Adbusters

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Just got in the new Adbusters economics issue. Anybody else read Adbusters here? If so, any thoughts on this new issue yet? I've only read a little bit but I think it's pretty good so far. A nice dismantling of mainstream economics and hopefully it gets even better. :D

[VILemon]

I'm reading it right now. It's pretty good, but I'd imagine that it's more mind-blowing to someone who actually is a student of academic economics and hasn't ever questioned any of the sacrosanct assumptions of the paradigm. The articles from the professors were the most interesting. I enjoy reading adbusters, but I get this creepy primitivist vibe (or something) from them.

They make a big deal of knocking how the economy relies on consumerism (which is definitely an important part of the current bourgeois ideology which must be overcome) but I rarely see them promoting anything positive; just "don't buy things."

It seems like in the current economy you have to either start advocating a move toward a radically new economic model or you want people to stop consuming as much as possible, which is likely to make the economy much worse for the majority of people (and a little worse for the ruling class). I'm not sure that a great depression is a worthwhile alternative to consumer-capitalism.

I like their message a lot of the time, as many of their arguments are quite potent for dealing with the ideology of middle-class kids in a late-capitalist nation. The message though, rarely has anything to offer in the way of actual solutions.

[cyu]

They make a big deal of knocking how the economy relies on consumerism... but I rarely see them promoting anything positive; just "don't buy things."

I'm not sure that a great depression is a worthwhile alternative to consumer-capitalism.


Agreed.

Excerpt from equal pay for unequal work (http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/equal+pay+for+unequal+work):

Replacing Product Advertising

So let's turn this around. Instead of trying to convince people to want things they don't want, instead convince them to want to do things that actually need doing. Seems like a much more direct method to me and a much better use of the skills of our great advertisers.

Instead of running ads that say, "I want this product" - they could be ads that say, "I want to work on a version of this product that will go down in history" - or "I want to work with some of the most exciting people in this field" - or "I want to learn the intricacies and possibilities of this product design."

What makes me think this kind of advertising would work?

As long as the advertising is controlled democratically, then the electorate already knows how important these jobs are. Thus, they already have the motivation to get these things done. The only real question is, are they able to make these activities sound enjoyable. To that end, they just need to employ the same psychological tools that product advertisers have been honing for years.

I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you'd see for the jobs supported by that organization.

As long as people see value in doing something, they are free to support advertising for that kind of activity. Sports, for example, are good for people's health, and, in cases like swimming, can save lives. However, if some other activity could not only provide exercise, but also help out other people at the same time (for example, building a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path), then I could easily see more people gravitating toward promoting that other activity.

[Ovi]

Whether we're talking about state capitalism or 'regular' capitalism, the rulers are the more powerful (and rich) the more their slaves work. In "socialism" nobody advertised products, instead they promoted work, the nobil act of working, the building of the socialist society and shit. But that didn't work so well, since nobody wanted to do some boring stuff 8-12h/day. Rather than try to convince them to work, convince them to consume. They will get loans and work like slaves for the rest of their life to pay them and they'll also consider themselves free since nobody forced them to do that. We hate working, but it's sure nice to have the latest shit that we'll never use or never need. That's the spirit!

If you ask me advertising has a single role, to make people work as much as possible to the benefit of the upper class. In a liberated society, this should be one of the first things to be abolished.

[cyu]

nobody wanted to do some boring stuff 8-12h/day.

If they didn't want to do the same stuff all the time, assuming they actually controlled their economic structure, then they can simply do other stuff.

If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

[Ovi]

I don't think that's necessary. I would assume the ammount of work needed in an anarchist community should be well bellow what it is now since there would be no 'useless' jobs like banking, shops and other crap, cars would be shared and perhaps the need for them would be much smaller, no consumerism, things would be made to last longer, no fashion...If people united to build such a world despite the collosal obstacles, surely maintaining it should be easier.

[cyu]

I don't think that's necessary.
True, lots of things aren't necessary - flying to the moon isn't necessary, starships aren't necessary, colonizing other planets aren't necessary, but some people might still find that desirable, even if it's not necessary.

The difference between a free and an enslaved society is that people would be able to choose whether they work on these unnecessary things, instead of being forced to either do them or starve.

So how do you get people to create unnecessary things that you want? That's where freedom of expression comes in - you try to convince others - and one of the methods is through advertising the activities that are involved in creation. However, since it's not a capitalist society, there is no wealthy minority that can buy much more airtime than everyone else for their own pet causes, and there is no wealthy minority that can simply purchase entire media organizations to do feature stories on their own pet causes.

Without capitalism, the power to control the means of communication in a society can become much more dispersed.

[Ovi]

True, lots of things aren't necessary - flying to the moon isn't necessary, starships aren't necessary, colonizing other planets aren't necessary, but some people might still find that desirable, even if it's not necessary.

Shooting yourself in the foot is not necessary either. And yes it is necessary to fly to the moon for many of us because of our innate curiosity. It's something they would like to do and which doesn't affect you if you don't want to participate. But displaying propaganda it's not anyone's dream is it? You could put that waste of resources to good use.


The difference between a free and an enslaved society is that people would be able to choose whether they work on these unnecessary things, instead of being forced to either do them or starve.
So how do you get people to create unnecessary things that you want? That's where freedom of expression comes in - you try to convince others - and one of the methods is through advertising the activities that are involved in creation.

If some people want to work on a spaceship they can do it. If there's only one lunatic that would want that, then you suggest to try conving people to do what that guy wants? Who would decide what to advertise? The people? I would be completely against advertising. Now I'm forced to accept it?


However, since it's not a capitalist society, there is no wealthy minority that can buy much more airtime than everyone else for their own pet causes, and there is no wealthy minority that can simply purchase entire media organizations to do feature stories on their own pet causes.

Without capitalism, the power to control the means of communication in a society can become much more dispersed.
It's all about communication, not about convincing people through ads. If we know what has to be done, there should be enough people that will participate if it's worth doing.

[cyu]

displaying propaganda it's not anyone's dream is it?
Why not? If you believed in the propaganda, then you'd do it voluntarily. Isn't all political discussion propaganda? Isn't what we're doing right now on revleft considered displaying propaganda?



If there's only one lunatic that would want that, then you suggest to try conving people to do what that guy wants?


Yes, indeed. Isn't that just freedom of expression? What's the point of expressing opinions if you're not trying to convince others? Are you going to ban him from trying to convince others?



Who would decide what to advertise? The people?


Yes - exactly: Participate in your own manipulation. (http://everything2.com/title/Participate+in+your+own+manipulation.)

From above: "I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you'd see for the jobs supported by that organization."


If we know what has to be done, there should be enough people that will participate if it's worth doing.

Even so, I think advertising plays an important role in getting people to actually enjoy the activity, rather than people just feeling like it must be done, but not actually enjoy doing it.



It's all about communication, not about convincing people through ads.


Ads are a subset of communication. Which other subsets of communication would you prefer? And why not use more subsets of communication instead of just a few?

[FreeFocus]

Working 8 to 12 hours a day is NOT necessary. It wouldn't be like that in a socialist society, we currently have the technology to be able to drastically cut working time and still provide what everyone needs.

I've never read or heard of Adbusters, but I might check it out.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Working 8 to 12 hours a day is NOT necessary. It wouldn't be like that in a socialist society, we currently have the technology to be able to drastically cut working time and still provide what everyone needs.

I've never read or heard of Adbusters, but I might check it out.

Agreed, the only reason we work as much as we do anyway is because of businesses who want every possible amount of productivity squeezed out of their investments and is the reason why society has become more and more fast paced and robot-like.

Adbusters is pretty good, you definitely should check it out. They usually have pretty good articles on their website too if you want to get a sample before going out of your way to get one of their publications.

[Asoka89]

We do it because unemployment is a useful whip for the labor force. Too much employment and you have inflationary tendencies and the price of labor gets "inflated" too much for the capitalist market to bear... this is why neoliberal "adjustments" are often necessary for capitalism to keep functioning.

[Anarchia]

libcom. org/library/anti-semitism-adbusters-2004

[Ovi]

Working 8 to 12 hours a day is NOT necessary. It wouldn't be like that in a socialist society, we currently have the technology to be able to drastically cut working time and still provide what everyone needs.

I've never read or heard of Adbusters, but I might check it out.
Exactly what I said. Although this never happened in the self proclaimed socialist countries.


Yes, indeed. Isn't that just freedom of expression? What's the point of expressing opinions if you're not trying to convince others? Are you going to ban him from trying to convince others?

So it's ok to advertise racism and manipulating people the way you want. If you could convinve the majority of americans that arabs are terrorists it would be ok to shoot them?




Even so, I think advertising plays an important role in getting people to actually enjoy the activity, rather than people just feeling like it must be done, but not actually enjoy doing it.

