A former friend of mine in California, who was a Marxist, told me that people in capitalism were involved in the “ideology of mass consumption.” My question is, Is this really an ideology? Many people want wealth without it being ideological. Let's face it, wealth is attractive. It is even attractive to people who have not had ideological indoctrination into capitalism or anything of the sort. It was attractive for example to Soviet residents living under Communism. So is this really ideological, or are we dealing with something that people simply want? Certainly there are times when it is done in a coercive manner. People are taught that they need to have lots of wealth or they are losers. When I wanted money it was not for the sake of money itself but for the sake of credibility. I was under the impression that nobody would take my views seriously unless I had lots of wealth. I have since found out that there are a number of ways to credibility, money being only one of them, and others including such things as wisdom and strength. Is there an ideology of mass consumption going on? I think that there are a number of things going on. One, once again, is that wealth is simply attractive and will continue to attract people who want it whatever their ideology. Another is that when we have coercion toward wealth, we have negative results. Everyone wants to become wealthy. Nobody wants to do tasks that do not generate much wealth for themselves but have vast benefit. Scientists, teachers, military, police and any number of others do not make very much money, but their contributions are vast. Are these people losers because they don't make very much money? No, they are not. Without the scientist the businessman would have very little to sell. Without the teacher the businessman would not have the knowledge that he needs to do his job, and most workers would be unemployable. Without the military and the police there would be no protection for property rights. Some see such people as losers or even irresponsible. They are neither. They need them. If you have been lead to believe that you are a loser unless you have millions of dollars, think again. Many of the most significant contributors did not make very much money. Nikolai Tesla died in poverty. Thomas Jefferson died deeply in debt. Karl Marx was poor, yet for a long time two fifths of the world followed his ideas. Some people who make significant contributions are rewarded monetarily in their lifetimes, others are not. Once again, some would see such people as losers. Yet they have made bigger contributions than have the people who believe such a thing. Most things that are good can be used for wrong. It does not damn the value; it damns its misuse. With money, what we see is a good thing that can be used for wrong. We see the same thing with such things as beauty and intelligence. It is important to separate the value from the misuses of the value. So that while it may very well be undesirable for people to be under coercion to make lots of money, it is however not an ideology. One again, wealth is attractive. I expect that it will continue to be attractive. Some people may very well make an ideology of it and use it for wrongdoing. But I anticipate that many people will want to be wealthy whatever their ideology.
Its all relative. Theres plenty of folks who live happily with way less stuff than most of the pampered whiners complaining about consumerism.
The biggest 'consumers' I personally know, are the Cafe Socialists - and some even claim to be Marxists. They're the ones doing the frequent travelling, the frequent eating out, the mass consumption of entertainment (ie, the Arts), the buying of imported foods and wine, the insisting on private residences (which is just another form of consumerism), etc etc. They're also the ones who expect to consume all sorts of niche and specialist interest industries and vanities, a perfect welfare state, and all in a state of freedom from insult and discomfort - fully funded by the tax payer. The working class rednecks I know, OTOH, do far less consuming, irregardless of their politics.
Old saw: "Money can't buy happiness but it allows you to search for it in relative comfort." For Dan Snyder relative comfort is a 70 million dollar yacht. For Rafael Nadal relative comfort is a new 8 million dollar yacht. For many the jon boat is the cat's meow. For Cliff Jacobson only a canoe would ever do. For this old fellow paddling the entire Mississippi river only a kayak will do. For others any boat is a hassle and bank fishing is the only way to go. Wealth is relative and people have to find their own path to happiness, their own path to some glory for their soul, even if few others see it like they do and have no inclination to try the same path. Wealth is not an ideology, but it can be an obsession -- no happiness in that. I'm at the canoe end of things. I like going relatively slow and seeing nature up close and the camping that goes with it.
I agree. Though it's been my experience that the big consumers are inclined to sneer and/or laugh at more humble and localised pursuits. I've even seen it from those who attend Climate Change protests - how funny is that! They travel and consume like there's no tomorrow, sneer at people who don't go anywhere or buy anything, and then complain about environmental desecration. At a guess, that'd equate to a brain roughly the size of a pea.
