Victoria - The Place To Be Fined

[radiojake]

To be sure Jake is correct, however, it's not just about making technology expandable, it's about the technology itself.

For the current materialist economy (materialist intentionally as capitalism and socialism are both vectors on the materialist continuum) to operate, there must be ongoing production; but for production to continue there needs to be a steady rate of consumption. This requires transforming wants into needs. The technological differences between a 2001 mobile phone and a 2005 mobile phone were minor, but these differences are hyper-inflated to grandiose proportions by the media-state's marketing machine. Both the government and the corporation complex need people to believe these wants are needs. This transformation of perspective has a devolutionary impact on human psychology.

Human needs can be met by 3 hours of work per day. Humans work 8 hours per day to achieve the wants that the marketing machine has convinced them are needs. The time the humans would otherwise use to become aware and combat the police state ruling over them is, instead, spent in labor to purchase new mobile phones, televisions and fleshlights. Politicians have a vested, personal interest in keeping unemployment rates low.

Well, that's one way of looking at it.

What is the other way?

[InkL0sed]

There are always more ways to look at things.

[MeDeFe]

There are always more ways to look at things.

Quite possibly, but in the end it comes down to which way is most convincing, and Saxi's proposal for how to look at things is pretty damn convincing, even more so if you consider that no other proposal has been made.

[BigBallinStalin]

To be sure Jake is correct, however, it's not just about making technology expandable, it's about the technology itself.

For the current materialist economy (materialist intentionally as capitalism and socialism are both vectors on the materialist continuum) to operate, there must be ongoing production; but for production to continue there needs to be a steady rate of consumption. This requires transforming wants into needs. The technological differences between a 2001 mobile phone and a 2005 mobile phone were minor, but these differences are hyper-inflated to grandiose proportions by the media-state's marketing machine. Both the government and the corporation complex need people to believe these wants are needs. This transformation of perspective has a devolutionary impact on human psychology.

Human needs can be met by 3 hours of work per day. Humans work 8 hours per day to achieve the wants that the marketing machine has convinced them are needs. The time the humans would otherwise use to become aware and combat the police state ruling over them is, instead, spent in labor to purchase new mobile phones, televisions and fleshlights. Politicians have a vested, personal interest in keeping unemployment rates low.

Saxitoxin's post asserts that the government and the "corporation-complex" are the ones "needing people to believe that these wants are needs," and I agree that they need that "transformation of perspective," but so do other "corporations" who wish to change this perspective. Many sides have the need for transforming people's ideas. Nevertheless, it's not just the government and the corporation-complex indirectly transforming people's perspectives, but it's also the people themselves creating this "transformation of perspective." Who drives and creates the actual demand for a good? Who influences who? Is it the producers or the consumers? My view is that it's both plus more. Saxitoxin's post implies that it's only (or predominantly) the "government and corporation-complex."

I agree that the government and the "corporation-complex" has a vast influence on people's perspectives, but the demand for goods must already exist with people. For example, if I were to bring a gun to a hunter-gatherer tribe and that particular tribe highly values it, is this really the government + corporation-complex creating this change in perspective, or is one's perspective largely determined by how one perceives value itself? Native Americans were influenced indirectly by gun manufacturers; however, the gun manufactures didn't transform their perspective, because one's perspective is determined by how one values things, ideas, etc and by one's experiences, knowledge, judgement, etc. These aspects are influenced by the "government + corporation complex," but they are also influenced by people themselves, by familes, by independent films, right-wing retards, and looney left-wingers, and on and on and on. So, it's not just the "government + corporation complex" transforming people's perspectives. Many sides are involved.

Saxitoxin's post separates people from the government and the corporation-complex; whereas, I view people and their respective organizations to be of the same side. This "side," or overall group, involves people of different perspectives from different organizations (i.e. government, "corporations," institutions, life styles, etc.) in various stages of conflict and resolution with each other.

So it's not just producers v. consumers, or govt + corporation complex v. people, because the people themselves also join organizations to which they find others of similar perspectives. For example, saxi has excluded organizations of religion, socialism and its many different yet similar organizations, worker-owned-and-operated "corporations," communes, hunter-gatherer tribes, etc. Even communes, anti-materialists, or what-have-you have the "need of transforming people's wants into needs" and they do so through "marketing" via advertising by posting replies similar to saxitoxin's. For me, various groups of humanity subscribe to various organizations and perspectives which are sometimes in conflict with each other and sometimes are not.