So if they don't like something, you convince them to do?


Ads are a subset of communication. Which other subsets of communication would you prefer? And why not use more subsets of communication instead of just a few?
There's a big difference between communication between individuals and mass manipulation.

[cyu]

So it's ok to advertise racism
Sure, freedom of expression. I can easily take any racist in a debate - if you don't feel you can, maybe you should leave the debating to others, while you provide background support :D

The way "democracy" in a capitalist society works is like this: capitalists obviously form a tiny minority of society and yet get away with great priveleges and power. How can they sustain this in a democracy? It is by taking the "majoritarian" position on all issues except the issue of capitalism (which they know they'll lose since by definition they are in the tiny minority). So if the population is mostly white, then favor whites. If the population is mostly Hindu, then favor Hindus. If the population is mostly heterosexual, then favor heterosexuals. It doesn't really matter what the rest of the issues are, just take the majoritarian position - as long as they can keep capitalism, they are satisfied.

Thus racism is merely a tool of capitalists. Once capitalism is gone, it will fade as well.



if they don't like something, you convince them to do


Yes, you have a problem with that? If they're not convinced, then obviously they don't have to do it.



There's a big difference between communication between individuals and mass manipulation.


So are you going to ban broadcast TV then? Millions of people also visit websites every day - would you ban that too? Mass communication can't be avoided, so you might as well put control of it in everyone's hands.

It depends on how you define "manipulation" as well. If by manipulation you mean that the truth is hidden, so you can provoke a certain response, then that is not good for society in the long-term. The loss of truth / knowledge of course will probably hurt society's chances of long-term survival. If by manipulation you just mean finding a new way to look at things, new rationalizations for making you enjoy doing the things you know needs to be done, then why not? Isn't the goal of life to be happy?

[Ovi]

It depends on how you define "manipulation" as well. If by manipulation you mean that the truth is hidden, so you can provoke a certain response, then that is not good for society in the long-term. The loss of truth / knowledge of course will probably hurt society's chances of long-term survival. If by manipulation you just mean finding a new way to look at things, new rationalizations for making you enjoy doing the things you know needs to be done, then why not? Isn't the goal of life to be happy?
Being happy yes. Being convinced that you must be be enjoying yourself while moving a shitload of cow dung no. :laugh:

[cyu]

Being convinced that you must be be enjoying yourself while moving a shitload of cow dung no.
Nobody is forcing you to enjoy yourself, just as nobody is forcing you to enjoy an iPod - if you don't enjoy iPods, then don't buy them. If you don't enjoy cow dung, then you don't have to pretend that you enjoy it.

...however, assuming that moving cow dung is actually economically necessary, then efforts should be made that there are enough people doing it. If you're unwilling to use force (which would be slavery), then you have to convince them to want to do it - either by point out how important it is, thinking up new ways to make the activity more fun, or work on changing the activity itself to be more enjoyable, such as new tools, better music, trying to get more entertaining / exciting / insightful / funny / attractive people involved. If you can actually be convinced to honestly enjoy doing things that need to be done, what's bad about that?

[Ovi]

Nobody is forcing you to enjoy yourself, just as nobody is forcing you to enjoy an iPod - if you don't enjoy iPods, then don't buy them. If you don't enjoy cow dung, then you don't have to pretend that you enjoy it.

...however, assuming that moving cow dung is actually economically necessary, then efforts should be made that there are enough people doing it. If you're unwilling to use force (which would be slavery), then you have to convince them to want to do it - either by point out how important it is, thinking up new ways to make the activity more fun, or work on changing the activity itself to be more enjoyable, such as new tools, better music, trying to get more entertaining / exciting / insightful / funny / attractive people involved. If you can actually be convinced to honestly enjoy doing things that need to be done, what's bad about that?
You suggested to convince people with ads that doing that stuff is enjoyable. How can you possibly make that enjoyable? I do believe that it will be done anyway without loads of ads as of today simply because that's important. We're not animals to get a cookie each time we do something right, we can do stuff because that's necessary and because it will give us the satisfaction of a well done job; Anyway, these micro details are anything but important right now, there's a lot more to do until then :)

[cyu]

How can you possibly make that enjoyable?

It's just a matter of studying psychology and then applying what you learned. You wouldn't say the study of psychology is useless, would you? If it's not useless, then you can apply what you've learned to the advertising business.

How else do you think consumerism is created in capitalist societies, if not by the hiring of psychologists by advertising firms?


simply because that's important... it will give us the satisfaction of a well done job

Simply doing something because it's important or will give you a feeling of satisfaction after completion does not make the activity fun. While it's true that you can make the argument that this is "good enough" it would be even better if people enjoyed the actual process of doing what they do. As is documented in http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm - rewarding work tends to make people dislike the activity because they become focused on the reward as the ultimate source of pleasure. Even the feeling of satisfaction after completion is analogous to a reward, since you only get it after the project has finished - there is no continuous sense of pleasure like you would get when listening to music, playing games, or watching the sunset.

[Ovi]

It's just a matter of studying psychology and then applying what you learned. You wouldn't say the study of psychology is useless, would you? If it's not useless, then you can apply what you've learned to the advertising business.

How else do you think consumerism is created in capitalist societies, if not by the hiring of psychologists by advertising firms?

And you're proposing to use the same sick mass manipulation!


Simply doing something because it's important or will give you a feeling of satisfaction after completion does not make the activity fun. While it's true that you can make the argument that this is "good enough" it would be even better if people enjoyed the actual process of doing what they do.

If you convince people that it's fun it doesn't change the actual work at all. If there are enough people who would do the job, then why do we have to manipulate them into liking it?


As is documented in http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm - rewarding work tends to make people dislike the activity because they become focused on the reward as the ultimate source of pleasure. Even the feeling of satisfaction after completion is analogous to a reward, since you only get it after the project has finished - there is no continuous sense of pleasure like you would get when listening to music, playing games, or watching the sunset.
Of course there is. By participating in something important you get the feeling of doing something usefull. Scientists don't research so that they get the satisfaction after finding something new, the process of research itself is fun and full of satisfaction to them. Same thing for other stuff too.

[cyu]

you're proposing to use the same sick mass manipulation
It is only sick under capitalism because it is controlled by capitalists (ie. those who can afford to pay big bucks to hire advertisers and buy airtime) - plus it is also just plain stupid because consumer advertising is only necessary when you've got a system running on Keynesian economics.

Again from above: Participate in your own manipulation. (http://everything2.com/title/Participate+in+your+own+manipulation.) "I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you'd see for the jobs supported by that organization."

If you choose to manipulate yourself, can you really call that manipulation? If you throw away your wallet, is that robbery? If you hit yourself in the head with a trout, is that assault? If you reward yourself with a dessert, is that a bribe?


If there are enough people who would do the job, then why do we have to manipulate them into liking it?


What, you would prefer that they do it, but hate doing it? Are you after a better society or not?


Scientists don't research so that they get the satisfaction after finding something new, the process of research itself is fun and full of satisfaction to them. Same thing for other stuff too.
Ah, but is it really? How can you tell? Is it a natural feeling? Is that kind of feeling nature or nurture? Can you increase the enjoyability of an activity through outside influence? How do you know scientists haven't been brainwashed to enjoy research in the same way others are brainwashed into drooling for consumer goods? In one case, the brainwashing may be done by TV ads, in the other case the brainwashing may be done by the university system.

[Ovi]

It is only sick under capitalism because it is controlled by capitalists (ie. those who can afford to pay big bucks to hire advertisers and buy airtime) - plus it is also just plain stupid because consumer advertising is only necessary when you've got a system running on Keynesian economics.

So mass manipulation is sick under capitalism, but it's not if those who control it represent most of the people? I believe it's the same shit.


Again from above: Participate in your own manipulation. (http://everything2.com/title/Participate+in+your+own+manipulation.) "I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you'd see for the jobs supported by that organization."

If you choose to manipulate yourself, can you really call that manipulation? If you throw away your wallet, is that robbery? If you hit yourself in the head with a trout, is that assault? If you reward yourself with a dessert, is that a bribe?

You don't propose that I manipulate myself, but I manipulate everyone else; the same way everyone else manipulates me.


What, you would prefer that they do it, but hate doing it? Are you after a better society or not?

But the point is that what you say will not change the work at all! It's just as awfull as before, but you try to convice people that it's not. We could instead try to use that waste of resources to make the job less awfull in REALITY.

Anyway, when I speak about a better world, I believe that we can MAKE a better world, not that we will convince people that it is when it's not. You'd be surprised to know how many people I've met that were certain that this world is as good and fair as it can get and anything against it would clasify as a 'communist' conspiracy to take away our freedom. But just because there are so many brainwashed people that believe we live in a good world does that make it a better one?


