer and realising that consumerism isn't fulfilling.

>>9185966
>still restless and seem likely to get more restless in the near future
This is the result of many factors, but consumerism isn't one of them. In fact it only serves to pacify the masses and succeeds at it tremendously. The illusion of meaning and ephemeral sense of belonging it provides is more than enough for most people to trick themselves into believing they are self-actualizing through consuming. Moreover, as you pointed out, it's even capable do the same for those actively opposing it by presenting itself as an anti-thesis. It's a very stable local extremum on the timeline of our search for existential meaning - both a blessing compared to previous states and a curse to those wishing to go beyond. Hating it is silly, though.

>>9185995
Consumerism as we know it is a pretty recent phenomenon. Modern marketing techniques date from the early 20th century, see Edward Bernays and his book, Propaganda for a quick introduction.

In premodern societies, wealth was not accumulated indefinitely, but periodically expended in feasts and potlatches. Economists have a tendency to make sweeping, supposedly self evident pronouncements on 'human nature' while ignoring pretty much all records of past human societies. If great cultural and artistic possibilities could opened up by a society no longer based on consumerism and mindless capital accumulation, if it can improve the lives of billions of people, why not make it a goal?

Philosophers just don't like capitalism because they're poor. :)

File: 14644627476470.jpg (156KB, 1700x1734px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1700x1734px

>>9186067
>smugposting
>no carat nose

It's shit and only exists to fill a void.

>>9185995
>Its fairly obvious that human beings were born to consume

It is a matter of quantity and quality, and the a/effects the consumption has on the """"environment""""

>>9186013
I mainly just buy used books from yard sales desu

>>9185569

> Democratic Socialism has given people unprecedented freedom to shape their identities, to become what they really are regardless of their gender, color or creed. The anti-left are reactionaries in sheep's clothing, bitter elitists who want people to stop liking what they don't like. And invariably, they always focus their self righteous wrath on the culture associated with marginalised communities: women, the young, the working classes, queers and people of color. They long for a time when art existed as an (implicitly white, straight and male) contemplative self serious pursuit of abstract 'beauty'. But they don't realise just how liberating culture can be. The elitist will dismiss Beyoncé as a manufactured product, while dismissing her agency as a woman of color and an artist together with the very real joy and empowerment she brings to marginalised people. It's like when you read Adorno's cultural criticism, it's obvious he came from a background of wealth and privilege.

See, I can bullshit too, sophist.

>>9185569
Accurate.
Of course cuckrals of leftards of /lit/ are upset at this.

https://youtu.be/nAEI4HhKWbY

>>9186029
It's not impossible to leave cap. soc. Just go to Siberia or Alaska and build a shack in a middle of fucking nowhere.

>>9187028
>>9185569
>

>>9186013
consumerism =/= buying things

>>9187039
so you admit that it's at least a fairly big undertaking?

>>9187153
>buy ticket.
>get some tools and a weapon.
>???
>Profit

>>9185700
>gift economy

you're not shy and introvererted, you're just retarded

File: 1476032696817.png (56KB, 491x585px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 491x585px

>>9186085

>>9187171
>buy ticket.
>Profit

Try again anon.

>>9185217
« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »

File: 6a8.jpg (31KB, 502x480px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 502x480px

What is it with people and their external locus of control? I figured this impulse control shit out when I was 12.

Why is everyone so retarded about this?

Why ITT ignore the inherent retardation that's the underlying problem?

>u need this?
>yes
>pls consume
>k
>pls consume more
>no
>u need this!
>no

Problem solved. Average normie can't into this? Consumerism is destined to be mainstream ideology until they can.

Fuck's wrong with everybody...

>>9185081
is this a good book?

There might be nothing wrong with consumerism but there definitely is something wrong with a fucking pleb declaring that there's nothing wrong with it. Check yourself before you fucking wreck yourself; you goddamn Pynchon reading cuck.

File: 122.png (370KB, 600x463px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 600x463px

>>9187308
> Something wrong with pointing out there's something wrong

0/10 elitism

>>9187234
Want and need conflation, poor impulse control and emotional literacy, and the lack of an affirming myth of life beyond material gratification.

>>9187234
This. I don't get it.

Read a few pages, the (writer) condemns society yet he had three marriages.
He also worked for propaganda, delete this filth and don't fill your mind with it.

>writes about how propaganda and consumerism squashes one's capacity for judgements and turns them into unidimensional men
>[More than 300,000 copies sold] on the cover
Oh wow

It really shows the pathology of leftist ideology when people's choices in a market are reduced to an empty word like "consumerism".

I mean, do you guys consider it consumerist to have to buy food in order to stay alive?

Retarded.