Saxitoxin's standpoint brings to light the issue of "selective distortion." As an economist, I can view the world from an economic perspective. As a sociologist, ... As a pyschologist, ..., and etc. etc.; however, I won't deliberately sway people with a version of the world that depicts "government + corporation complex v. people" because, as I stated earlier, it's just one worldview. We live in a world with multiple yet particularly convincing worldviews; however, many of these worldviews selectively distort because nearly every worldview only sees from a certain perspective. The worldview which I described in disagreement with Saxitoxin's worldview, tends to have a more encompassing perspective.

[BigBallinStalin]

Please note: Economists view a good as a tangible or intagible product, so it can be an actual technological device, a type of service, or even an idea like the one saxitoxin's post is describing. Saxitoxin inevitably is a producer of a good as well, so should he be placed with that of the government + corporation-complex? What is defined as a corporation? Shall it be organizations excluding individuals? What if these individuals subscribe to a common belief and express that belief on a large level (i.e anarchists, Communists, commune-adherents, business people, capitalists, sports fishermen, etc)? Essentially, those organizations are the same as a government or the "corporation complex" because all of them, just like saxitoxin and Co., have the goal of transforming people's perspective by effectively marketing to people their own perspective in order to change those people's wants into Saxitoxin and Co's needs.


The problem with today is that the state + certain corporations, which saxitoxin dislikes, are the ones where power is focused. If saxitoxin's like-minded "corporations" and "state/boroughs" were in control, he would be pleased. Nevertheless, the end result is that now it's a different "state" with a different body of "corporations" "transforming people's perspectives" and influencing their wants into needs. And what would that entail? People choose to buy certain things based on their limited knowledge and subjectively defined value of said good.

Some organizations say," buy this"; others say, "don't buy that, buy this"; and others say, "don't buy anything, but my own view." Who is to say how people should choose for themselves?

[MeDeFe]

To be sure Jake is correct, however, it's not just about making technology expandable, it's about the technology itself.

For the current materialist economy (materialist intentionally as capitalism and socialism are both vectors on the materialist continuum) to operate, there must be ongoing production; but for production to continue there needs to be a steady rate of consumption. This requires transforming wants into needs. The technological differences between a 2001 mobile phone and a 2005 mobile phone were minor, but these differences are hyper-inflated to grandiose proportions by the media-state's marketing machine. Both the government and the corporation complex need people to believe these wants are needs. This transformation of perspective has a devolutionary impact on human psychology.

Human needs can be met by 3 hours of work per day. Humans work 8 hours per day to achieve the wants that the marketing machine has convinced them are needs. The time the humans would otherwise use to become aware and combat the police state ruling over them is, instead, spent in labor to purchase new mobile phones, televisions and fleshlights. Politicians have a vested, personal interest in keeping unemployment rates low.

Saxitoxin's post asserts that the government and the "corporation-complex" are the ones "needing people to believe that these wants are needs," and I agree that they need that "transformation of perspective," but so do other "corporations" who wish to change this perspective. Many sides have the need for transforming people's ideas. Nevertheless, it's not just the government and the corporation-complex indirectly transforming people's perspectives, but it's also the people themselves creating this "transformation of perspective." Who drives and creates the actual demand for a good? Who influences who? Is it the producers or the consumers? My view is that it's both plus more. Saxitoxin's post implies that it's only (or predominantly) the "government and corporation-complex."

I agree that the government and the "corporation-complex" has a vast influence on people's perspectives, but the demand for goods must already exist with people. For example, if I were to bring a gun to a hunter-gatherer tribe and that particular tribe highly values it, is this really the government + corporation-complex creating this change in perspective, or is one's perspective largely determined by how one perceives value itself? Native Americans were influenced indirectly by gun manufacturers; however, the gun manufactures didn't transform their perspective, because one's perspective is determined by how one values things, ideas, etc and by one's experiences, knowledge, judgement, etc. These aspects are influenced by the "government + corporation complex," but they are also influenced by people themselves, by familes, by independent films, right-wing retards, and looney left-wingers, and on and on and on. So, it's not just the "government + corporation complex" transforming people's perspectives. Many sides are involved.

Saxitoxin's post separates people from the government and the corporation-complex; whereas, I view people and their respective organizations to be of the same side. This "side," or overall group, involves people of different perspectives from different organizations (i.e. government, "corporations," institutions, life styles, etc.) in various stages of conflict and resolution with each other.

So it's not just producers v. consumers, or govt + corporation complex v. people, because the people themselves also join organizations to which they find others of similar perspectives. For example, saxi has excluded organizations of religion, socialism and its many different yet similar organizations, worker-owned-and-operated "corporations," communes, hunter-gatherer tribes, etc. Even communes, anti-materialists, or what-have-you have the "need of transforming people's wants into needs" and they do so through "marketing" via advertising by posting replies similar to saxitoxin's. For me, various groups of humanity subscribe to various organizations and perspectives which are sometimes in conflict with each other and sometimes are not.