Ah, but is it really? How can you tell? Is it a natural feeling? Is that kind of feeling nature or nurture? Can you increase the enjoyability of an activity through outside influence? How do you know scientists haven't been brainwashed to enjoy research in the same way others are brainwashed into drooling for consumer goods? In one case, the brainwashing may be done by TV ads, in the other case the brainwashing may be done by the university system.
From what I've seen the entire schooling system has the single goal of making you smart enough to do your job but stupid enough not to ask questions. Those who actually become remarkable scientists did so with their own sweat and blood, resisted the entire propaganda of consumerist happiness and pursued their dream of understanding what others have failed. It's anything but manipulation.

[cyu]

but it's not if those who control it represent most of the people?


Not "represent" but actually "are" the people. Anarchists prefer direct democracy over representative democracy after all. The problem with capitalist manipulation is that the primary target is other people - they want to stir consumers up into a buying frenzy. Their primary target is not themselves, although, often as a side-effect, they end up making themselves more greedy as well.


You don't propose that I manipulate myself, but I manipulate everyone else; the same way everyone else manipulates me.

Society manipulates itself - you can't help it - there's no way to stop it. The only thing you can do is either have society be controlled by everyone or a tiny minority.

If you don't like "manipulation" then do you oppose freedom of expression? What is the point of freedom of expression if you aren't allowed to change other people's opinions? If you prefer "personal communication" what counts as personal communication? Am I only allowed to speak to 1 person at a time and not 2? Or up to 5 people at a time but not 6? Or up to 99 people at a time but not 100?


But the point is that what you say will not change the work at all! It's just as awfull as before, but you try to convice people that it's not. We could instead try to use that waste of resources to make the job less awfull in REALITY.

Sure, I agree that if working conditions are bad, then they should be improved. If employees had democratic control over their companies, then they'd obviously vote to improve their working conditions.

However I am looking beyond that - yes, removing dangerous situations should be the first priority, but does society simply stop advancing after working conditions are improved? What is the psychological distinction between an activity that is considered work and one that is considered play? How do marketers get you to ride a rollercoaster? It's just one activity among millions of others - why is this one so desirable that you'd actually want to pay to do it, instead of having to be paid to do it? The marketer is basically emphasizing how much fun the activity itself will be - not what result or reward you'd get afterwards.

From http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm - "the more we use artificial inducements to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what we're bribing them to do. Rewards turn play into work, and work into drudgery."


But just because there are so many brainwashed people that believe we live in a good world does that make it a better one?

If 100% of the people were happy, then it's better than a world where only 99% or 51% were happy.


Those who actually become remarkable scientists did so with their own sweat and blood, resisted the entire propaganda of consumerist happiness and pursued their dream of understanding what others have failed.

And other scientists try to steal the credit of their graduate students or fellow researchers, falsify data, or spending more time jockeying for the Fields Medal or Nobel Prize than on more important things. I wouldn't say using artificial inducements like the Fields Medal / Nobel Prize aren't one way to motivate people, but they are merely one among many, including violence and slavery. One of the purposes of psychology is to figure out new and better ways to motivate people while minimizing negative side-effects.

In fact, if a scientist dreams of great discoveries that he can share with the world, then he got that dream in a message from other people - perhaps his parents, perhaps his teachers, perhaps one of his peers. The transmission of that meme from his parents / teachers / peers to him is merely another act of propaganda / manipulation / advertising.

[Ovi]

Not "represent" but actually "are" the people. Anarchists prefer direct democracy over representative democracy after all. The problem with capitalist manipulation is that the primary target is other people - they want to stir consumers up into a buying frenzy. Their primary target is not themselves, although, often as a side-effect, they end up making themselves more greedy as well.

Your primary target ain't yourself either, but other people.


Society manipulates itself - you can't help it - there's no way to stop it. The only thing you can do is either have society be controlled by everyone or a tiny minority.

But I still don't want an institution/organization/whatever whose only goal is to manipulate!


If you don't like "manipulation" then do you oppose freedom of expression? What is the point of freedom of expression if you aren't allowed to change other people's opinions? If you prefer "personal communication" what counts as personal communication? Am I only allowed to speak to 1 person at a time and not 2? Or up to 5 people at a time but not 6? Or up to 99 people at a time but not 100?

How about I sell you some pyrite and I tell you it's gold. Isn't that freedom of expression too? I could make a fortune :laugh:


If 100% of the people were happy, then it's better than a world where only 99% or 51% were happy.

Then why bother with anarchy? Why not join the advertising industry? From what I've see on tv about the black friday in US sure looks like they're happy into buying stuff. You wouldn't want to take that away from them would you?

So that means that if most americans believe the atomic attacks on Japan were a good idea (and they do), then it's a good thing that they did it. Keeping it in the US, why would you want to bring communism in the US, you know how much they'd hate that. Plus they'll call you a commie :laugh: They are happy with capitalism. They don't want anything else. So why would you want to take that happiness away from them?

If our only goal is to make people (think that they are) happy then I believe the capitalist advertising industry is doing a much better job than us.


And other scientists try to steal the credit of their graduate students or fellow researchers, falsify data, or spending more time jockeying for the Fields Medal or Nobel Prize than on more important things. I wouldn't say using artificial inducements like the Fields Medal / Nobel Prize aren't one way to motivate people, but they are merely one among many, including violence and slavery. One of the purposes of psychology is to figure out new and better ways to motivate people while minimizing negative side-effects.

They want to steal it because they want fame/money/crap. And do you think some Nobel prize motivates people into discovering stuff? There's one thing I've leared, doing stuff for money means doing a lousy job.


In fact, if a scientist dreams of great discoveries that he can share with the world, then he got that dream in a message from other people - perhaps his parents, perhaps his teachers, perhaps one of his peers. The transmission of that meme from his parents / teachers / peers to him is merely another act of propaganda / manipulation / advertising.
There's a HUGE difference between being inspired by another scientist, your teacher or anyone else and displaying ads that say "Scientists are cool". The former incites you into doing what you really want, while the latter only brigs a smile on someone who understands what a crappy idea advertising is :lol:

[cyu]

Your primary target ain't yourself either, but other people

What are you talking about? It's not like I alone, the dictator of the world, should determine the advertising. Society in general should determine it. For example, if 35% of the population want more done about marine agriculture, 40% want more done about starships, and 25% want more done to help the elderly and disabled, then you'd expect 35% of the advertising to be promoting jobs in marine agriculture, 40% in starships, and 25% in helping the elderly and disabled.


I still don't want an institution/organization/whatever whose only goal is to manipulate

If you don't like it, you are free to express yourself and try to gather support for your efforts. Let's say you make signifant in-roads and now 50% of the population agrees with you. In this case, then 17.5% of the advertising would promote jobs in marine agriculture, 20% starships, 12.5% helping the elderly and disabled, and 50% of the advertising would be countering the rest of the advertising (perhaps telling them why they should *not* research marine agriculture, build starships, or help the elderly / disabled).


How about I sell you some pyrite and I tell you it's gold

Actually, if you knew anything about economics, then you'd know gold is as worthless as fiat money. See http://www.onyxbits.de/content/blog/patrick/buying-gold-crisis-proof-investments-not-good-idea


From what I've see on tv about the black friday in US sure looks like they're happy into buying stuff.

Tell that to the store employees that get trampled to death. Tell that to the people who are shot and killed for consumer goods. In other words, what you're describing is clearly not 100%.


if most americans believe the atomic attacks on Japan were a good idea (and they do)

Why aren't you counting the Japanese among the 100% when you're doing your calculation? Sounds like you're just trying to fudge statistics to me. If I limit my sample size just to the people who agree with me, then the results will always be 100%.


If our only goal is to make people (think that they are) happy then I believe the capitalist advertising industry is doing a much better job than us.

So you want to make people live in a "better" world but "think" they are unhappy? You're clearly on the wrong website.


There's a HUGE difference between being inspired by another scientist, your teacher or anyone else and displaying ads that say "Scientists are cool"... the latter only brigs a smile on someone who understands what a crappy idea advertising is

Anyone can see through individual ads, but when the advertising is pervasive in society, then it shifts culture. Either you think consumerist advertising is effective at creating consumerism or you don't. If you do, then different kinds of advertising would also be effective at creating alternate cultures. If you do not consider consumerist advertising to be effective, then why do you think corporations spend so much money on it?

[Salyut]

I get this creepy primitivist vibe (or something) from them

I just picked up Adbusters for the first time today (couldn't find mother jones) and this is exactly what I got. Big vibes from the first few pages.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I just picked up Adbusters for the first time today (couldn't find mother jones) and this is exactly what I got. Big vibes from the first few pages.

Mind elaborating? Just curious as to why you formed that opinion. Personally I don't think anyone involved in a mass media organization that relies heavily on technology could be "primitivist" but maybe that's just me.

