Lifestylism of the powerful and affluent

[Dimentio]

I think lifestylism and subcultures exists within all ideologies and classes.

In poor inner-city neighbnourhoods in NY and Chicago, the ghetto-style "gangsta culture" becomes popular as a way of signalling power and respect in the local community for example.

I think, that those who already are powerful shows their lifestylism in another way than to signal their potence. Rather, their lifestylism is to fly to Africa to adopt children there, use green cabs between their private jets and arrange rock concerts for the children of Ethiopia. Celebrity billionaries like Bill Gates are donating vast amount of money to different kinds of humanitarian endeavours in the third world.

I think one of the keys to destroy the bourgeoisie interpretation of reality, is to attack their "sacred calves" and thus psychologically castrate them. Their "humanitarianism" serves one purpose more than anything else, and that is to legitimise them in the eyes of the people.

[Led Zeppelin]

This doesn't belong in Theory.

I have moved it to Philosophy but I'm not sure if it belongs here either. I'll let the Philosophy mod decide whether to move it to another forum (not sure which one is more suitable for it than this one though).

[Dimentio]

This doesn't belong in Theory.

I have moved it to Philosophy but I'm not sure if it belongs here either. I'll let the Philosophy mod decide whether to move it to another forum (I'm thinking Chit-Chat) or not.

I find that the theory is possible to connect with Gramsci's ideas about how capital tend to legitimise itself. This is close to intellectual censorship.

[Led Zeppelin]

Your musings on Lifestylism, "ghetto-style gangsta culture", "people flying to Africa to adopt babies" and "using green cabs between their private jets and arranging rock concerts for the children of Ethiopia" has got little to nothing to do with political theory of the revolutionary leftist movement and is in my view not suitable for the Theory forum.

And moving it out of the Theory forum because of that is not "intellectual censorship".

There's nothing more to say, really.

[Dimentio]

Your musings on Lifestylism, "ghetto-style gangsta culture", "people flying to Africa to adopt babies" and "using green cabs between their private jets and arranging rock concerts for the children of Ethiopia" has got little to nothing to do with political theory of the revolutionary leftist movement and is in my view not suitable for the Theory forum.

And moving it out of the Theory forum because of that is not "intellectual censorship".

There's nothing more to say, really.

I made examples of how people could create an identity through a lifestyle. I do not imply lifestylism in a negative connotation here, just that it is basically the same strive, no matter what group we are talking about, but that different groups maybe empower themselves through identity in different ways.

[Led Zeppelin]

Fair enough, but that is more a philosophical question or matter rather than a political theoretical one, so I believe the thread is more suitable here.

I admit the reference to Chit-Chat was unwarranted so I've removed it, since this is a pretty serious matter.

On the topic itself; I believe you are wrong when you say that the wealthy - or capitalist - class does not see any need in showing off its power. You only refer to a couple philanthropists, but you seem to ignore the countless other capitalists who do display it, and who greatly outnumber those who don't (mostly celebrities, who I wouldn't count as capitalists to begin with).

Many (if not all) capitalists for example use their wealth as a symbol for showing off their power; by buying several huge mansions, private jets, dozens of cars, etc. In capitalist society, money is power, so showing off your wealth is very similar to showing off your power, even if you perform some philanthropic acts on the side.

Also, I disagree with you about why most capitalists indulge in philanthropic acts. I don't consider philanthropic acts on the part of capitalists to be merely a lifestyle issue. They indulge in it to create an illusion; the illusion of another solution to the problem of capitalism. Just give some money to charity and all will be well...that myth is very strong and pervasive in todays society, and those capitalists play a part in engendering and perpetuating it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm not sure this belongs in Philosophy either!

[Dimentio]

Fair enough, but that is more a philosophical question or matter rather than a political theoretical one, so I believe the thread is more suitable here.

I admit the reference to Chit-Chat was unwarranted so I've removed it, since this is a pretty serious matter.

On the topic itself; I believe you are wrong when you say that the wealthy - or capitalist - class does not see any need in showing off its power. You only refer to a couple philanthropists, but you seem to ignore the countless other capitalists who do display it, and who greatly outnumber those who don't (mostly celebrities, who I wouldn't count as capitalists to begin with).

