Consumerism and Its Discontents

[killcritter]

Do you know the title of the video?

[killcritter]

Where is this video and the text from?

[HeltekMedia]

video - Godard, Text - Situationist International/Crimethinc

[mormor39]

tout va bien

[shadowhalfcast]

who made this?

[MrNemy86]

capitalism+pagan holiday=christmas! Merry solstice from an atheist,everyone! LOL!

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Christianity+Capitalism+Bourge­ois Sentimentality=Christmas. That's my formula, but same result. Think for yourself! Show your love of Friends and Family anytime of year and with something that can't be bought in the marketplace. Xmas is a perversion of gift giving, read Mauss and Bataille.

[MutantBamHammer]

Happy Yule!

[Monetaryreforumadmin]

I like what you've written. Join the forum - billstillsmonetaryreforum - google it.

[adzug]

theres really alot of needless sadness and misery in this life.

[eLiMU6]

all there to make people buy more.

or go to the rapist

i mean, a therapist

contrived societies and gov'ts

paid for by the zombie robot slaves 〠

[DMPineau]

It doesn't have to be that way though. Life's a gift. Sartre said life has no meaning, the point is to create meaning in it, that's why we have free will. He also believed that in order for the individual to be truly free the masses had to be freed, and that means changing a system that represses collective freedom. Meaningful change only comes with a lot of pressure from the bottom up, and if people really want it they need to realize that.

[adzug]

yeah

[DMPineau]

Ok.

[sisterdot2]

Who will tell the REAL name of the film??

I can't remember right now(((

[DoctorFist]

Man everyone here is smart..so hard to read these comments. ah well

[NewTet]

This is very funny. Funnier still would have been a final shot of the book seller's table, untouched.

[foxboy1978]

I'm an anarchist and I work in a grocery store, paradox? Perhaps but I have to survive even at the cost of wage slavery.

[destructicon500]

Dropping out of the system won't help change it

[downtoearthstudios]

capitalism IS thievery, and all government is the same. anarchy in the here and NOW, by any means necessary!

[DANxCHORIN]

The only negation of capitalist social and economic relations come from revolution, not from petty looting and thievery.

[kutthroat84]

the ruling ideas, which are the ideas of the ruling are in every epoch

[mravka9]

Great video. I also like what you wrote, it reminds me of Bataille and Baudrillard.

[mauroprovatos]

I hope that looting carrefour isn't anarchists' primary way of struggle..

[rouchambeau]

No, but it is one way.

[Jimisonjons]

Ok, have you read Das Kapital? Be honest. The damn book is a treatise on capitalism and marxist political economy. It describes objective social phenomena, not moralism.

According to your logic, it would be an "authoritarian" act for workers to unionize and fight (even for reforms) against their bosses because it would be at the detriment of the boss's profits. That's "coerced" equality, I have no problem with coercing oppressors.

[gn0m1k]

That's fine because entrepeneurs aren't opressors.

[gerulm]

I want to got to a market with that many open checklanes

[stinkymouser]

Stalinism was the pure logical conclusion of what the workers of the Russian Revolution stood for. The spirit of Stalinism was already implied in the Cummunist Manifesto and in Das Kapital. It could not have been otherwise.

[Jimisonjons]

Thanks for regurgitating a bunch of empty rhetoric. Have you read Das fucking Kapital? How, HOW on earth does a treatise on political economy or The Communist Manifesto - a text which argues for workers' self-emancipation, socialism from below - reflect the 'spirit of stalinism'?

I want to know more than just "it could not have been otherwise".

[stinkymouser]

coerced equality (economic, in the case of communism) is predicated upon authoritarianism; therfore, Das kapital implies Stalinism. people are not equal. everyone has diffrerent abilities and capacities which allow them to achieve disparate levels in society. disparity betwwen people is inherent, and to force people to be equal requirs statism and a coercive government. that's why Communism cannot be othar than Stalinism.