Saxitoxin's standpoint brings to light the issue of "selective distortion." As an economist, I can view the world from an economic perspective. As a sociologist, ... As a pyschologist, ..., and etc. etc.; however, I won't deliberately sway people with a version of the world that depicts "government + corporation complex v. people" because, as I stated earlier, it's just one worldview. We live in a world with multiple yet particularly convincing worldviews; however, many of these worldviews selectively distort because nearly every worldview only sees from a certain perspective. The worldview which I described in disagreement with Saxitoxin's worldview, tends to have a more encompassing perspective.

This is all very interesting, but none of it appears to contradict Saxi's previously presented perspective.

Please note: Economists view a good as a tangible or intagible product, so it can be an actual technological device, a type of service, or even an idea like the one saxitoxin's post is describing. Saxitoxin inevitably is a producer of a good as well, so should he be placed with that of the government + corporation-complex? What is defined as a corporation? Shall it be organizations excluding individuals? What if these individuals subscribe to a common belief and express that belief on a large level (i.e anarchists, Communists, commune-adherents, business people, capitalists, sports fishermen, etc)? Essentially, those organizations are the same as a government or the "corporation complex" because all of them, just like saxitoxin and Co., have the goal of transforming people's perspective by effectively marketing to people their own perspective in order to change those people's wants into Saxitoxin and Co's needs.


The problem with today is that the state + certain corporations, which saxitoxin dislikes, are the ones where power is focused. If saxitoxin's like-minded "corporations" and "state/boroughs" were in control, he would be pleased. Nevertheless, the end result is that now it's a different "state" with a different body of "corporations" "transforming people's perspectives" and influencing their wants into needs. And what would that entail? People choose to buy certain things based on their limited knowledge and subjectively defined value of said good.

Some organizations say," buy this"; others say, "don't buy that, buy this"; and others say, "don't buy anything, but my own view." Who is to say how people should choose for themselves?

And this appears to be nonsense.

[2dimes]

How old is your computer? I have a dell from 2000 that works fine but only does what a computer from the year 2000 can do. You should check out a laptop from then. Here you can't buy a TV like a 15 year old one. They are either LED, LCD or plasma. About a year and a half ago everyone stopped making the old electron ray vacume tube units.

I agree I would like things to be built with the intent to last for ever. I would still buy upgrades and be happy. A lot of things are way better now than they were 30 years ago. The cheap stuff now is slightly better than the regular stuff from then. Metalurgy and formulas for plastic have improved vastly for everyday objects. You used to be able to spot crappy tools from ten paces.

[saxitoxin]

BBS, you're Saxi's BFF, so don't take this the wrong way when I say I don't feel that - after reading your rebuttal - it's necessary for me to defend my thesis against it.

Both capitalism and Fabian socialism are based on a materialist Weltanschauung and will self-destruct spectacularly - and soon - as neither are a powerful enough force to overcome the human psyche.

[BigBallinStalin]

To be sure Jake is correct, however, it's not just about making technology expandable, it's about the technology itself.

For the current materialist economy (materialist intentionally as capitalism and socialism are both vectors on the materialist continuum) to operate, there must be ongoing production; but for production to continue there needs to be a steady rate of consumption. This requires transforming wants into needs. The technological differences between a 2001 mobile phone and a 2005 mobile phone were minor, but these differences are hyper-inflated to grandiose proportions by the media-state's marketing machine. Both the government and the corporation complex need people to believe these wants are needs. This transformation of perspective has a devolutionary impact on human psychology.

Human needs can be met by 3 hours of work per day. Humans work 8 hours per day to achieve the wants that the marketing machine has convinced them are needs. The time the humans would otherwise use to become aware and combat the police state ruling over them is, instead, spent in labor to purchase new mobile phones, televisions and fleshlights. Politicians have a vested, personal interest in keeping unemployment rates low.

Saxitoxin's post asserts that the government and the "corporation-complex" are the ones "needing people to believe that these wants are needs," and I agree that they need that "transformation of perspective," but so do other "corporations" who wish to change this perspective. Many sides have the need for transforming people's ideas. Nevertheless, it's not just the government and the corporation-complex indirectly transforming people's perspectives, but it's also the people themselves creating this "transformation of perspective." Who drives and creates the actual demand for a good? Who influences who? Is it the producers or the consumers? My view is that it's both plus more. Saxitoxin's post implies that it's only (or predominantly) the "government and corporation-complex."