Sometimes I think people throw around that term for anything they aren't familiar with without regards to what primitivism actually is. I would suggest reading more than "the first few pages" before you form an opinion of something too.

[Salyut]

Mind elaborating? Just curious as to why you formed that opinion. Personally I don't think anyone involved in a mass media organization that relies heavily on technology could be "primitivist" but maybe that's just me.

Sometimes I think people throw around that term for anything they aren't familiar with without regards to what primitivism actually is. I would suggest reading more than "the first few pages" before you form an opinion of something too.

Uh, I read the whole thing, thanks... Enjoyed the pwning of neoclassical economics too. The Primitivist sounding language comes in on the "A History of "Progress"" section and contrast the warly history section with the latter sections.

At the very least theres deep ecology sympathy - isn't that a hallmark of primmie thought?

[bcbm]

Adbusters generally wants a society based around "grassroots capitalism," not primitivism. Its detailed in some interview about the blackspot sneakers.

[IcarusAngel]

Could someone please tell me where I could get this latest issue of "Adbusters" (what is it a magazine)? do I have to get it online?I thought it was just a website like the consumerist. Is there a PDF i could download?

[Salyut]

Adbusters generally wants a society based around "grassroots capitalism," not primitivism. Its detailed in some interview about the blackspot sneakers.

...Ew. I need to find better reading materials. @[email protected]

[Ovi]

What are you talking about? It's not like I alone, the dictator of the world, should determine the advertising. Society in general should determine it. For example, if 35% of the population want more done about marine agriculture, 40% want more done about starships, and 25% want more done to help the elderly and disabled, then you'd expect 35% of the advertising to be promoting jobs in marine agriculture, 40% in starships, and 25% in helping the elderly and disabled.

And how does that change what I've said? You don't manipulate only yourself, but everyone else too.



If you don't like it, you are free to express yourself and try to gather support for your efforts. Let's say you make signifant in-roads and now 50% of the population agrees with you. In this case, then 17.5% of the advertising would promote jobs in marine agriculture, 20% starships, 12.5% helping the elderly and disabled, and 50% of the advertising would be countering the rest of the advertising (perhaps telling them why they should *not* research marine agriculture, build starships, or help the elderly / disabled).

No ads! No ads! No ads! There, I've just won over most of the anarchists here :laugh:


Actually, if you knew anything about economics, then you'd know gold is as worthless as fiat money. See http://www.onyxbits.de/content/blog/patrick/buying-gold-crisis-proof-investments-not-good-idea

Again, what does that has to do with anything? All I wanted was to sell you something far more expensive than what I'm really giving you. After all it's freedom of expression.


Tell that to the store employees that get trampled to death. Tell that to the people who are shot and killed for consumer goods. In other words, what you're describing is clearly not 100%.

Then it's even worse! If not only they run like retards to buy a dress, but also kill each other, then consumerism it's our new religion and it really is our only goal in life. Why would you want to take that away from us?


Why aren't you counting the Japanese among the 100% when you're doing your calculation? Sounds like you're just trying to fudge statistics to me. If I limit my sample size just to the people who agree with me, then the results will always be 100%.

I didn't limit the statistics to anyone in particular, but to a whole country. Don't they have a saying too?


So you want to make people live in a "better" world but "think" they are unhappy? You're clearly on the wrong website.

How could they possibly be even less happier if they live in a better world, a world they fought to create? It makes no sense. Unless you try to convince them through ads.:laugh:



Anyone can see through individual ads, but when the advertising is pervasive in society, then it shifts culture. Either you think consumerist advertising is effective at creating consumerism or you don't. If you do, then different kinds of advertising would also be effective at creating alternate cultures. If you do not consider consumerist advertising to be effective, then why do you think corporations spend so much money on it?
It's very effective and very sick. That's why I want to see the end of it.

[cyu]

You don't manipulate only yourself, but everyone else too.
So are you against freedom of expression then?


All I wanted was to sell you something far more expensive than what I'm really giving you. After all it's freedom of expression.

The point is to replace product advertising with advertising for activities. If there is no materialism / consumerism, why would anybody be motivated to do what you're describing? As for why people would choose to voluntarily give up product advertising and replace it with advertising for activities, well, that's why we're having this discussion isn't it? If someone has what they believe to be good arguments in support of product advertising, they are free to voice them. If those arguments are deluded, then it's obviously our job to dispel their illusions.


then consumerism it's our new religion and it really is our only goal in life. Why would you want to take that away from us?

What are you talking about? Clearly not 100% of the population is happy with consumerism - if they were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.



I didn't limit the statistics to anyone in particular, but to a whole country. Don't they have a saying too?


You are limiting it to one country. When I say 100% of the population, I don't mean 100% of the population of Manhattan, or 100% of Alaska, or 100% of the Western Hemisphere - you do know what 100% means, don't you?



How could they possibly be even less happier if they live in a better world, a world they fought to create? It makes no sense.

How do you create a better world without communication? If you are in favor of communication, what kind are you going to allow? Are you going to ban other forms of communication with force and violence?



It's very effective and very sick. That's why I want to see the end of it.


I think we both agree consumerism is stupid - but the fact remains communication is just a tool - just as a hammer can be used to either beat someone's head in, or it can be used to build a house. Just because beating someone's head in is very sick doesn't mean your new society should get rid of all hammers.

[Ovi]

So are you against freedom of expression then?



The point is to replace product advertising with advertising for activities. If there is no materialism / consumerism, why would anybody be motivated to do what you're describing? As for why people would choose to voluntarily give up product advertising and replace it with advertising for activities, well, that's why we're having this discussion isn't it? If someone has what they believe to be good arguments in support of product advertising, they are free to voice them. If those arguments are deluded, then it's obviously our job to dispel their illusions.

It's not about advertising, but the freedom of expression that you were talking about. Should I have the freedom to sell you pyrite for gold? Cyanide for aspirine?




What are you talking about? Clearly not 100% of the population is happy with consumerism - if they were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


Ok 100% minus us :laugh:. Anyway you want to take consumerism away from everyone, those who enjoy it included. Now that's not fair is it?


You are limiting it to one country.

Of course I am. It doesn't make much sense to talk about consumerism in Ethiopia, does it?



How do you create a better world without communication? If you are in favor of communication, what kind are you going to allow? Are you going to ban other forms of communication with force and violence?

Again, organized mass manipulation is not the same as everyday communication. It's sick and I believe it should be abolished. Talking about banning stuff...one could ask the same about private property: "Are you going to abolish private property with force and violence?" If yes, is that a bad thing?


I think we both agree consumerism is stupid - but the fact remains communication is just a tool - just as a hammer can be used to either beat someone's head in, or it can be used to build a house. Just because beating someone's head in is very sick doesn't mean your new society should get rid of all hammers.
But we should stop beating that guy in the head! Or this time it's a "good" hammer?

Looks like this discussion goes nowhere. In the end we will argue endlessly and each one will keep his own oppinion...

[cyu]

Should I have the freedom to sell you pyrite for gold?

Both are fairly worthless (http://www.onyxbits.de/content/blog/patrick/buying-gold-crisis-proof-investments-not-good-idea) as far as I'm concerned, so it doesn't matter.


Cyanide for aspirine?

This is more important, because the consequences of this behavior is death. The other person's freedom to live is more important than your freedom to say what you want, because the harm to them by limiting their freedom is much greater than the harm to you by limiting your freedom.


Anyway you want to take consumerism away from everyone, those who enjoy it included.

Ah, but I'm not saying I'm taking away their enjoyment, only to replace it with suffering. It's just replacing their current enjoyment with another type of enjoyment - thus, why should it matter? It, in fact, is clearly better, because the enjoyment of doing things can have much more positive effects on society than merely the enjoyment of hoarding things or consuming natural resources.


Of course I am. It doesn't make much sense to talk about consumerism in Ethiopia, does it?

You're missing the original point of this sub-thread: the point was that if 100% of the population were happy, it's better than if 99% or 51% are happy.


organized mass manipulation is not the same as everyday communication. It's sick and I believe it should be abolished.

What's the difference between "organized mass communication" and "organized mass manipulation"? If you're also against "organized mass communication", then how are you going to convince people to stop advertising? If you're going to convince them by using "everyday communication", how is that different from "everyday manipulation"?


one could ask the same about private property: "Are you going to abolish private property with force and violence?" If yes, is that a bad thing?

In fact no, not in the sense you're thinking of any way. I merely advocate that union members show up at work, armed. Then merely assume democratic control of the company they already work at. Although they are armed, violence is not the intent - the weapons would only be there for self-defense - thus there would be no bloodshed unless the capitalist orders his minions to instigate bloodshed.


But we should stop beating that guy in the head!