[moneymagnetelizabeth]

I think that consumerism to this level is very sick and sad indeed. Where does all the waste go too? I have to pay to get rid of my garbage and if everyone else did separate from their taxes they would all soon realize the reality of consumption. Sight unseen and the politics hiding it all due to monetary gain is incredible. There is an awakening to this in the U.S. I liked the video and it does provoke thought to this problem.

[RandomEdge]

its sad that videos of brittny spears going crazy have millions of views more than something that proves a meaningful point like this video for instance.

[spinozacelt]

"Capitalism is simply an intrinsic condition of human life"this guy has been well taught!Nice video and fine speech.thanks to karl,Mr Bataille and Michael Foucault.

[spinozacelt]

"Capitalism is simply an intrinsic condition of human life"this guy has been well taught!Nice video and fine speech.thanks to karl,Mr Bataille and Michael Foucault.

[stinkymouser]

well it's too bad you never lived in a communist country like I did (Russia), then you could talk about the evils of capatilism in the academic jargon with which you vituperate against commodoties. people in N Korea would be extatic to get some of those evil commodoties. you obviously have no notion of life or economics.

[Mike1977a1]

But you didnt live in a communist society, the state didnt disolve it became tyranical.

Because alot of the russian workers were too scared to take over the companies they worked in, the state had to take control instead, which lead to a situation where the russian people let other people think for them, and control the modes of production for them!

Therefore you cant compare Russia to England or America.

Russians shouldnt think that things are good in a capitalist system for everyone!

[stinkymouser]

That is the same bullshit we hear in the West: russia was not truly communist; it was corrupted by Stalinism; ad nasuem. We lived in the purest communist society possible; communism is, by necessity, tyrannical. it seeks to impose a social order on human beings that is contrary to the law of nature (gasp!! there is such a thing. If you went to Russia and said this, people would laugh in your face. you would be just a curious anacharonism--like a doctor who still believes in phrenology.

[Mike1977a1]

But you are under the delusion that people in the west have positive freedom, let me tell you that you dont know nothing about the west.

We dont have positive freedom at all.

Under communism you lost negative freedom but gained positive freedom.

I fed up with you neo-bourgeosis idiots telling me that i have positive freedom!

My future is dictated by parasitic CEOs & FDs in London, dont tell me that i have any positive freedom.

[stinkymouser]

Listen, positive freedom is not a right that any state garauntees; the state can only give you negative freedom (positive rights vs negative rights). a positive right imposes a moral obligation on a person to do something for someone;a negative right merely obliges others to refrain from interfering with someone's attempt to do something. you have the right to earn a living, but no one is obliged to provide it for you. those corporations have every right to make millions.

[Mike1977a1]

That isnt what i mean by positive right.

I mean the right to struggle for the right to have resources that would allow people to determine their own futures for themselves.

Rather than have a darwinian market that stops people from developing from the very moment they are born.

[stinkymouser]

this is simply not the case in Western societies. no one is stopped by the market economy from developing the moment they are born. ironically, it is the incresing influence of Marxian social welfare and redistribution of capital that is stiffling people in Europe. Capitalism is simply an intrinsic condition of human life: we all struggle to survive and aquire goods, wether in industrail societies or in primitive tribes. Marxism cannot give you freedom; it can only enslave you. Marxism=Oligarchy

[Jimisonjons]

EVERY single ruling class in history has tried to justify their rule by asserting that their system is the natural order of life.

As for your social darwinist crap about "opportunities for everyone", I won't even bother responding to it because anyone who has been sacked or underpaid, or has half a braincell knows it is complete crap and only makes people see how much of a diluded slave of the boss who has no connection with people's everyday lives you are.

[stinkymouser]

really, this debate is silly because it is pure anachromism. people in Russia would laugh at you for even the serious mention of things like this.

[Jimisonjons]

It's not anacrhonistic because Russia under and after stalin had not one bit to do with Russia in 1917. They are incomparable.

Stalin reversed every victory won in the 1917 revoltion. He obliterated workers' democracy and reversed the gains for working women and oppressed minorities.

One example of this is that Stalin gave out awards to women who gave birth to 10 children!