I agree that the government and the "corporation-complex" has a vast influence on people's perspectives, but the demand for goods must already exist with people. For example, if I were to bring a gun to a hunter-gatherer tribe and that particular tribe highly values it, is this really the government + corporation-complex creating this change in perspective, or is one's perspective largely determined by how one perceives value itself? Native Americans were influenced indirectly by gun manufacturers; however, the gun manufactures didn't transform their perspective, because one's perspective is determined by how one values things, ideas, etc and by one's experiences, knowledge, judgement, etc. These aspects are influenced by the "government + corporation complex," but they are also influenced by people themselves, by familes, by independent films, right-wing retards, and looney left-wingers, and on and on and on. So, it's not just the "government + corporation complex" transforming people's perspectives. Many sides are involved.

Saxitoxin's post separates people from the government and the corporation-complex; whereas, I view people and their respective organizations to be of the same side. This "side," or overall group, involves people of different perspectives from different organizations (i.e. government, "corporations," institutions, life styles, etc.) in various stages of conflict and resolution with each other.

So it's not just producers v. consumers, or govt + corporation complex v. people, because the people themselves also join organizations to which they find others of similar perspectives. For example, saxi has excluded organizations of religion, socialism and its many different yet similar organizations, worker-owned-and-operated "corporations," communes, hunter-gatherer tribes, etc. Even communes, anti-materialists, or what-have-you have the "need of transforming people's wants into needs" and they do so through "marketing" via advertising by posting replies similar to saxitoxin's. For me, various groups of humanity subscribe to various organizations and perspectives which are sometimes in conflict with each other and sometimes are not.

Saxitoxin's standpoint brings to light the issue of "selective distortion." As an economist, I can view the world from an economic perspective. As a sociologist, ... As a pyschologist, ..., and etc. etc.; however, I won't deliberately sway people with a version of the world that depicts "government + corporation complex v. people" because, as I stated earlier, it's just one worldview. We live in a world with multiple yet particularly convincing worldviews; however, many of these worldviews selectively distort because nearly every worldview only sees from a certain perspective. The worldview which I described in disagreement with Saxitoxin's worldview, tends to have a more encompassing perspective.

This is all very interesting, but none of it appears to contradict Saxi's previously presented perspective.

He says, it's "govt + corporation complex v. people," and it's more than just that. He's asserting that influence goes from govt + corporation complex to people, while I believe is more of a two-way process, which involves more organizations other than govt + corporation complex.

Please note: Economists view a good as a tangible or intagible product, so it can be an actual technological device, a type of service, or even an idea like the one saxitoxin's post is describing. Saxitoxin inevitably is a producer of a good as well, so should he be placed with that of the government + corporation-complex? What is defined as a corporation? Shall it be organizations excluding individuals? What if these individuals subscribe to a common belief and express that belief on a large level (i.e anarchists, Communists, commune-adherents, business people, capitalists, sports fishermen, etc)? Essentially, those organizations are the same as a government or the "corporation complex" because all of them, just like saxitoxin and Co., have the goal of transforming people's perspective by effectively marketing to people their own perspective in order to change those people's wants into Saxitoxin and Co's needs.


The problem with today is that the state + certain corporations, which saxitoxin dislikes, are the ones where power is focused. If saxitoxin's like-minded "corporations" and "state/boroughs" were in control, he would be pleased. Nevertheless, the end result is that now it's a different "state" with a different body of "corporations" "transforming people's perspectives" and influencing their wants into needs. And what would that entail? People choose to buy certain things based on their limited knowledge and subjectively defined value of said good.

Some organizations say," buy this"; others say, "don't buy that, buy this"; and others say, "don't buy anything, but my own view." Who is to say how people should choose for themselves?

And this appears to be nonsense.

What don't you understand?

[radiojake]

He says, it's "govt + corporation complex v. people," and it's more than just that. He's asserting that influence goes from govt + corporation complex to people, while I believe it's more of a two-way process.

Are you thinking along the lines of Foucault's definition of power, in that rather than being a commodity that one possesses(govt + corporations) or doesn't possess (people), power is a contestation and result of a multiplicity of different interactions between actors?

Where there is power, there is resistance - obviously stances from Saxi and myself ring true to that assertion - However, if you are claiming that the asserting influence from the 'people' to the 'govt + corporation' is as strong or as insidious as the other way around, I have to conclude that you are mistaken. I really do think that people 'think' they know what they need, but this has been more of an ideological bombardment from the consumption based economy telling us it's 'what we need', rather than 'our needs' dictating the consumer economy - You only have to look at the power relations in regards to the control of the economy and those who benefit from an apetite of unending consumerism - Certainly consumers generally end up in debt if we purchased everything we are told we 'need' - how can that be to our benefit?