Indeed we should. The important question to ask about the hammer is: who has control of the hammer? The same is true of the media. Who has control? The goal is to take control away from the oppressive capitalist minority and place it in the hands of everyone.

[Ovi]

Both are fairly worthless (http://www.onyxbits.de/content/blog/patrick/buying-gold-crisis-proof-investments-not-good-idea) as far as I'm concerned, so it doesn't matter.

Worthless? Last time I checked it was 30$/gram. So I should be free to do that?



This is more important, because the consequences of this behavior is death. The other person's freedom to live is more important than your freedom to say what you want, because the harm to them by limiting their freedom is much greater than the harm to you by limiting your freedom.

How about selling mc donalds burgers as healthy food? Is this a freedom?


Ah, but I'm not saying I'm taking away their enjoyment, only to replace it with suffering. It's just replacing their current enjoyment with another type of enjoyment - thus, why should it matter? It, in fact, is clearly better, because the enjoyment of doing things can have much more positive effects on society than merely the enjoyment of hoarding things or consuming natural resources.



You're missing the original point of this sub-thread: the point was that if 100% of the population were happy, it's better than if 99% or 51% are happy.

What's the difference between "organized mass communication" and "organized mass manipulation"? If you're also against "organized mass communication", then how are you going to convince people to stop advertising? If you're going to convince them by using "everyday communication", how is that different from "everyday manipulation"?

You know very well the difference between manipulation and communication since you mentioned the creation of consumerism.






In fact no, not in the sense you're thinking of any way. I merely advocate that union members show up at work, armed. Then merely assume democratic control of the company they already work at. Although they are armed, violence is not the intent - the weapons would only be there for self-defense - thus there would be no bloodshed unless the capitalist orders his minions to instigate bloodshed.

Again, I would not ban manipulation using force and violence but by using guns and killing those who don't agree :D. Violence is not the intent of course.


Indeed we should. The important question to ask about the hammer is: who has control of the hammer? The same is true of the media. Who has control? The goal is to take control away from the oppressive capitalist minority and place it in the hands of everyone.
I don't want people to manipulate other people (as their job!) the same way I don't want people to rule over other people.

[cyu]

Last time I checked it was 30$/gram.

Well, a $100 paper bill is worth $100 as well, isn't it? The point is that gold is not necessary to the functioning of an economy. If some politician or crook escaped with all the gold in your country's vaults (or planet's vaults), what has really been lost by your economy? All the real productive capacity of your country (or planet) remains: all the people are still there, all the machines are still there, all the land and raw materials are still there, all the technology is still there.


How about selling mc donalds burgers as healthy food? Is this a freedom?

Freedom for the advertiser, but not freedom for the advertisee. However, you're are basing your objection to advertising on the use of fraud. A so-called "radical" would look at the root of the problem - why is this person resorting to fraud in the first place? The answer is the problem of capitalism. If the company isn't able to sell product, then it may collapse and result in economic hardship for everyone involved in the company - thus they are almost "forced" to commit fraud.

The solution is to remove the coercion to commit fraud in the first place - that is, remove capitalism and remove consumerism. If anybody already knows they will live a comfortable life and isn't brainwashed to accumulate, then there shouldn't be a motivation to try to convince others that unhealthy food is healthy.


You know very well the difference between manipulation and communication since you mentioned the creation of consumerism.

I think we can both agree that manipulation is a subset of communication. However, which of these do you consider to be manipulation and which do you consider to not be manipulation?

1. Making false statements to bolster the point you're trying to make.

2. Hiding information in your possession so that it won't derail the point you're trying to make.

3. Making straw-man arguments to bolster the point you're trying to make.

4. Insulting your opponents while in the process of making a point.

5. Play to your audience's sense of pride, compassion, pity, wonder, or curiosity in order to make a point.

6. Play to your audience's sense of logic in order to make a point.


I would not ban manipulation using force and violence but by using guns and killing those who don't agree . Violence is not the intent of course.

You do realize this is a straw-man, don't you? My example was an example of self-defense. This is nothing of the sort.


I don't want people to manipulate other people (as their job!)

Would you say psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, and people who man suicide-helplines manipulate people as their job? If not, why not?

And how do you define job? Something that someone must do, or else not get any money? If that's the case, then there wouldn't even be "jobs" in the society motivated by activity advertising. Everyone would be paid regardless of whether they do anything or not - the actual motivation to do things would be determined by democratically controlled activity advertising.

[Ovi]

Well, a $100 paper bill is worth $100 as well, isn't it? The point is that gold is not necessary to the functioning of an economy. If some politician or crook escaped with all the gold in your country's vaults (or planet's vaults), what has really been lost by your economy? All the real productive capacity of your country (or planet) remains: all the people are still there, all the machines are still there, all the land and raw materials are still there, all the technology is still there.

I don't care about what gold means or crap. In the end authority, money and gold are what they are because we believe in them. We do today. Should I have that freedom?



Freedom for the advertiser, but not freedom for the advertisee. However, you're are basing your objection to advertising on the use of fraud. A so-called "radical" would look at the root of the problem - why is this person resorting to fraud in the first place? The answer is the problem of capitalism. If the company isn't able to sell product, then it may collapse and result in economic hardship for everyone involved in the company - thus they are almost "forced" to commit fraud.

The solution is to remove the coercion to commit fraud in the first place - that is, remove capitalism and remove consumerism. If anybody already knows they will live a comfortable life and isn't brainwashed to accumulate, then there shouldn't be a motivation to try to convince others that unhealthy food is healthy.

I don't care what causes it, why they do it or anything. Should I have the freedom to sell those burgers as healthy food or not? Is this a freedom or not?




I think we can both agree that manipulation is a subset of communication. However, which of these do you consider to be manipulation and which do you consider to not be manipulation?

1. Making false statements to bolster the point you're trying to make.

2. Hiding information in your possession so that it won't derail the point you're trying to make.

3. Making straw-man arguments to bolster the point you're trying to make.

4. Insulting your opponents while in the process of making a point.

5. Play to your audience's sense of pride, compassion, pity, wonder, or curiosity in order to make a point.

6. Play to your audience's sense of logic in order to make a point.

I'll stop calling it manipulation, because you'll always come up with stuff that has nothing to do with it. I'll call it propaganda. Be it state propaganda, comercial propaganda (ads), or "cleaning cow dung is fucking fun" propaganda.


You do realize this is a straw-man, don't you? My example was an example of self-defense. This is nothing of the sort.

Of course it is. I'm sick already of so much propaganda. I am defending myself from it.


Would you say psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, and people who man suicide-helplines manipulate people as their job? If not, why not?

And how do you define job? Something that someone must do, or else not get any money? If that's the case, then there wouldn't even be "jobs" in the society motivated by activity advertising. Everyone would be paid regardless of whether they do anything or not - the actual motivation to do things would be determined by democratically controlled activity advertising.
It's not about money or shrinks but about organized mass manipulation.

[cyu]

money and gold are what they are because we believe in them. We do today. Should I have that freedom?

Oh, you're certainly free to advertise that gold is valuable or that gardeners shouldn't water their plants. You are certainly free to fail if you want to. On the other hand, I will be encouraging people to abandon gold and suggesting that plants need water.


I don't care what causes it, why they do it or anything. Should I have the freedom to sell those burgers as healthy food or not? Is this a freedom or not?

It seems the question you're asking is one of the old misconceptions about anarchism: "If anarchists support freedom, then am I free to shoot anyone I want to?" From http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/decentralized+democracy

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.


Be it state propaganda, comercial propaganda (ads), or "cleaning cow dung is fucking fun" propaganda.

Isn't what you're engaging in right now also propaganda?


I'm sick already of so much propaganda. I am defending myself from it.

Well, if you're planning to shoot people for expressing themselves, I'm sure there are plenty that will shoot back.


It's not about money or shrinks but about organized mass manipulation.

So if there's funding for lots of suicide-helplines, you'll oppose it because it's organized mass manipulation? You'd only support it if there isn't lots of funding for it, or if it's very disorganized?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Uh, I read the whole thing, thanks... Enjoyed the pwning of neoclassical economics too. The Primitivist sounding language comes in on the "A History of "Progress"" section and contrast the warly history section with the latter sections.

At the very least theres deep ecology sympathy - isn't that a hallmark of primmie thought?

I would hope ALL leftists are ecologically/environmentally minded.

Honestly I don't know much about primitivism so I can't really disagree with you or not but I don't see the problem in working towards a more sustainable and environmentally friendly society. I see nothing wrong with criticizing the capitalist fantasy of "progress" either.

As for the grassroots capitalism thing, I find it odd that they would support such a thing (whatever it is) when they regularly publish anarchist, anti-capitalist and marxist pieces. There was a nice article on the Coming Insurrection/Tarnac 9 although to be fair there were a couple slams against marxism in the last issue as well but it's not really too surprising considering they have a fairly wide range of contributors and ideologies. I don't agree with everything they publish but it's still a good publication.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Could someone please tell me where I could get this latest issue of "Adbusters" (what is it a magazine)? do I have to get it online?I thought it was just a website like the consumerist. Is there a PDF i could download?