Many (if not all) capitalists for example use their wealth as a symbol for showing off their power; by buying several huge mansions, private jets, dozens of cars, etc. In capitalist society, money is power, so showing off your wealth is very similar to showing off your power, even if you perform some philanthropic acts on the side.

Also, I disagree with you about why most capitalists indulge in philanthropic acts. I don't consider philanthropic acts on the part of capitalists to be merely a lifestyle issue. They indulge in it to create an illusion; the illusion of another solution to the problem of capitalism. Just give some money to charity and all will be well...that myth is very strong and pervasive in todays society, and those capitalists play a part in engendering and perpetuating it.

I don't really see capitalists in general behaving in that way in order to show off their power, but rather in order to show their "value" as mating partners or something like that, subconciously. It also seems to be directed towards other capitalists and wealthy individuals. "Ha! Look here, my mansion is bigger than yours! I have a bigger car! Therefore, my **** is bigger!"

The reason why I am saying this is because wealthy people tend to prefer to live in areas with other mansions which are separated from the real world by thick walls and bushes. If they had wanted to show their wealth to the proletariat to legitimise their power, they would have erected huge monuments celebrating their achievements everywhere. I am rather inclined to believe that they - when they feel the need to legitimise themselves - engages in charity or philantropy or Rhino-cub saving expeditions to Berlin's zoo in order to show how soft-hearted they are, the poor lives.

But there are some power symbols in the capitalist world as well, mostly associated with the state, but also with the entertainment industry.

The state erects huge monuments, celebrating its victories and its mere strength. In some nations, most notably the USA, the president does not only fulfill a formal role as head of state, but also an informal role as some sort of "national hero", a head figure subjected to personality cults (if granted by media).

The entertainment industry is also a tool in the propaganda war. I don't know how conciously it is so.

For example, most soap operas, starting with "Dallas", depicts the life-style of the affluent in a favourable, uncritical way. Hollywood Action flicks are most often testosterone-filled exercises in glorifying the (real or fictionalised) victories of the invincible American Empire against the "barbarian hordes of the south and the east", thus serving as a modern day equivalent to the Coliseum.

[Hit The North]

There's no philosophical or theoretical content here. I'm moving it to Politics, as Serpent seems to be advocating a political strategy for undermining the hegemonic project of bourgeois philanthropy.

For my own opinion, I think we need to recognise that capitalists like Bill Gates are people too and that their philanthropic acts may not be motivated by cynicism but a genuine (if contradictory) motivation to"give something back". Not to mention the generous tax breaks afforded by their charitable acts ;).

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't really see capitalists in general behaving in that way in order to show off their power, but rather in order to show their "value" as mating partners or something like that, subconciously. It also seems to be directed towards other capitalists and wealthy individuals. "Ha! Look here, my mansion is bigger than yours! I have a bigger car! Therefore, my **** is bigger!"

Well, sure, that might also play a part in it, but when we dwell on that we'll start to descend into the dark place called Freudian psychology, and I think it would be best to steer clear from there.

I'm more concerned with their economic way of thinking, that is, with their basic way of thinking. Being determines consciousness, after all. What compels someone, who has 10 mansions already, to buy another one? What compels someone, who has 10 cars already, to buy another one? What compels the same person to then give money to charity and get on Oprah to talk about the virtues of philanthropy?

I believe the answer in all these cases is; self-gain. But self-gain in which respect? Obviously, firstly, in the economic respect. Not only do you safeguard your own economic interests by giving to charity as a billionaire (your reputation increases, people view you and your "brand" in a better light, they are compelled to buy your products, etc.) but also by fooling people in believing in the myth of philanthropy.

Philanthropy is, in essence, based on apathy. I will not get up and do something about poverty, but I will give a little money to it. This will ease my mind for a bit, until the day I feel bad again and pay some more money. But no, at no cost will I get up and do something about it politically.

There might also be self-gain in the psychological sense of course, such as sexual gratification or increasing of ones own ego, etc. But I believe those are secondary roles, and even as such are bound up with the economic one.