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, you're Saxi's BFF, so don't take this the wrong way when I say I don't feel that - after reading your rebuttal - it's necessary for me to defend my thesis against it.

Hey, no worries; I should've spent more time reading and revising and asking questions. Please bear with me:

_____
At what point can one be considered to be a materialist? Which goods are essential and which goods are not? How can you define what is necessary for everyone (or almost everyone)? (These kinds of questions are for guiding my thoughts; the ones in italics I would like answered, if you don't mind).

"This transformation of perspective has a devolutionary impact on human psychology." How so? Is wanting to purchase a cell phone in order to satisfy the need to stay in more efficient contact with others a devolutionary impact on one's psychology? At which point should purchasing another cell phone be considered to be necessary or bordering materialistic? Or does purchasing a cell phone itself make one a materialistic person?

For example, I owned my first cell phone for 3 years while ignoring the company's calls for upgrades because I never saw the point. That cell phone could handle calls, txts, voicemails, and notes--which were a pain to type because of the keypad. Then I owned a very similar in quality phone (i.e. similar features) for 2 years afterwards. Then I bought an iPhone 3G, which is great--I can easily keep notes and have a very easy to manipulate calander in my hand. Has that had a devolutionary impact on my psychology? I don't think so; in fact, it's made me much more mentally organized and capable.

How can you presume to know what is "evolutionary" and what is "devolutionary" for the human psychology?


I'm impervious to many marketing techniques because I'm aware of how marketing works. Has this awareness spared me from much of the devolutionary impact?



Sure, the government and corporations (from a wide spectrum) can "transform one's perspective," but the transformation varies in quality. If one reads mainly from Publishing Company Sustainability or Publishing Company Anarcho-Communism, then that corporation's worldview influences the reader.

So exactly which organizations really have a devolutionary impact on human pyschology?
(I definitely agree that the state is a main culprit because I might be considered to be a wild and crazy Hobbesian anarchist, but which corporations and what types should be held responsible?)



_______________________________________________________________

Both capitalism and Fabian socialism are based on a materialist Weltanschauung and will self-destruct spectacularly - and soon - as neither are a powerful enough force to overcome the human psyche.

Let's get to mutual understanding first:

When you say, "capitalism," do you mean that an economy of profit-loss incentives and private property rights will self-destruct soon? What do you mean by that word?

The Fabians said a lot. Is it social-democracy to which you are referring? Are you suggesting that any political or economical of the far-left (i.e. fascism, communism, anarcho-"communism," etc.) would be spared from such self-destruction? *(How did labeling "fascism" as "far-left" make you feel, saxitoxin =P)


Well, what is the human psyche? (i.e. How do people in generally mentally function in today's world? Is there an overall trend which is positive or negative?) How does the human psyche relate to materialism to you?

And why would this self-destruct?


___________________________________________________________________________________________-


What political and economic philosophies in your opinion would avoid self-destruction? Which ones do not have a devolutionary impact on the human pysche?

[radiojake]

What political and economic philosophies in your opinion would avoid self-destruction? Which ones do not have a devolutionary impact on the human pysche?

Whichever economic philosophy can manage to encourage a system that is not based on perpetual growth - Perpetual growth is impossible, and a system that considerably reduces the amount of waste that we currently produce - Waste in the landfill sense (from constant upgrading and the 'inbuilt obsoletism' of technology) and with Food wastage (where half the world is starving and without access to food, while the other half has an obesity problem and wastes enough food to feed the former)

I wish I had a coherent answer - I haven't studied economics, I don't pretend to know how we could achieve such a system - but I can definately point out faults within our current paradigm in an effort for continued evolution towards a better solution.

[BigBallinStalin]

He says, it's "govt + corporation complex v. people," and it's more than just that. He's asserting that influence goes from govt + corporation complex to people, while I believe it's more of a two-way process.

Are you thinking along the lines of Foucault's definition of power, in that rather than being a commodity that one possesses(govt + corporations) or doesn't possess (people), power is a contestation and result of a multiplicity of different interactions between actors?

Where there is power, there is resistance - obviously stances from Saxi and myself ring true to that assertion - However, if you are claiming that the asserting influence from the 'people' to the 'govt + corporation' is as strong or as insidious as the other way around, I have to conclude that you are mistaken. I really do think that people 'think' they know what they need, but this has been more of an ideological bombardment from the consumption based economy telling us it's 'what we need', rather than 'our needs' dictating the consumer economy - You only have to look at the power relations in regards to the control of the economy and those who benefit from an apetite of unending consumerism - Certainly consumers generally end up in debt if we purchased everything we are told we 'need' - how can that be to our benefit?