If you e-mail them and tell them you're an economics student at some college/university they might send you one for free. At least they were doing that before.

[Ovi]

Oh, you're certainly free to advertise that gold is valuable or that gardeners shouldn't water their plants. You are certainly free to fail if you want to. On the other hand, I will be encouraging people to abandon gold and suggesting that plants need water.



It seems the question you're asking is one of the old misconceptions about anarchism: "If anarchists support freedom, then am I free to shoot anyone I want to?" From http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/decentralized+democracy

There's an argument against democracy that claims it can lead to mob rule. One common quote is that "it's two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner". See also tyranny of the majority.

I know what freedom means, but you said that abolishing mass propaganda would be against freedom, which gave me the sense that abolishing anything to you seems to be against freedom (abolishing slavery, ads that lie etc).


There's a wide range of how much of the population gets to make the big decisions.

If only 1% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 99% may suffer.

If 51% of the population gets to make the decisions, then 49% may suffer. While 49% may suffer, this is not a valid argument to support allowing 1% to make the decisions, which would be even worse.

If you require that 100% agree before a decision is made, then nobody will suffer, but decision making becomes harder and harder.

There is an anarchist concept known as decentralized democracy. That means the more someone is affected by a decision, the more say he has in that decision. If a decision barely affects 99% of the people, then none of them get to vote. The decision to kill someone affects the victim more than anyone else, so the victim should have more say in the decision than everyone else. The decision over what you eat for lunch barely affects anybody else, so obviously you don't have the entire society voting on what you have for lunch. In cases like these, it becomes a democracy of one - thus anarchy.

Supporters of decentralized democracy would use their own power to protect the right of others to make the decisions that most affect them. For example, this includes protecting other peoples' lives, whether it's from government or non-government forces.

I agree.


Isn't what you're engaging in right now also propaganda?

It's about the millionth time I say that I am against organized mass manipulation. This isn't that.


Well, if you're planning to shoot people for expressing themselves, I'm sure there are plenty that will shoot back.

The same way the capitalists would fight back an uprising. That doesn't make it bad or good.


So if there's funding for lots of suicide-helplines, you'll oppose it because it's organized mass manipulation? You'd only support it if there isn't lots of funding for it, or if it's very disorganized?
Helping other people is good but I still won't support advertising. Believe me there were lots of ads of how beneficial work is for the 'building of the developed socialist country' and how we were "liberated" from the capitalists by the soviet army 20 years ago around here and the last thing I'd want is see it back alive. No thanks. We can build a better society without having to convince people through ads of how good work is or any other bullshit.

[cyu]

The same way the capitalists would fight back an uprising.
Either you have a democracy and the boss has one vote and the employees have all the other votes, or you have guns and the capitalist can maybe fire off a couple of shots before the rest of the employees gun him down.


It's about the millionth time I say that I am against organized mass manipulation. This isn't that.

So what is the difference? How do you define "organized" and how do you define "mass"? If 2 people decide to say the same thing to more than 1 person, does that count as "organized mass manipulation"? If 200 people decide to say the same thing to more than 1 thousand people, does that count as "organized mass manipulation"?



Believe me there were lots of ads of how beneficial work is for the 'building of the developed socialist country' and how we were "liberated" from the capitalists by the soviet army 20 years ago around here and the last thing I'd want is see it back alive.


It's only bad because your former government was authoritarian. Again, advertising is just a tool - either it can be controlled in an authoritarian manner, or the control can be distributed. The same is true of guns or hammers - either control of guns and hammers can be authoritarian or the control can be distributed.

Would you also say your society should ban all guns because your former authoritarian government used them against the people?

[Ovi]

Either you have a democracy and the boss has one vote and the employees have all the other votes, or you have guns and the capitalist can maybe fire off a couple of shots before the rest of the employees gun him down.

You do realise the odds of a non violent anarchist revolution are quite slim right? The boss has nothing to say in that.


So what is the difference? How do you define "organized" and how do you define "mass"? If 2 people decide to say the same thing to more than 1 person, does that count as "organized mass manipulation"? If 200 people decide to say the same thing to more than 1 thousand people, does that count as "organized mass manipulation"?

Organized is what you propose. I believe I can see very well the line between everyday communication and advertising. Can you confuse them?


It's only bad because your former government was authoritarian. Again, advertising is just a tool - either it can be controlled in an authoritarian manner, or the control can be distributed. The same is true of guns or hammers - either control of guns and hammers can be authoritarian or the control can be distributed.

Whether it's authoritarian or not, it's still the same dumb advertising!


Would you also say your society should ban all guns because your former authoritarian government used them against the people?
I would "ban" wage slavery not because the world of today uses it, but because I believe it should disappear. I would also "ban" ads not because they are common today, but because the last thing I'd want is to see them in a world we fought to create.

[cyu]

You do realise the odds of a non violent anarchist revolution are quite slim right?

There are different levels of violence, ranging from mass murder, to scattered reports of people shoving one another. The amount of violence involved in http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-take/ was relatively subdued compared to, say, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Excerpt from http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/bloodless+revolution

Non-Violent Occupations
In these occupations, employees assume democratic control over their places of work. If they are unmolested, then they carry on doing the work of the companies or organizations. However, because the companies are now controlled by different people, significant change may sweep the country. If they are attacked, either by police or hired thugs, those engaged in non-violence would either run, allow themselves to be arrested, or allow themselves to be beaten.

Takeovers with Self-Defence
This is similar to the non-violent scenario above, except that the revolutionaries are willing to use self-defence. As long as they are unmolested, they are virtually indistinguishable from the non-violent (except, perhaps, for the presence of weapons on the premises) - they merely carry on changing the behavior of the organizations they now control. However, when attacked, the "revolution" would no longer be bloodless. Thus it falls in the hands of the attackers to determine whether the revolution would be bloodless or not.



Organized is what you propose. I believe I can see very well the line between everyday communication and advertising. Can you confuse them?


You still haven't answered my questions. If 2 people say the same thing, is that "organized"? If it's 3 people, is it "organized"? How about 4? 5? 6? 7? At what point does it become "organized" in your opinion?



Whether it's authoritarian or not, it's still the same dumb advertising!


So if a bunch of non-authoritarians get together and try to convince people to do something to stop global warming, would you oppose it? Why or why not?


I would also "ban" ads not because they are common today, but because the last thing I'd want is to see them in a world we fought to create.

So do you consider advertising to be worse than guns? The purpose of guns is to force people to do things against their will - the purpose of advertising is to get people to choose to do something of their own free will. Which do you feel involves more freedom?

In any case, the only way you can get people to stop advertising is to use propaganda to convince them to stop, or to use guns to force them to stop. In either case, you are just violating the freedoms you supposedly support.

[Ovi]

There are different levels of violence, ranging from mass murder, to scattered reports of people shoving one another. The amount of violence involved in http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-take/ was relatively subdued compared to, say, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Excerpt from http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/bloodless+revolution

Non-Violent Occupations
In these occupations, employees assume democratic control over their places of work. If they are unmolested, then they carry on doing the work of the companies or organizations. However, because the companies are now controlled by different people, significant change may sweep the country. If they are attacked, either by police or hired thugs, those engaged in non-violence would either run, allow themselves to be arrested, or allow themselves to be beaten.

Takeovers with Self-Defence
This is similar to the non-violent scenario above, except that the revolutionaries are willing to use self-defence. As long as they are unmolested, they are virtually indistinguishable from the non-violent (except, perhaps, for the presence of weapons on the premises) - they merely carry on changing the behavior of the organizations they now control. However, when attacked, the "revolution" would no longer be bloodless. Thus it falls in the hands of the attackers to determine whether the revolution would be bloodless or not.

As I said it will be violent.


You still haven't answered my questions. If 2 people say the same thing, is that "organized"? If it's 3 people, is it "organized"? How about 4? 5? 6? 7? At what point does it become "organized" in your opinion?

It doesn't start nor end anywhere. There is a very distinct line between talking and advertising. You know it, I know it.


So if a bunch of non-authoritarians get together and try to convince people to do something to stop global warming, would you oppose it? Why or why not?