[stinkymouser]

You are wron about Stalin reversing the principles of the Revolution. Totalitarianism was already widespread under Lenin; totalitarianism was endemic to the Soviet system from day one: the first thing Lenin did when he assumed power was to oreder the execution of forty-thousand!! members of the clergy, counter-revolutinary elements they were called. that's 40,000 people who were murdered in cold blood. Stlanim merely exacerbated the killings.

[stinkymouser]

Capitalism is what allows people to struggle for rescources and determine their own futures; Marxism does the opposite by locking pople into a sqaulid and controlled economy. your thinking is inverted. Orwell defined Marxism as "Oligarchical Collectivism." that idea is worth pondering.

[Mike1977a1]

But Capitalism excludes a large number of people from moving beyond basic necesities, but these people dont have a voice in the politcal system!

You have bought into anti working class propaganda, Marxism is just an economic philosophy, only actual systems can be democratic or oligarchic.

There was nothing to stop the soviet elites from becoming corrupt just like in capitalism.

If the people let themselves be ruled by corrupt systems its their fault for not acting!

[Mike1977a1]

If you only watch the western news then you know nothing about western society or economy!

I think that you have been seduced by western propoganda and if youve only been to wealthy areas in the west then you know nothing!

Just like if i had watched the soviet news or read pravda!

Capitalism needs to exploit and keep a large section of the people poor and unable to determine their futures in order to centralise Capital into the hands of 600 thousand Oligarchs in a population of of millions.

[NewKindOfSoldier]

Orwell himself was somewhat of a marxist, and fought for revolution in spain (with the Partido Obrera de Unificación MARXISTA)

[stinkymouser]

Orwell was a Social Democrat, not a Marxist; and 1984 is based on the purest Communist society ever tried: the Soviet Union.

[Jimisonjons]

The USSR had nothing, not one bit to do with genuine workers' democracy. It was a form of state capitalism - the underlying dynamics of class exploitation and competition was still present. Stalinism was a perversion of what the workers of the Russian Revolution stood for.

[NewKindOfSoldier]

Wrong. Orwell was anti-stalinist, hence his book 1984. The POUM was destroyed by stalinist reaction during the spanish revolution.

And as for the soviet union being the "purest communist society ever tried", you really have no idea with what communism actually is. Communism is ownership of the means of production by the majority (working class), for this you need democracy, for this you need freedom. Russia wasn't communist, it was State Capitalist.

[stinkymouser]

if you read 1984, you will see that Orwell thought Communism was precisely State Capitalism, as you put it. Ownership under communism was concentrated in far fewer hands that under capitalism. the transfer of capital went to the the socialist ruling class; the workers got nothing. instead of working for the capitalists, they now worked for the Soviets, Pulitburo, call it what you want. The condition of the workers stayed economically the same, or worse; but now they had less freedom than ever.

[WeWillWinAnarchy]

Orwell was a member of Camus' democratic socialist group and gave a loving description of the CNT (Anarcho-syndicalists) in Homage to Catalonia.

[Jimisonjons]

Hey Stinkymouser, Orwell was a socialist. He was not a social democrat but a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST. Maybe not a revolutionary, but he a socialist.

[Jimisonjons]

Revolutions don't just happen because people have marxist ideas. They happen because capitalism makes people's lives shit.

You got one half of it right about struggle. Capitalism does make the conditions for people to struggle - collectively for their rights. Capitalism, contrary to the individualist bunk that you spout, organizes workers collectively and it is impossible to fight back against the system as individuals. Capitalism however also pits workers against each other.

[stinkymouser]

revolutions happen because the people in the middle want to get ot the top and they use ideology (e.g Marxism, Fascism, etc.)to enlist the people at the bottom in their service. once the middle get to the top they reproduce the previous system and keep the low where they have always been. revolutions don't happen because of ideas; they happen because people want pure power and they use ideas to justify the pursuit of power.

[Jimisonjons]

Your argument basically amounts to this: "The working class is too stupid and unenlightened to run society and any attempts for it to do so must be the work of a few conspirators from above or the 'middle'". It is elitist and ahistorical.