You can tell a rare, exceptional bank fisherman here that really loves what they're doing. The great blue herons walk right up to them for a treat and sometimes sit with them awhile. Normally a heron is scary bird that flies off if a very small twig snaps. I've only seen a handful of people that the herons trust like that. A big yacht can't be any more glory than that. jmo.
I strongly suspect that "ideology" includes way more than that. Yes, being wealthy is great and not inheriently problematic. BUT, the pursuit of wealth goes farther than that. We say that if you don't earn enough money, you don't get to have healthcare, don't get to have enough food, your kids don't get to have the education that will support the possibility of success in the economy, etc. And, that IS problematic.
How is that problematic? Wealth has to be created. Life has to be lived and one has to produce in order to survive. It’s only problematic if you have a premise that the act of living life should be without movement, motive or purpose. If man requires food to eat he must produce it, or someone else does and he pays for it. Food, housing and medical care doesn’t spring out of the ground. The nature of life is action. Anyone seeking to gain the necessities of life without giving anything for it is trying to circumvent cause and effect.
It's problematic in that EVERY society of our size has those who have limitations that prevent the individual from supporting themselves in the economy that we have. And, there is NO acceptable moral code that would suggest that we allow those people to die. Our society developes winners and losers. There is no way to develop a moral justification for consining those who aren't winning to dying. And, for those who have any possible ability to contribute we are better off by making that a possibility. We do this in many ways. We have bankruptcy law. We have laws on forgiveness, cancelation of debt that remains outstanding, limits on how long citizens may be pursued for a crime, and other such mechanisms for allowing people to regain full citizenship status. We have healthcare that helps many who can't pay, but unfortunately still denies care to millions who can't pay. We have federal and state programs of aid for those who find themselves unable to buy food. Suggesting a competition based system such as ours should allow the lives of those who have some sort of downturn to be permanently devestated, even to the point of death, is just plain unconsciouable. NO first world counry holds that kind of view. And, suggesting American would be better if we moved in that direction is ridiculous.
All societies have people that don’t make it. The moral code that makes life possible and worth living is what matters and makes a society great, not a moral code that devalues individual liberties and steps on other’s rights to satisfy the altruistic fantasies of a few. You can’t say that you value lives of people in one hand, and at the same time rob the labors of others and limit their ability to survive in the other. Because if you truly hold human life as an ultimate value, then you would have to respect those humans’ rights to property. And their right to survive. No one wants people to die, but if we want to live in a prosperous society, we won’t get there through continuous seizure of its citizens property and lives.
Whether a 'downturn' eventuates into devastation is not a function of the State, it's entirely a function of how prepared that person was, and how dependable and stable their support network (ie, family) is. What you're suggesting removes the opportunities we all now have, to put those lifetime securities into place. It also exacerbates an already problematic breakdown of family inter-dependence.
When the state creates a medical system such as they have created here in the USA, a large percent of the population can no longer use that system. They end up with NO professional medical support. That IS caused by the state. Today, we make some level of effort to allow our population to have medical care. But, that system has failed, and the current administration has put effort into causing it to further fail. There is NO WAY for half our popoulation to pay the price of today's medical coverage when they make so little income that they don't even pay income tax. So it absolutely IS a function of the state. THEY are the ones who make the rules. And, let's remember that our insurance companies (upon which current coverage relies) are NOT interested in the half of our population that can't afford their product. They are in business to maximize provit, NOT to care if people are dying of various diseases. This is just plain nonsense. Driving our population into more desperate circumstances (by cutting support for food, medicine, housing, etc.) is NOT a way to improve families. It's a way to ensure generational poverty while devestating families. "Those lifetime securities"? Sorry. Even those who are not living paycheck to paycheck are failing to invest. Even those with advantaged investment opportunities are raiding those accounts, choosing to pay the penalties. And, that has been the case from the start of such programs as 401k. Beyond that, our governmnet has supported corporations taking pensions and other retirement bennefits that were part of employment contracts, stranding those who had contributed to those programs for years through their hard work. When the state decides it's OK for both the private and public sectors to screw workers like that, you can't come along and blame the employee.