Stop global warming? That's the scam! That's the entire problem with advertising! You can't make people understand every shit in this world. That's why we live in a society, so we don't have to. I can use a pc without giving a shit about how it's made, whether it contains heavy metals or it produces toxic volatile compunds. Those who made the pc know better than I do. Again you won't be able to explain the physics of global warming to the vast majority of people. There needs to be understanding and cooperation. I don't need to know everything. Everyone does his part and we are all in a win-win situation.
That's the problem with market economy, the idea that there is such a thing as a rational consumer when there isn't. You can't expect most people to know that products containing sodium laureth sulfate also contains small ammounts of carcinogenic dioxane do you? Nor that the now banned lead gasoline it's extremely toxic to people and leads to birth defects? Most people will not know these things not because they are secret (they aren't) but because you can't expect all the people to know everything. Nobody can. But without knowing these things you can't make a rational decision, so in the end advertising means only to scam people.
We don't have to advertise pollution as wrong. We all know it is. And scientists and engineers can do much more about that (such as designing more energy efficient systems) than most can. Just let everyone do what they can do best.


So do you consider advertising to be worse than guns? The purpose of guns is to force people to do things against their will - the purpose of advertising is to get people to choose to do something of their own free will. Which do you feel involves more freedom?

We use guns to defend ourselves from the ruling minority. If you want to use ads against the minority that enslaves us too, fine. But not against me you're not.


In any case, the only way you can get people to stop advertising is to use propaganda to convince them to stop, or to use guns to force them to stop. In either case, you are just violating the freedoms you supposedly support.
As a slave owner would say, abolishing slavery means taking away my freedom to own slaves.

[cyu]

As I said it will be violent.


Depends on the stupidity of the capitalists, doesn't it? If there's one boss surrounded by thousands of employees willing to use self-defense, there would only be violence if the boss were stupid.



There is a very distinct line between talking and advertising... We don't have to advertise pollution as wrong. We all know it is.


OK, let's replace the word "advertising" with "education" then. Somebody doesn't know carbon-dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so you don't "advertise" that it's a greenhouse gas, you "educate" them that it's a greenhouse gas. Somebody doesn't know there's a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path, so you don't "advertise" that there's a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path, you "educate" them that there's a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path.

What's the difference?


If you want to use ads against the minority that enslaves us too, fine. But not against me you're not.

So what are you going to do if you see someone putting up a poster or telling people about a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path? Shoot her?

[Ovi]

Depends on the stupidity of the capitalists, doesn't it? If there's one boss surrounded by thousands of employees willing to use self-defense, there would only be violence if the boss were stupid.

We won't be fighting with bosses. They don't fight. They give orders to others to fight with us. In the end the more we are ready for a revolution, the least violent it is.



OK, let's replace the word "advertising" with "education" then. Somebody doesn't know carbon-dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so you don't "advertise" that it's a greenhouse gas, you "educate" them that it's a greenhouse gas. Somebody doesn't know there's a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path, so you don't "advertise" that there's a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path, you "educate" them that there's a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path.

What's the difference?

You can't educate people with ads, you can only control them! That's the difference. As I said already there is no way you can teach all people of what a greenhouse gas is; it would be impossibile and I don't see any reason we would even need to. The whole idea of ads is to make people want something they know absolutely nothing about. I propose we let those who know what they're talking about do what they can do best.



So what are you going to do if you see someone putting up a poster or telling people about a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path? Shoot her?
Don't change the subject again. You propose manipulation remember


How can you possibly make that enjoyable?

It's just a matter of studying psychology and then applying what you learned. You wouldn't say the study of psychology is useless, would you? If it's not useless, then you can apply what you've learned to the advertising business.

How else do you think consumerism is created in capitalist societies, if not by the hiring of psychologists by advertising firms?

[cyu]

They don't fight. They give orders to others to fight with us

Indeed - the same process of convincing others to support leftist movements can be used on the minions of the capitalists. For example, if they hire private security firms, then spread anarcho-syndicalism there - it's not like those firms aren't structured like any other corporate dictatorship, with employees doing all the fighting and the dying, and their top executives raking in the profits resulting from their fighting and dying.


You can't educate people with ads, you can only control them! That's the difference. As I said already there is no way you can teach all people of what a greenhouse gas is

Why not? Maybe not in a 5 second spot, but you could certainly do it in a half-hour show and probably shorter... One purpose of education / propaganda is to remove opposition or gain support for something - say there's a group of people who absolutely refuse to stop doing something harmful to the environment. If there is already no oppostion / plenty of support for something, then obviously you wouldn't need education / propaganda at all.


The whole idea of ads is to make people want something they know absolutely nothing about. I propose we let those who know what they're talking about do what they can do best.

So you prefer a country where almost nobody is educated except for a small minority who decide what's best for everyone else?


Don't change the subject again. You propose manipulation remember

Since you refuse to define manipulation / advertising and I claim there's no real distinction between mainpulation / advertising and "communication" I am just giving you examples of what I consider to be "advertising" / "education" / "manipulation" - apparently you don't agree this counts as advertising, but I'm sure you'll still refuse to explain why it doesn't count.

One of the aspects of "manipulation" in this example is the advertising of single young people involved. Of course, we all know that sex sells in the advertising world. In this example, it is actually a chance for the 20-year-olds to get together to socialize as part of the activity. Just using one of the primal human motivations (the one to mate) to manipulate people into helping out one another. Maybe I'm using words that sound too cynical to you - if you don't like the words I'm using, simply replace the word "manipulate" with "convince" - would that make you happier?

[Ovi]

Why not? Maybe not in a 5 second spot, but you could certainly do it in a half-hour show and probably shorter... One purpose of education / propaganda is to remove opposition or gain support for something - say there's a group of people who absolutely refuse to stop doing something harmful to the environment. If there is already no oppostion / plenty of support for something, then obviously you wouldn't need education / propaganda at all.



So you prefer a country where almost nobody is educated except for a small minority who decide what's best for everyone else?

Again, you don't educate people through ads! You only convince them that you are right, without the extensive time it would need to actually teach them something (like in a university). Let those who know do their job, don't waste your time trying to convice people of something you'll never bother to explain!


Since you refuse to define manipulation / advertising and I claim there's no real distinction between mainpulation / advertising and "communication" I am just giving you examples of what I consider to be "advertising" / "education" / "manipulation" - apparently you don't agree this counts as advertising, but I'm sure you'll still refuse to explain why it doesn't count.

One of the aspects of "manipulation" in this example is the advertising of single young people involved. Of course, we all know that sex sells in the advertising world. In this example, it is actually a chance for the 20-year-olds to get together to socialize as part of the activity. Just using one of the primal human motivations (the one to mate) to manipulate people into helping out one another. Maybe I'm using words that sound too cynical to you - if you don't like the words I'm using, simply replace the word "manipulate" with "convince" - would that make you happier?
No.

[cyu]

the extensive time it would need to actually teach them something (like in a university).

So if you show up in a lecture, it's education and not advertising? What if you filmed the lecture and put it on TV? Is that education or advertising? What if you edited the lecture down to a 30 second spot and only played the key points the professor was trying to make? Is that education or advertising?



Let those who know do their job, don't waste your time trying to convice people of something you'll never bother to explain!



So if some people are doing something that you believe is harmful to the environment, but they can't imagine how it could possibly harm the environment, how do you get them to stop doing what they are doing? Shoot them?



No.


So do you still consider that example non-manipulation? When I merely said "someone putting up a poster or telling people about a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path" you didn't consider that manipulation. However, after I added the fact that it is "using one of the primal human motivations (the one to mate) to manipulate people into helping out one another" have you changed your mind?

[Ovi]

So if you show up in a lecture, it's education and not advertising? What if you filmed the lecture and put it on TV? Is that education or advertising? What if you edited the lecture down to a 30 second spot and only played the key points the professor was trying to make? Is that education or advertising?

Now you can't see the difference between education at an university and advertising? Do you think you could educate people about quantum physics in a 30 second spot? Put all the lectures on tv? Ok. Do it. Put ALL lectures about EVERYTHING you could think of on tv and expect to educate ALL the people about everything. That's why I said advertising doesn't educate anyone and thinking you can educate everyone about everything is silly.



So if some people are doing something that you believe is harmful to the environment, but they can't imagine how it could possibly harm the environment, how do you get them to stop doing what they are doing? Shoot them?

No, we close the factory or implement a better solution. If a plant releases aniline into the environment I think those who know what aniline is have something to say about that.

Plus what can stop the manufacturer from advertising about how aniline is non toxic and how dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous :laugh: ? And if there are more people that support the plant (maybe because they already convinced people of how they are necessay and their activity harmless) than those who don't (and want to implement a different, cleaner solution) that means they will have far more ads than us. That worked great!


So do you still consider that example non-manipulation? When I merely said "someone putting up a poster or telling people about a bunch of single 20-year-olds getting together to build a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path" you didn't consider that manipulation. However, after I added the fact that it is "using one of the primal human motivations (the one to mate) to manipulate people into helping out one another" have you changed your mind?
Why do you think that is the motivation? If I would enroll into something like this, the main reason would be to help those who are in need. If I wanted to date someone I would go to the beach, in the clubs....anywhere but a shop to build wheelchairs!