>>9187443
>I mean, do you guys consider it consumerist to have to buy food in order to stay alive?

No. Nobody does. Don't be so fucking dense.

>>9187443
>You could have grown the foood
>Hunted the food
>Traded for the food

retard

>>9187450
Why would you ever do that when other people have done it for you and the price is low enough?

>>9187458
CAPITALISM IS BAD, M'KAY?

>>9187458
Despite the fact that buying food isn't really consumerism there are obviously issues with consumerism in the food industry.

Mass production of food items is extremely wasteful. Stores stock more food than they can sell. Cheap ingredients are used and result in unhealthy foods being produced. Marketing is far too prevalent in the food industry and takes advantage of people's ignorance (low fat foods, diet foods etc). Consumerism does not encourage quality. The food insdustry is a poster child for what is wrong with consumerism.

>>9187507
>Mass production of food items is extremely wasteful.

Absolutely. But the reverse is a catastrophe.

>>9187514
Sorry I should clarify that more. Mass production for profit is extremely wasteful.

Also, arguing that because one extreme is worse than the other is no argument at all.There are more options available to us than the existing state of affairs and every individual growing their own food or hunting their own meals. I don't believe anyone is saying that a food economy as a thing is wrong just that the current state of affairs has reached a point where it's not beneficial for anyone.

Food, healthcare, basic shelter. These are the three things that people cannot live without and are the ones that are most perverted by market forces because they are necessities.

File: C0DweYkWEAATlOW.jpg:large.jpg (63KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x675px

>>9185569

>>9187520
>Mass production for profit is extremely wasteful.

It obviously wouldn't be if all the food was eaten.

>>9185569
sage

>>9187520
>the current state of affairs has reached a point where it's not beneficial for anyone.
Define "beneficial." The vast majority of people in the developed world are able to eat a meal every day. The people who run the companies make tons of money.

>>9187531
>hur dur muh tautology
Thanks for that. Very insightful.

The current state of the food economy means that only products that are "sellable" actually make it to the stores. Shit tonnes of perfectly edible food is discarded because of superficial imperfections that are effectively meaningless. Meanwhile people starve to death at worst or struggle to feed themselves many even in developed countries.

>>9187551
People are able to eat a meal every day in developed countries but I think it's hard to attribute that to consumerism. Rather consumerism is something that happens in countries with higher living standards because it's possible there.

Also yeah you're right the people who run the companies make tons of money so it does benefit them but for many of them the benefits of making an extra couple of million for the super rich is minimal compared to the affect it has on those the poor, even in developing countries. Some billionaires next million dollars means very little to him but could quite literally keep dozens of people from dying for a year.

>>9185569
>it's obvious he came from a background of wealth and privilege

>forced to flee from the nazis
>privileged

File: 1464463893024.jpg (113KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 700x400px

>>9188497
Whiteness gives you inherent privilege, even if you don't feel or seem privileged.

>>9187402
>>9187234
>u need this?
>yes
>pls consume
>k
>pls consume more
>no
>u need this!
>no
Problem solved.

What was the problem? Me and my wife (and her boyfriend (female) make tonnes of money, we can afford the newest gadgets and gizmos and toys... what is wrong with consumerism? We are happy already, we know we have to live, we like things... we see something, an advert, or in a store, we buy it if we want, it makes our home look nicer, it lets us have some novel fun... what are you talking about, where is there problem that needs to be solved?

File: 1488484829759.jpg (18KB, 382x322px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 382x322px

>>9188584
>Money gives you inherent privilege, even if you don't feel or seem privileged.

FTFY

White people are better off than black people in general but it's a money thing. Attributing it to "whiteness" is pointless.

>>9187547
>sage
advice?

>>9187918
>Some billionaires next million dollars means very little to him but could quite literally keep dozens of poor people from dying for a year.
soo... hes doing the world a favor? t-the... villain is the hero? No.. it cant be... they cant have all the cakes and eat them too

>>9185088
What if my goals don't involve happiness?

>>9188631
Wrong. Poor white people have privilege due to their whiteness, but not due to their poorness. Do not conflate these two types of privilege.

>>9188656
Do you honestly have trouble understanding that?

>>9188671
all 'privileges' are ultimately economic

>>9188671
White privilege is tied to the fact that white people more often have money than black people and the cultural perception that this causes. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but it's a cop-out on behalf of white people to say that it's because of skin colour and not a result of changeable economic factors.

>>9188683
this. all privileges are to do with power and money is what give people power.

>>9188584
American categories of 'race' are not some sort of eternal metaphysical truth that applies everywhere. Nazis saw Jews and most slavs as members of an alien 'race' even though they often look as 'white' as germans do. In the middle east and eastern europe, people who look pretty much the same can still feel a genocidal hatred for each other, often rationalised by the most insane race science theories you can imagine.