The 1917 Russian Revolution was a revolution of the vast majority of the working class. Soviets were democratic workplace councils, and elected delegates (who were also workers themselves) were immediately recallable at any time. Stalin reversed it all.

[stinkymouser]

yes, most of the time the working classes are not able to run society. that's a fact of life. most are devoid of the cognitive and political capacities needed. All societies are hierarchical and elitist. The Russian revolution was organized by a small, elite groupd of fanatics, philosophers and political gangsters, all of whom chewed up and shat out the working calsses. Communism has been the greates enslavement of the working people ever--and all in the name of freedom.

[Jimisonjons]

Wait a minute, who actually does all the work in society? Who does all the producing? Who looks after you in the hospital? Who teaches your children? Workers.

And who criples the economy when they withdraw their labour? Who produces value in our society? Workers. Yet under capitalism, workers have no control over the means of production.

In contrast, bosses do no work. They profit off of the surplus produced by workers' labour. They are the parasites, not the working class.

[gn0m1k]

Workers merely replicate what has already been created.

Whether CEOs are parasites is irrelevent because ultimately you chose to sign the contract with your conditions laid out.

A "society" doesn't need to be controlled without a government. :)

You demonize capitalists so much. Why?  Read a little about J.J. Hill, you might become insecure of your idiotic convictions.

[Jimisonjons]

The vast majority of the working class in Russia in 1917 were members of the Bolshevik party, and they democratically elected delegates from their workplaces, who were recallable at any time. Lenin himself had to win arguements against the Bolshevik party on several issues such as the National Question. Debate was openly encouraged.

The Russian Revolution was the result of months of mass working class action beginning in Petrograd, where women textile workers on strike demonstrated on I.W.W.D.

[Jimisonjons]

Well in a revolution, of course the oppressed fight for power over their oppressors, that's a truism. I have no problem at all with the millions of workers in France in May 68 who occupied their factories and arrested their parasitical bosses.

The reality is that most people are not happy with their conditions under capitalism, and they're not going to be quiet about it - they're going to fight for their dignity. And there's nothing utopian about that.

[gn0m1k]

The nations that had a system of attaining capital (Feudal then to Capitalism) prospered into civilization, whereas the anarcho-socialist societies (Indigenous North Americans) didn't ascend into civilization.

This doesn't mean anything other than that I'd prefer to live in a civilized society, and if you don't want to, enjoy your lower queality of life.

You fight capitalism by choosing what to buy, or to buy at all. Where to work, etc.

[13katrianna]

"(Indigenous North Americans) didn't ascend into civilization."

Um what? how do you define civilization?

[gn0m1k]

Civilization: An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.

The Native Americans lived in a primitive, tribal environment.

[13katrianna]

Although, an argument might be made re missing the undustrial age, the natives were not primative, they had all of the things you describe as markers of civilization. 1491 is an excellent book re the americas before Columbus.

[pogner21]

careful now... who said civilization was somehow objectively better?

yes, it has its perks. and yes, it's silly to throw away the countless generations of human suffering that "got us this far."

but I have to ask, is civilization the "end all, be all" on some linear scale of human existence?

[pogner21]

i say no. No, civilization is not objectively better; the Native Americans may not have had advanced healthcare or an extensive knowledge of modern science, but they did live free, consistent, stable, meaningful lives. in the words SIMILAR to those of Carl Sagan: they were in touch with their place in the Cosmos. They may not have had all the answers, but they lived in harmony with Nature, something that civilization certainly does not.

[pogner21]

you see, civilization is not an ascention from primitive life, but an altercation, one that destroys the very systems that allowed humanity to evolve into sentience. Civilization turns "natural harmony " into an everlasting war with nature.

if you are serious in thinking civilization to be the ultimate destination and purpose of the human species... well, just read some Derrick Jenson.

-Maledo

[gn0m1k]

If I adopt industrial infrastructure, advanced medicine, knowledge of science, math, etc, and a system of capital, I cannot live a free and consistent life?

Life is objectively meaningless, and whether or not you are "in touch" with "nature" does not change this simple fact. Values are subjective.