1) I'm speaking only in terms of my own and other First World nations, in which nationalised healthcare has existed for decades. We are seeing exactly the same increasing poverty/homelessness/wealth divide as America. So clearly, healthcare is just one small factor. The primary driver of this situation is generations of gratuitous and unregulated welfare, coupled with a serious decay of the community structures which historically saw us care for and support each other. ALL of that is a result of a grotesquely entitled First World belief that everyone has a fundamental right to perfect safety, housing of choice, as much as they can eat, and endless freedoms. We can blame Progressives entirely for that, obviously. 2) No one has ever suggested cutting off the food supply to poor people. On the contrary, just and equitable welfare would mean channelling all available resources specifically to those who need it, rather than to those who abuse it. This is better for the needy, obviously. An easy way to weed out the abusers is to take cash out of the equation entirely. It would instantly eliminate a huge number of abusers. Provide free housing on condition that it's taken wherever it's available, and you eliminate even more abusers. This is the kindest and most just way to approach welfare .. because it allows for choice. No one is forced to go without, and all resources are freely available for those in genuine need. No resources are wasted on those who abuse the system, and all help is utilised for its intended purpose (to move people out of poverty). Families sticking together to support each other will only become an appealing option again when people realise they can't abandon all personal responsibility without consequences. And keeping a family intact is definitely a personal responsibility. 3) If families make every effort to live within their means, and continue to save for life .. they CAN secure the means of generational survival. IE, property. That's the very best security in changing times.
Welfare cause our medical system to be fabulously expensive? Just exactly how the heck did THAT happen? What's happened is that medical education, medicine, equipment, etc., etc. have become highly expensive. They've gotten expensive enough that an individual is no more likely to pay for a health care situation than to be able to pay for a car crash. It becomes REQUIRED that the costs of these personal catastrophes is spread out, as individuals can't plan for them or cover them. That has NOTHING to do with welfare AT ALL. This is just not true. Obviously, there has been no measure before legislatures that is designed to starve people. Howevver, it has ALWAYS been the case that aid for those struggling to buy the basics has come under constant assault. The result is that we have a significant US population that right now is trading off buying food vs. buying medicine and making other similar choices. And, when it is COVID related, we watch as the Republican party refuses to continue aid to those who have lost their jobs due to this disease. Now, we have Mnuchin wanting to cut the support people were gtting in HALF!! And, that decision is not even SLIGHTLY based on what is required for these people to feed themselves - or continue buying healthcare insurance, or paying the rent.j The problem with this is that we have HALF the population of America not making enough to pay income tax. And, YOU come along and sugget they should be saving enough that they can pay for our medical system??? That's constantly proven to be MILES from reality.
You barely addressed my points. It's like you're talking to someone else entirely. However ... 1) I'm talking about the same increasing social decay in countries WITH public health. My own, the UK, Canada, etc. These issues are happening across all of those nations. Public health appears to make only a very slight difference. And yes, it's the Welfare State which has lead to this, because it has disabled people almost completely. 2) BS. I know folk on freaking welfare who bought property. They saved like the dickens for years - living ultra frugally, and bought $5k houses outright. Put a few family branches together and you can buy a $50k property if everyone does their part and gives up all their extras and luxuries (fast food, meat, beer, soda, cigarettes, vacations, etc) for a few years. And obviously, they need to rent the cheapest possible place they can find, in the cheapest possible location, while they're doing that saving. It's all excuses. It's all just a preference to live swell every day, rather than go without in order to have long term security. 3) I realise it's the reality, that's the point. I'm talking about the how and why, and the solutions. If you don't address the how and why, you will never have a solution. All you'll have is bandaids - and those bandaids come with an immense price for those who receive them. The complete loss of self-determination.
I don't see anything that you have said that defines what you are worried about, let along gives evidence of it actually happening. Yes - you can find people who did just about anything you want to search for. That doesn't make it statistically relevant. Today, there IS a problem with diet in America. And, diet as is taught in our education system has nothing to do with health. It has to do with being low cost. When we TEACH bad diet (and do so for many generations as we have), we should not be surprised when we find the population doing no better. I don't know how fast this can be rectified by teaching good diet. But, as long as we teach bad diet to just about every kid in America, I don't really see a way to improve America's diet that doesn't include fixing that bit of our education system. Again, I'd point out that when Mrs. Obama made this a focus of hers, right wing America rose up in arms against the very idea of teaching better diet to our K-12 students. It became an INSTANT partisan political issue for the GOP. That's a pretty significant obstacle, in my estimation.