File: Help him out p h a m.png (324KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1920x1080px

>>9185081
I hate consumerism™
>>>/wsr/274838

>>9188749
This... doesn't have any relevance. We are talking specifically about American society. Just because race categories are constructed doesn't mean they aren't socially significant.

>>9188758
I do agree, though there's a sort of thinking, popular among the liberal classes, that reifies 'race' while ignoring the absurdity of the system as a whole. It follows that the world could remain exactly the same as it is today, except for the symbolic elimination of 'racism' and be a better world. The middle class HR manager/shrink class has come to depend on this ideology for its power and prestige, so they aren't really interested in fixing anything, but in socialising people, in creating a specific kind of person fit for a new system.

>>9188672
>Do you honestly have trouble understanding that?
What is Injustice for Infinity Aleque

>>9188719
>this. all privileges are to do with power and money is what give people power.
And the vast majority of american black people were enslaved 200 years ago with no money or property

>>9188862
Slavery and serfdom have been the norm throughout most of human civilisation. For the last 30 years we've seen the mass impoverishment of all races at the expense of a few in the finance sector. While the liberal view of things still enshrines, at least implicitly, the postwar ideal- ie. a shot at a nice house in the suburbs, middle class respectability and college education for everyone. But this seems increasingly absurd and unfeasible, even for the 'straight, white male'

>>9188672
>Do you honestly have trouble understanding that?
Because consciousness suffering and causing consciousness suffering is the only thing that can be bad
>So we should go around and right wing death squad kill all poor people that complain about their suffering to put them out of their (and ours, of having to see and hear them) misery?
hm... let me take some time to get back to you on that
If you want to talk about Great Floods, provide your scientific ranges of parameters, for ""your"" """believed""" """""justification""""""

There's nothing wrong with consumerism if people don't treat consuming as an end in itself and neglect more important pursuits

Except a shit load of people neglect more important pursuits

>>9189128
What's "important" and what isn't is relative to the person.

>>9189136

2bh if material needs are 'important' to a person in any sense more than necessity, I don't want to deal with that person

But that's obviously just an irresolvable difference in thought

>>9189052
>So we should go around and right wing death squad kill all poor people that complain about their suffering to put them out of their (and ours, of having to see and hear them) misery?
Yes.

File: Vitalism2.jpg (54KB, 513x768px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 513x768px

Any good pro-consumerist books?

File: 1488430978954.gif (1MB, 250x213px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x213px

>Le Capitalism leads to consumerism, and consumerism is unsustainable
>Le consumerism only needs superficial validation and instant gratification, it deson't lead to growth, development, and improvement

First mistake is that consumerism is very often mistaken for consumption by most neo-Marxists, consumption is either the final purchase of goods and services, or it's depleting said good or service. Consumerism is the encouragement of buying products.
Second mistake is thinking that consumerist cultures or societies exist, societies don't consume, they produce via trade networks, factories, retailing, price signals, commoditization etc.

So that only leaves consumption, and consumption is an individual choice based on personal desires which are endless. If needs are satisfied, people focus on wants, in fulfilling these wants people find self-actualization and expression for their individuality and to become whole. Since this self-actualization is subjective, you need a society in which consumers can collectively and indiviudally decide which way a society and its economy must go. This individuality is expressed in behavorial signaling to convey to others that these individuals have different priorities and interests compared to others, so whatever you buy, it's always going to look wasteful to someone else.

While some of you neo-Marxists buy a Ché T-shirt, which I think is the same as throwing your money to the wind, for me to take pleasure in buying small things like a 6-piece kitchy tea set from some dark place in China sounds like evil Consumerist culture to you.

File: CUISTZb.gif (559KB, 500x439px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 500x439px

>>9189270
>While some of you neo-Marxists buy a Ché T-shirt,
>neo-Marxist

>>9189402
You're actually fine with calling yourself a Marxian purist after pretty much every Communist society ever has collapsed. except North Korea which is poorer than the fucking Congo or Laos?

File: SViHYwF.png (41KB, 297x200px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 297x200px

>>9189415
>You're actually fine with calling yourself a Marxian purist

>>9189423
So what's left?

Half chub Marxist?

File: hYMIItH.png (142KB, 511x564px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 511x564px

>>9189434
>implying you know enough about prevailing trends in post classical-marxist thought for me to bother trying to engage you in any semblance of good faith dialogue

>>9189452
I don't know anything about Marxism no, because it's pretty much a dead field except for some supplementation within Capitalism.