I can certainly live a free life without a government, and a government is not a prerequisite for civilization.

[pogner21]

you actually just demonstrated my point yourself. life is objectively meaningless, at least in the context of civilization. what you have just described (minus the part about knowledge, which is an entirely different aspect altogether) are, by their very nature, impediments upon your personal identity and freedom.

[pogner21]

i assume that by industrial infrastructure, you are referring to modern culture in general, as it all overlaps with industry (i.e. the industrial revolution). well, that's what this very clip was about. consumerism is quite synonymous with modern industrialization. now rather than re-argue and re-state an argument that many, many others have stated far more accurately and eloquently than i ever could here, i invite you to read up on the likes of, oh i don't know, Noam Chomsky, Karl Marx, ...

[pogner21]

Karl Marx, Peter Kropotkin, the list is endless really. the major points are that consumerism and materialism produce a negative impact on the psyche of healthy human beings, allowing them to fall into complacency under oppressive, authoritarian rule. this rule is usually indirect.

forgive the crude example, but let us take, for instance, paris hilton. the only thing that has thrust her (no pun intended... seriously) into the public conscience is that, plain and simple: she is rich, and is ...

[xxdiogenescynicxx]

@pogner21 Stable are you nuts?

[hikeskool]

No.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Yep.

[voxsingularis]

this clip is from the movie

TOUT VA BIEN

directed by

JEAN-LUC GODARD

in collaboration with

JEAN-PIERRE GORIN

We should acknowledge and respect those who contribute to our creative development--it is a validation of our collective consciousness as it appears in its various manifestations.

Acknowledgement is the most essential gift one can give.

.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Well, if I must, I will quote a group of Godard's contemporaries that HE felt no need to "acknowledge":

The literary and artistic heritage of humanity should be used for partisan propaganda purposes.

It goes without saying that one is not limited to correcting a work or to integrating diverse fragments of out-of-date works into a new one; one can also alter the meaning of those fragments in any appropriate way, leaving the imbeciles to their slavish preservation of "citations."

[OttOmOlOtOv]

And to continue in the situationist vein...

The concept of "intellectual property" is ingrained in the collective psychosis much deeper than the concept of material property. Plenty of thinkers have appeared who have asserted that "property is theft" in regard to real estate and other physical capital, but few have dared to make similar statements about their own ideas. Even the most notoriously "radical" thinkers have still proudly claimed their ideas as, first and foremost, their ideas.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Consequently, little distinction is made between the thinkers and their thoughts. Students of philosophy will study the philosophy of Descartes, students of economics will study Marxism, students of art will study the paintings of Dali. At worst, the cult of personality that develops around famous thinkers prevents any useful consideration of their ideas or artwork;

[OttOmOlOtOv]

hero-worshiping partisans will swear allegiance to a thinker and all his thoughts, while others who have some justified or unjustified objection to the conceiver of the ideas will generally have a difficult time not being prejudiced against the ideas themselves.

Our tradition of recognizing "intellectual property rights" is dangerous in that it results in the deification of the publicly recognized "thinker" and "artist" at the expense of everyone else.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

When ideas are always associated with proper names (and always the same proper names, in point of fact), this suggests that thinking and creating are special skills that belong to a select few individuals. Actually, anyone can be an artist, and everyone is; being able to act creatively is a crucial element of human happiness.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

But when we are led to believe that being creative and thinking critically are talents which only a few individuals possess, those of us who are not fortunate enough to be christened "artists" or "philosophers" by our communities will not make much effort to develop these abilities. Consequently we will be dependent upon others for many of our ideas, and will have to be content as spectators of the creative work of others--and thus, we will feel alienated and unsatisfied.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Another incidental drawback of our association of ideas with specific individuals is that it promotes the acceptance of these ideas in their original form. The students who learn the philosophy of Descartes are encouraged to learn it in its orthodox form, rather than learning the parts which they find relevant to their own lives and interests and combining these parts with ideas from other sources.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Out of deference to the original thinker, deified as he is in our tradition, his texts and theories are to be preserved as-is, without ever being put into new forms or contexts which might reveal new insights. Mummified as they are, many theories become completely irrelevant to modern existence, when they could have been given a new lease on life by being treated with a little less reverence.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