Just because you intuitively think that the "govt + corporation" influence is stronger than the people's, doesn't make it so. That argument also depends on how one views a "corporation" (i.e. whether or not they consider a corporation to be a legal fiction, a separate institution, and/or legal construction). The narrower "corporation" is defined, then saxi's case becomes harder to make.

Individuals are inherently materialistic at varying degrees, so corporations or other individuals aren't really transforming perspectives in the sense that they all dictate what you need and that all people are 100% or 80% or 70% at their mercy. Corporations and other institutions (and other organizations and people of other worldviews) engage in marketing to a target market, (i.e. all of them combined transform people's perspectives); however, are the target market's perspective being predominantly transformed externally? Or was there internally already a need for that certain good? (i.e. Did the marketing bring about that internal need to an external object?). I'm not sure in regards to my perspective on the matter because it's difficult to determine at an individual v. individual v. group level, but...

It isn't just the govt + corporations predominantly transforming your perspective. It can also be basket cases like me, saxitoxin, and others on CC transforming people's perspectives; it's the homeless guy on the street corner holding a sign that transforms your perspective; it's your attitude and behavior around others that transforms perspectives. It's various organizations/groups and individuals which do the transformation--not just governments or corporations.

[radiojake]

He says, it's "govt + corporation complex v. people," and it's more than just that. He's asserting that influence goes from govt + corporation complex to people, while I believe it's more of a two-way process.

Are you thinking along the lines of Foucault's definition of power, in that rather than being a commodity that one possesses(govt + corporations) or doesn't possess (people), power is a contestation and result of a multiplicity of different interactions between actors?

Where there is power, there is resistance - obviously stances from Saxi and myself ring true to that assertion - However, if you are claiming that the asserting influence from the 'people' to the 'govt + corporation' is as strong or as insidious as the other way around, I have to conclude that you are mistaken. I really do think that people 'think' they know what they need, but this has been more of an ideological bombardment from the consumption based economy telling us it's 'what we need', rather than 'our needs' dictating the consumer economy - You only have to look at the power relations in regards to the control of the economy and those who benefit from an apetite of unending consumerism - Certainly consumers generally end up in debt if we purchased everything we are told we 'need' - how can that be to our benefit?

Just because you intuitively think that the "govt + corporation" influence is stronger than the people's, doesn't make it so. That argument also depends on how one views a "corporation" (i.e. whether or not they consider a corporation to be a legal fiction, a separate institution, and/or legal construction). The narrower "corporation" is defined, then saxi's case becomes harder to make.

In my opinion, individuals are inherently materialistic at varying degrees, so corporations or other individuals aren't really transforming perspectives in the sense that they all dictate what you need and that all people are 100% or 80% or 70% at their mercy. Corporations and other institutions (and other organizations and people of other worldviews) engage in marketing to a target market; however, are the target market's perspective being predominantly transformed externally? Or was there internally already a need for that certain good? (i.e. Did the marketing bring about that internal need to an external object?). I'm not sure in regards to my perspective on the matter because it's difficult to determine at an individual v. individual v. group level, but...

It isn't just the govt + corporations predominantly transforming your perspective. It can also be basket cases like me, saxitoxin, and others on CC transforming people's perspectives; it's the homeless guy on the street corner holding a sign that transforms your perspective; it's your attitude and behavior around others that transforms perspectives. It's various organizations/groups and individuals which do the transformation--not just governments or corporations.

Well, ofcourse you are right in many senses, I even agreed with you to some parts - Ideas go both ways for sure - Counter culture, or indeed 'culture jamming' has created a market for ethic based consumption that has exploded in the last decade - No-Sweat clothing, organic food and other various 'green' trends. Ofcourse this has come about from individuals and communities demanding more social justice within the economic system.

However, it this case is definately not the dominant ideology - I think this was what I was referring to. The dominant ideology is definately based on perpetual consumption, and we you think about it, even the counter culture's attempt at producing a more ethical economy still actually fits in with the dominant ideology of consumption. It has been co-opted and sold as an authentic identity and individualism is now displayed through commercial purchases and consumption (even to the extent where the act of not buying has become an identity, which is still related to the dominant ideology in the first place)

I hope this makes sense - I don't disagree with your assertions, ofcourse it's both ways and many different ways all at once - However this doesn't imply the non-existance of a dominant ideology, and it only takes two generations for an ideology to become engrained into being 'natural'

[BigBallinStalin]

He says, it's "govt + corporation complex v. people," and it's more than just that. He's asserting that influence goes from govt + corporation complex to people, while I believe it's more of a two-way process.