File: 4a0603d0b59dbb9033b38bf6cbc9d853.jpg (85KB, 650x780px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 650x780px

>>9189457
>I don't know anything about Marxism no, because it's pretty much a dead field
>I don't know anything about Marxism
>it's pretty much a dead field

>>9189415
What about Cuba? They're doing better than most of their regional and cultural counterparts. No mass killings, just suppression of dissidents. Nothing you don't see outside of Communism.

>>9189482
It's a military dictatorship emulating Chinese capitalism, it has private ownership of homes and small businesses.

>>9189452
So you don't know what you're talking about. Got it.

>>9189507
not that you're smart enough to parse this, but I'll link it anyway

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/most-cited-authors-of-books-in-the-humanities-2007/405956.article

>>9188939
>But this seems increasingly absurd and unfeasible, even for the 'straight, white male'
I guess a large advantage is, couples having duel income. And also, I find it hard to believe straight white males with nice paying jobs have it increasingly unfeasible (yea, I see the point), there are a heck of a lot of homes and apartments out there and a heck of a lot of them are full

>>9189173
but questionably pure powers beyond the suffering individuals are responsible for those conditions being that way, it would be like if Hitler literally forced the jews to ruin Germany and then some time later said "look what you guys did, ruining Germany is not good, that which ruins Germany must be destroyed, you obviously leave us no choice, we must kill you all" (not as blatantly extreme and direct of course; but the sources that cause these strifes and povertious problems, have been discussed, highlighted and criticized for millennia; but... none of that matters.... because what does matter?)

>>9189198
>Any good pro-consumerist books?
The World At Large (and small) by Hiss Sstory

>>9189727
Long- and short- term solutions are not mutually exclusive.
I believe that artificial demands are noxious, but there isn't a future left to adult/old beggars.
"Finishing them off" is more effective than enrolling them in costly social programs which will turn them into less efficient citizens than the ones educated since their infancy. Young beggars might still have a chance, though.
Why did you even reply? I was being post-ironic.

>>9189144
Grow some opinions

>>9189457
>I don't know anything about Marxism no

then why the fuck do you keep talking out of your ass?

All your favourite e-celebs that rant about MARGZ have not read him.

>>9188857
You go girl

>>9189052
hashtag middle class

>>9190419
>hashtag middle class
What did you mean by this?

>>9185678
"Go back to /pol/ and /r9k/" isn't an argument either you twat

>>9185767
>disliking Beyonce is racist and misogynistic

OK

>>9189994
Reading Marx today isn't really necessary if you've read neo-Marxist literature. Most people haven't read those either tho.

>>9189649
>I guess a large advantage is, couples having duel income

WRONG!

Dual income is no longer an advantage and is the expectation. Women becoming a part of the workforce should have been a boon for workers but instead has simply driven up the cost of living. A single parent income for a family is no longer enough to live on.

>>9185370
dude... just dude...

Modern consumerism is the cancer.

File: nietzsche.jpg (51KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 499x499px

>>9185081
The obsessive hatred, bordering on psychosis, against products — i.e. against man-made objects — seems to be the hallmark of the pseudo-intellectual today. Hatred of consumption, a problem which no sane, healthy person has ever had. As if food and clothes, as if eating or dressing were bad. Such is the pseudo-intellectual's craving to appear to be raging at something, that he will rage at life's basic necessitities if need be.

The "consumer society" should have been called the "slave society", since there's nothing wrong with consuming, it is indeed the basis, the prerequisite, of all growth. Marx was at least healthy in focusing on production; Baudrillard's obsession with consumption is neurotic. Why not reduce it to zero and die of thirst in a few days, you fucking nihilistic little prick? Better yet just stop breathing; oxygen too is something that we consume.

What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange. Capitalism, then, is merely a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange. That's all it is. Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization. To be against capitalism, then, means to be against civilization — which is par for the course for the kind of subhuman dreck which perpetually champions this nauseating, decadent notion. Just take a good look at them and you'll see.

I think consumerism is wasteful and that is my biggest problem with it
Certain resources are getting depleted for poor reasons

>>9192144
>buying things is ok so all consumerism is ok

>>9191979
>I guess a large advantage is, couples having duel income
>WRONG!
>A single parent income for a family is no longer enough to live on.
>I guess a large advantage is, couples having duel income

>>9192144
>What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange. Capitalism, then, is merely a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange. That's all it is. Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization. To be against capitalism, then, means to be against civilization — which is par for the course for the kind of subhuman dreck which perpetually champions this nauseating, decadent notion. Just take a good look at them and you'll see.

This is some of the silliest garbage I have ever seen. You've clearly not even read the people you're supposedly arguing against. Capital is not "simply another word for money."

>>9192863
>consumerism is bad
>buying things is ok

adorno was right as always