So we can see that our acceptance of the tradition of "intellectual property" has negative effects upon our endeavors to think critically and learn from our artistic and philosophical heritage. What can we do to address this problem? One of the possible solutions is plagiarism.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Plagiarism is an especially effective method of appropriating and reorganizing ideas, and as such it can be a useful tool for a young man or woman looking to encourage new and exciting thinking in others. And it is a method that is revolutionary in that it does not recognize "intellectual property" rights but rather strikes out against them and all of the negative effects that recognizing them can have.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Plagiarism focuses attention on content and away from incidental issues, by making the genuine origins of the material impossible to ascertain. Besides, it could be argued that the genuine origins of the contents of most inspirations and propositions are impossible to determine anyway. By signing a new name, or no name at all, to a work, the plagiarizer puts the material in an entirely new context, and this may generate new thinking about the subject that has not appeared before.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

Plagiarism also makes it possible to combine the best or most relevant parts of a number of works, thus creating a new work with many of the virtues of the older ones--and some new virtues, as well, since the combination of material from different sources is bound to result in unforeseeable effects and might well result in the unlocking of hidden meanings or possibilities that have been dormant in the works for years. Finally, above all, plagiarism is the reappropriation of ideas:

[OttOmOlOtOv]

when an individual plagiarizes a text which those who believe in intellectual property would have held "sacred," they deny that there is a difference in rank between themselves and the thinker they take from. They take the thinker's ideas for themselves, to express them as they see fit, rather than treating the thinker as an authority whose work they are duty-bound to preserve as the author intended.

[OttOmOlOtOv]

This denies, in fact, that there is a fundamental difference between the thinker and the rest of humanity, by appropriating the thinker's material as the property of humanity.

After all, a good idea should be available to everyone--should belong to everyone--if it really is a good idea. In a society organized with human happiness as the objective, copyright infringement laws and similar restrictions would not hinder the distribution and recombination of ideas.

[voxsingularis]

We should acknowledge and respect those who contribute to our creative development--it is a validation of our collective consciousness as it appears in its various manifestations.

Acknowledgement is the most essential gift one can give.

[voxsingularis]

Because of your own efforts, you, too, are acknowledged in my consciousness and its outward manifestations. I appreciate your comments and convictions. YOU don't mind your efforts being identified with you--I don't either. I could cite precedent and theory through academic lingo to discuss this one way or another, but I don't need to rationalize what I instinctively, subjectively, and objectively KNOW for myself, what is incorporated.

[voxsingularis]

I am not a slave, nor do I feel inferior to anyone. This is why I freely acknowledge those who have reminded me of those things we all share in the collective mind---even if I may disagree with a particular manifestation they advocate. They provide a marker for my personal trail, but I know I have potential to dis-cover too. The realized potential of others does not invalidate my own. I don't need or want others to be anonymous so that I can recognize myself!

.

[radcorewreck]

excellent video !

[RobZalete]

They all end up on the right.

[markij1984]

this video was awesome i agree with the video description as well, we are selling our souls for things we don't really need and being encouraged to do so. A truly narcissistic global society everything is based on money materialism and consumerism things that have no value:( im already a great fan of stealing against the capitalist controllers what is the point paying when getting it for free is ever so sweeter.

[markij1984]

also why do i have to pay for things twice like going to watch a film at the cinema and then having to buy it again afterwards if i want to watch it again!

[TheMagyarMan]

because you're buying the seat for a time, not the movie lol you retard.

[COLASM]

who made that?

one more great share from Ottomolotov

thank you

maybee you should try more common keywords to have more views

[COLASM]

who did it?

[niginai]

suuuuch a bore

[bapyou]

Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha.

marketplace rebellion commodity propaganda abundance looting labor armed violence refrigerator refusal mouth discovers inanimate glimpse welfare minimum affluent stealing