1) In nations with public health, the SAME problems America has, are increasing at the same pace. Homelessness, widening wealth divide, decreasing educational standards, obesity, etc. Check it out .. the stats are clear. The reason it's happening everywhere - despite the existence of public health and other safety nets - is PEOPLE. When people give up, this is the result. And people only give up when they've been lead to believe they have an alternative. Try it on lab rats and see what happens. 2) I didn't claim it was statistically relevant. The point is that if even a single person does it (and far more have and will do it), then no one can claim that the conditions for it don't exist. It's a truth revealer, not a statistical relevance. If the conditions didn't exist for it to happen, no one would ever be able to do it. In order to solve problems, you have to have the truth of that problem. If you insist on dishonest 'reasons', you will never solve the problem. In fact you'll make it worse. 3) I have no idea what diet has to do with this particular conversation .. but I'll pitch in anyway. NO ONE is forced to eat expensive fast food and/or processed foods. It's a choice. People are prepared to pay for the luxury of not having to cook. Your problem lies with the folks, not the Govt, not Corporate America ... people. Meantime, plenty of others are subjected to exactly the same Govt/Corporate influences you talk about, and yet still make good food choices. Your argument is therefore invalid.
In America, it is religion and bogus Christianity that are the biggest items of mass consumption. 99% of American Christians are bogus like VP Mike Pence who is a wingman for a fornicator, a liar, a cheat, a Russian collaborator, and a multiple bankrupt. “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” ― Mahatma Gandhi
I don't see people "giving up". Your idea that the solution to poverty is to WORSEN their condition hits me is ridiculous, not just unsupportable. If its not statistically relevant, then you can't claim it as an argumnet. You want to suggest that ONE case shows how it all works. But, one case doesn't make a rule. Yes, it's a choice. That's obvious. But, there are various factors that make specific choices far more likely. If someone doesn't know what a good diet is or doesn't know why it is even important, if they don't have facilities for making meals or for storing componnts that are expected to be used over time, if they don't know the first thing about cooking, or whatever, they may make bad choices regardless of any other factors.
Oh yeah. It's not those middle class urban Progressives with their profligate travel, climate controlled apartment living, dining out, dependence on foods produced via massive carbon footprint, constant shopping, etc etc. No sir, it ain't them. It's the working class redneck Christian who opens windows on a hot day, buys local produce, and has never travelled further than the nearest big city.
Are you suggesting that the GOP is concerned enough about global warming that they are changing the way they live and eat in order to save the planet??? And, that PENCE is advocating that? And, the point had a LOT to do with what Pence is fighting for by backing TRUMP as the exemplar of American society. Tell me more about this Trump you see as an ideal of American morality and concern for the lives and welfare of others.
1) When people give up striving for self-reliance - which is what they're doing when they sink into living day to day instead of practising self-discipline - it's because someone or something has lead them to believe they don't have to strive to survive. IE, the welfare state. And on the contrary, the idea is to IMPROVE their condition, rather than worsen it as the welfare state does. You cannot improve things for people unless and until you're brutally honest about the cause. You keep treating only the symptoms, and you will see perpetual worsening. 2) It's entirely relevant, because it proves that the CONDITIONS EXIST FOR IT TO HAPPEN. It means no one can pretend the conditions don't exist. Remember this is about truths, however brutal. You care? Be honest. If you truly don't give a damn, then keep playing the game of untruths. 3) Doesn't matter. There isn't enough resources in a world of seven billion, to stop and consider every individual's backstory and detailed history. As in all of nature, for all of time ... it's adapt or perish. But I'll ask again .. perhaps you think First Worlders are magically entitled to such complete consideration and largess? To hell with everyone else? 4) Yeah .. this is getting very old. A child knows a salad is better than a cheeseburger. And 99.9% of homes in America have a kitchen. It's a legal minimum, ya know .. like a bathroom? Your refusal to call people out because of the colour of their skin, is incredibly offensive. I hope you give some thought to what you're actually implying when you do this.
Never traveled a hundred yards from the bar which is his place of worship and pickup place for fornication.
