Posted:Last weekend I'd a discussion with some friends about anti - subcultures. There are a lot of subcultures who are anti commercial. Our conclusion was: There's a market for every subculture, even the anti - commercial cultures. Because, why do like a great group all the same clothes, music, events and all the stuff around? Because the market got a package for every subculture!. These markets are less great than mainstream markets, but there is a market for these cultures.
Conclusion: everyone likes to consume? Even if you're anti - commercial? I think that anti - commercial is a image for a lot, and the market got a package for them. So they only do it to be different? While a lot others do the same! (The target-group of the market.) Are they hypocritical?
Flying Water Muppet Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Total posts: 5276
Posted:This is an aside: I wouldn't call growing food work. It's usually quite enjoyable. And I'm sure some people some of the time enjoy doing it. I'm pretty sure it becomes less enjoyable when you have to do it all the time and can't fail at it otherwise you won't survive. I don't believe the only reason people do things is because they need money. But I do think that capitalism forces you to work, like it or not. (Though with the liking it, makes it less like work and more like fun)
>especially you lot that can at least claim student status. I just can't see how >you can talk about things as if they're really going to change...
No they're not going to change. Everybody knows this, which is most of the reason why things don't change. (And what makes communes a good idea) And I don't see how claiming student status helps. Claiming 'living-with-parents' status would be more beneficial...
>I thought what meg said was that there are people in the world that dont take >part in a capitalist society because they object to having thier lives >controlled by an economy.
I'm not sure why they do it, apart from loathing capitalism... And hell, that's a good enough reason as it is, but there are probably others...
>on growing food and other tasks that specialists have figured out how to do >more efficiently...
More efficiently? I don't care for efficiency in the face of human happiness to be honest.
This is not meant to cause offense to anyone. In fact it will probably go the way of all politically biased statements: Pear Shaped.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade "the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
Posted:Hey waitaminit... now I realize that this is probably the most interesting passage that's been written so far:
Written by: People grow their own food orbit. They can make thier own clothes too. They trade for what they dont have. Its ironic I think that you think this is so impossible when there are people in the world that have to do this because of the way capitalism has destroyed their economy and forced them into poverty so that we can have instant coffee and chocolate.
It is ironic that people in the "developed" world long for a simpler life and move to communes. I think it's possible to live a simpler life without giving up everything else...
I also find it interesting that you blame capitalism for destroying their economies... when I would think that it could more directly be attributed to government corruption. Most of those countries never even had capitalist economies -- they had socialist or communist economies! So the only way you can really blame capitalism for hurting them is if you're saying that capitalist countries managed to prosper when they were mired in corruption.
Maybe the culprit isn't really capitalism, but greed. Greed exists -- that's the reality. Capitalism works with greed, but other systems do not. If anything, the problem we have here is that we're not greedy enough for capitalism (that is, me and at least Meg, not sure about ado-p) -- but THAT, I think, is a far better solution than being in a system that pretends greed doesn't exist.
I remember as a graduate being lured into "the system" and convinced that the corporate world was great, that you need to continue on the track to making big bucks at big companies. That's not true at all. The vast majority of people who are "successful" don't follow that path at all, but rather work in smaller companies. The reality is that our economies still run on the hundreds of thousands of smaller companies, not just on the big corporations. The big corporations are just really good at convincing everyone that they're the only game in town.
The other insight I had was that people who get paid a whole lot of money... well, they're paid that much for a reason. They're expected to work their arse off, and they may also have to do things that no one else wants to do (ie decide how to make the company smaller by laying off loads of people, or in the case of lawyers, read loads of papers no one wants to read). At the other extreme, teachers and others who get a social benefit from their work often get paid less than they deserve.
It's far nicer to find a way to make your living doing something in the community. The benefit of being in a capitalist economy is that you have the opportunity to decide what that entails. In a communist or other economy, you'd probably be forced to do what you don't want to do -- you know, for the benefit of the whole and all that.
Posted:I didn't call you greedy. I'm saying there are greedy people out there.
Companies with the biggest market share are not always the winners. Market share does not equal profit.
If you're into greed, more than 90% of millionaires in the US made their money in a small business -- not the corporate path, as many would have you believe.
If you're not into greed, at least this statistic shows that there are ways to live outside the corporate world, ways to avoid the corporate world... and still live in a capitalist economy and do pretty damn well for yourself.
Macroeconomics doesn't factor in cultural and other complexities... Macroeconomics can't explain why Japan's in a decade-long recession.