Are you thinking along the lines of Foucault's definition of power, in that rather than being a commodity that one possesses(govt + corporations) or doesn't possess (people), power is a contestation and result of a multiplicity of different interactions between actors?

Where there is power, there is resistance - obviously stances from Saxi and myself ring true to that assertion - However, if you are claiming that the asserting influence from the 'people' to the 'govt + corporation' is as strong or as insidious as the other way around, I have to conclude that you are mistaken. I really do think that people 'think' they know what they need, but this has been more of an ideological bombardment from the consumption based economy telling us it's 'what we need', rather than 'our needs' dictating the consumer economy - You only have to look at the power relations in regards to the control of the economy and those who benefit from an apetite of unending consumerism - Certainly consumers generally end up in debt if we purchased everything we are told we 'need' - how can that be to our benefit?

Just because you intuitively think that the "govt + corporation" influence is stronger than the people's, doesn't make it so. That argument also depends on how one views a "corporation" (i.e. whether or not they consider a corporation to be a legal fiction, a separate institution, and/or legal construction). The narrower "corporation" is defined, then saxi's case becomes harder to make.

In my opinion, individuals are inherently materialistic at varying degrees, so corporations or other individuals aren't really transforming perspectives in the sense that they all dictate what you need and that all people are 100% or 80% or 70% at their mercy. Corporations and other institutions (and other organizations and people of other worldviews) engage in marketing to a target market; however, are the target market's perspective being predominantly transformed externally? Or was there internally already a need for that certain good? (i.e. Did the marketing bring about that internal need to an external object?). I'm not sure in regards to my perspective on the matter because it's difficult to determine at an individual v. individual v. group level, but...

It isn't just the govt + corporations predominantly transforming your perspective. It can also be basket cases like me, saxitoxin, and others on CC transforming people's perspectives; it's the homeless guy on the street corner holding a sign that transforms your perspective; it's your attitude and behavior around others that transforms perspectives. It's various organizations/groups and individuals which do the transformation--not just governments or corporations.

Well, ofcourse you are right in many senses, I even agreed with you to some parts - Ideas go both ways for sure - Counter culture, or indeed 'culture jamming' has created a market for ethic based consumption that has exploded in the last decade - No-Sweat clothing, organic food and other various 'green' trends. Ofcourse this has come about from individuals and communities demanding more social justice within the economic system.

However, it this case is definately not the dominant ideology - I think this was what I was referring to. The dominant ideology is definately based on perpetual consumption, and we you think about it, even the counter culture's attempt at producing a more ethical economy still actually fits in with the dominant ideology of consumption. It has been co-opted and sold as an authentic identity and individualism is now displayed through commercial purchases and consumption (even to the extent where the act of not buying has become an identity, which is still related to the dominant ideology in the first place)

I hope this makes sense - I don't disagree with your assertions, ofcourse it's both ways and many different ways all at once - However this doesn't imply the non-existance of a dominant ideology, and it only takes two generations for an ideology to become engrained into being 'natural'

1) Then we agree that it isn't just "Govt + corporation complex" transforming people's perspectives?

2) "Dominant ideology of perpetual consumption" is an excellent term to use, but what is its antithesis? We all must consume something at varying amounts for various periods of time until we die. As I asked saxitoxin just now, this brings us to the question of which goods of the "perpetual consumption ideology" are necessary or self-destructive?

So, currently, it's a battle of transforming people's perspectives on materialism. What makes you who you are? What brings you satisfaction? Is this satisfaction best for society? Is that satisfaction long-lasting or must one consume again in order to feel good? (i.e. is it immediate gratification)? You answer these questions by yourself with the others' influences on your mind.

I wonder: are Americans becoming more materialistic or less materialistic? What about residents of developed countries, developing countries, and "underdeveloped" countries?

[saxitoxin]

This is getting a bit far afield. Materialism is simply the definition of material as centrifugal in social life by the political elite. While anarcho-communism is a Left-oriented alternative to this prevailing condition there are certainly Right-oriented, anti-materialist alternatives as well and it would be incorrect for me to proffer that the radical Left has a lock on anti-materialism. However, the Right-oriented alternatives are mostly forbidden to discuss these days for obvious reasons.

In any case, your most pertinent question was:

What political and economic philosophies in your opinion would avoid self-destruction? Which ones do not have a devolutionary impact on the human pysche?

The whole of human history was transformed in 1929 when the US introduced a third constitution. Many Americans are, mistakingly, under the impression their country is still operating under the second constitution of 1787. (I'm speaking semi-colloquially, but only semi. A constitution is both a set of organic laws and an organizing theory. Your 1787 constitution no longer fills the second role.) The current constitution of 1929, titled "Final Report of the Committee on Recent Economic Changes", outlines a new form of governance where the state is merged with corporate power - and visa versa - to achieve an endless cycle of production-consumption-production-consumption. The imposition of this new constitution required the introduction of a police state - as it was intended to support a police state - and heralds a new economic system completely unknown to the world prior to that year. Because all other western nations are client states of the U.S., this is - for all intents and purposes - the law of the land for most countries on the Earth.

As foundational as this document is to world political life I am unaware of any place you can find it on the internet in its complete form (though you can find abstracts on the Bureau of Economic Research website) and discussion of it, even on the fringes of debate and culture, is totally unheard. To read it requires a trip to a Government Publications section at a good research library. But, the most relevant quote from the many dozens of pages of text is:

And these increases in productivity have been joined to a corresponding increase in the consuming power of the American people. Here has been demonstrated on a grand scale the expansibility of human wants and desires. Economists have long declared that consumption, the satisfaction of wants, would expand with little evidence of satiation if we could so adjust our economic processes as to make dormant demands effective.

"Make dormant demands effective" --- a polite and highly sanitized way of describing transformation of the human psyche (accomplished, here, through reorganization of the economy to centrally coordinate it toward that goal). As I said, there is no difference between socialism and capitalism as they exist today. They are both vectors on the materialist continuum. They both, equally, require success of the consumer-industrial model to survive.

[radiojake]

As I said, there is no difference between socialism and capitalism as they exist today. They are both vectors on the materialist continuum. They both, equally, require success of the consumer-industrial model to survive.

The problem with socialism (being a viable alternative to capitalism) is that it only addresses who has control of the capital (proletariat) rather than addressing the modes of production that still exist in capitalism - I dare say there would be as much wastage in a socialist society as there is in today's capitalist world

[radiojake]

I wonder: are Americans becoming more materialistic or less materialistic? What about residents of developed countries, developing countries, and "underdeveloped" countries?

That's hard for be to answer for a number of reasons; mainly I am not American and I have only spent a total of approx 40 hours in Los Angeles, and secondly, how can one answer 'more materialistic or less materialistic'? Compared to what? 10 years ago? 50 years ago? etc...

However, I just read an interesting quote that I thought I'd share - I'm writting an assignment where I have to evaluate Foucault's claim where there is power there is resistance, and I'm looking specifically at counter culture (or culture jamming) - In this article I'm reading, the author argues

that popular culture, and consumption in particular, is where
discontent has long been expressed in American society because ‘ordinary
Americans have few authorized political outlets for expressing their actual
interests, for articulating their desires and aspirations.’

It just made me think back to this question you asked - Make of it what you will -

[BigBallinStalin]

And these increases in productivity have been joined to a corresponding increase in the consuming power of the American people. Here has been demonstrated on a grand scale the expansibility of human wants and desires. Economists have long declared that consumption, the satisfaction of wants, would expand with little evidence of satiation if we could so adjust our economic processes as to make dormant demands effective.

"Make dormant demands effective" --- a polite and highly sanitized way of describing transformation of the human psyche (accomplished, here, through reorganization of the economy to centrally coordinate it toward that goal). As I said, there is no difference between socialism and capitalism as they exist today. They are both vectors on the materialist continuum. They both, equally, require success of the consumer-industrial model to survive.

Now, I see where you're coming from. I'm going to find that document too.

In what ways is the consumer-industrial model self-destructive?

And how soon is "soon"? (or was your bold declaration that self-destruction will soon occur merely a design of Saxi-Sensationalism?)

[2dimes]

Have you seen a 50 year old telephone? I bet there's tons of them that are fully functional, they were built very well but you can't use them with the current networks.

[MeDeFe]

Truly a fine place to be....
In the Netherlands a person got set to jail for having a T-shirt with 1312 on it. It was viewed by the judge to be a clear sign of dissing the poliece. After all (??) everybody!! knows 1312 stands for ACAB that stands for All Cops Are Bastards, and its illigal to badmouth police officers...
thoughtpolice is next, mark nightstrike's words..

Even though in Holland and Germany A.C.A.B is widely used. More so that the rest of mainland Europe (at least to my knowledge)

I hadn't even heard of it before, and I live here.

Maybe it's a more used within a punk/anti authority group. At least I picked up the word while in Germany. They where German punks and they had A.C.A.B tattooed on their knuckles

Tangentially related: I have now seen "acab" used in a German context.