[cyu]

Do you think you could educate people about quantum physics in a 30 second spot?

Nope, but nobody needs to know about quantum physics to decide on political policy or modify their behavior. The greenhouse effect, on the other hand, is much easier. Do you know what the greenhouse effect is? If so, is it because you took graduate level classes on it? Is that how everyone else learns what the greenhouse effect is? Clearly there's a difference between deep understanding and surface understanding - but as far as recognizing that things need to change to avoid making the greenhouse effect worse, only a surface understanding is needed. Heck, there's even a Simpsons episode explaining that.


If I wanted to date someone I would go to the beach, in the clubs....anywhere but a shop to build wheelchairs!

What is the supposed "primary" activity at the beach? Either swimming or tanning. What is the supposed "primary" activity at a club? Either dancing or drinking. Neither is directly tied to dating. They're just activities that happen to be associated with finding attractive people. There's nothing intrinsically special about these acitivities that can't be replicated in other activities.


Plus what can stop the manufacturer from advertising about how aniline is non toxic and how dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous

This only happens when there's a profit motive. What I'm talking about, obviously, is what happens post-capitalism. If there's no financial benefit to lying about what you're doing, why even bother doing it? Let me repost the entire article that was only excerpted at http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1504004&postcount=3

1.Promote democracy in the workplace - employees are free to vote on a differentiated pay structure, if that's what they want.

2.Now that workplace democracy is the norm, start promoting equal pay - this isn't to say you're forcing it on everyone - instead, it's kind of like forming a new party in a new democracy, where this new party is promoting the concept of equal pay.

3.Replace product advertising with job advertising. Again, you're not forcing people to no longer advertise their products - you try to convince them instead. Point out the harm (psychological, environmental, etc) to society caused by product advertising versus the increased motivation as a result of job advertising. It's like teaching gardeners to water their plants - you don't force them to water their plants, you're just telling them that watering their plants is a better idea than not watering their plants.

So how long will it be between steps 1 and 3? Months, years, decades? It's hard to predict, but the point is to begin the path.

The main reason I endorse equal pay for unequal work is described here: Demand is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money (http://everything2.com/title/Demand+is+not+measured+in+units+of+people%252C+it+ is+measured+in+units+of+money)

How would an economy and incentives work without pay differences?

Market Economics without Capitalism

The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people there is no contradiction with socialism. -Mikhail Gorbachev

Was Gorbachev contradicting the basic assumptions of socialism? I don't see a fundamental contradiction.

Consider this: Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary - regardless of whether you're a child, an engineer, retired, or whatever (yes, people in more difficult jobs may get more "respect" than other jobs, but that's just social conditioning and not related to their salaries). They then spend that money in a market to buy what they want / need. Market pricing still determines prices.

Here's the rub: instead of higher profits going to the producers, the extra money going into those industries just means there is more demand for those products and services. So the money is used to pay new producers in those industries, thus increasing supply - and everyone still has the same monthly salary.

As long as everyone has an equal salary, that is similar to economic democracy. Everyone has an equal amount of "votes" as to what to produce next. The concept of a salary is no longer a "reward" for work, but as just a method used so that everyone can help determine what goods and services are valuable.

The Demotivation of External Rewards

There are plenty of psychological studies that show "rewarding" work results in people liking the work less, and focusing on only the reward as their goal:

There was an experiment documented in Elliot Aronson's The Social Animal - some people were divided into two groups. In one group, the people were paid to do a certain activity. In the other group, the people were not paid to do the activity, but instead the organizers emphasized things like how much fun the activity was. At the end of the experiment, the people who were paid were much less likely to have found the activity enjoyable and would only do it again if they were paid again. The others were more likely to do the activity again of their own accord.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm also documents how giving someone a "reward" for work ultimately results in the person liking the job less and only going after the reward.

There is also this from http://bookoutlines.pbwiki.com/Predictably-Irrational

Ariely then ran another experiment. He read from "Leaves of Grass," and then asked his students the following:

•1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to pay Ariely $10 for a 10-minute poetry recitation
•1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to listen to a 10-minute poetry recitation if Ariely paid them $10

•The students who were asked if they were willing to pay offered $1 for a short reading, $2 for a medium reading, and $3 for a long reading.
•The students who were asked if they'd accept pay demanded $1.30 for a short reading, $2.70 for a medium reading, and $4.80 for a long reading.

Q: What is going to keep you getting out of bed at 6:30 AM other than the idea of bettering yourself and your family?

Depending on the job: the feeling of satisfaction of doing something important, the joy of doing something you've been brainwashed to love, bettering yourself & family by bettering society at the same time.

Q: One could imagine societies developing a social stigma against lazy workers, but it's even easier to imagine organizations without.

There isn't a stigma against not going on a rollercoaster. Well actually, you might get some ribbing from your peers that you're chicken. In any case, how do marketers get you to ride a rollercoaster? It's just one activity among millions of others - why is this one so desirable that you'd actually want to pay to do it, instead of having to be paid to do it? The marketer is basically emphasizing how much fun the activity itself will be - not what result or reward you'd get afterwards.

There is a danger in promoting the process too much though. Let's say you've basically been brainwashed to enjoy churning butter the traditional way. What if a new method comes along that is more efficient? Well, then those who are in charge of "marketing" in the butter industry will have to switch to promoting this new method instead, and leave the old method for you to do in your "leisure" (less important) time.

Q: Most of us ride a rollercoaster once in a while, but (most of us) would be bored if we did it all the time.

Yet people do things like read / argue on the internet day in and day out, or play a MMORPG day in and day out. You could argue that these activities are different in that they involve something different every day. Yet jobs could be tailored in the same way. Just apply the same product / marketing principles to the job itself. If you write software, you may be satisfied solving the same problems every day, simply because it makes you feel good to be the expert in your area. However, if that bores you, then you could branch out into other areas, or help out a peer who is swamped. If you work on an assembly line, you could easily move around to other parts of the assembly line if the learning curve isn't steep. You could even spend days outside of your "normal" job – maybe planting trees in a park or whatever the job advertisers are promoting that week.

There was a movie director that stated all great films are about either death or sex. Another director replied that he had to add money to his list. The first director responded that money is only used to avoid the first and get the second. I would add another thing to the use of money: to get pride – whether it's to buy status symbols, or simply to hold and be able to say you have a large amount of it. The thing with death and sex is that they are fairly absolute – death is death and sex is sex in every culture. Pride on the other hand is much more malleable. Different cultures (and subcultures) are proud of different things. Humans can take an active role in changing culture in any direction (which is basically what advertising and marketing is).

In today's system, you convince people to work by offering them money. You convince them to want money by advertising goods they can buy. Without product advertising, would people still want those goods (or money) as much? What then is the purpose of it all? To create a "desire" that wouldn't have existed otherwise, so you can fill that desire – it seems to me to just be a system of creating unnecessary work. Now before you make the argument that advertising isn't all that effective in getting people to buy what they don't want, consider this: why spend so much effort on advertising? It supports all of network television – million dollar salaries for the cast of Friends. Companies wouldn't spend so much if it didn't work. If advertising is just informative, then why spend all that money on slick ads? Why not just a simple, boring blurb about your product? The answer, of course, is that "boring" doesn't sell.

Replacing Product Advertising

So let's turn this around. Instead of trying to convince people to want things they don't want, instead convince them to want to do things that actually need doing. Seems like a much more direct method to me and a much better use of the skills of our great advertisers.

Instead of running ads that say, "I want this product" - they could be ads that say, "I want to work on a version of this product that will go down in history" - or "I want to work with some of the most exciting people in this field" - or "I want to learn the intricacies and possibilities of this product design."

What makes me think this kind of advertising would work?

As long as the advertising is controlled democratically, then the electorate already knows how important these jobs are. Thus, they already have the motivation to get these things done. The only real question is, are they able to make these activities sound enjoyable. To that end, they just need to employ the same psychological tools that product advertisers have been honing for years.

I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you'd see for the jobs supported by that organization.

If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

As long as people see value in doing something, they are free to support advertising for that kind of activity. Sports, for example, are good for people's health, and, in cases like swimming, can save lives. However, if some other activity could not only provide exercise, but also help out other people at the same time (for example, building a wheelchair accessible trail along a scenic mountain path), then I could easily see more people gravitating toward promoting that other activity.

[Ovi]

Nope, but nobody needs to know about quantum physics to decide on political policy or modify their behavior. The greenhouse effect, on the other hand, is much easier. Do you know what the greenhouse effect is? If so, is it because you took graduate level classes on it? Is that how everyone else learns what the greenhouse effect is? Clearly there's a difference between deep understanding and surface understanding - but as far as recognizing that things need to change to avoid making the greenhouse effect worse, only a surface understanding is needed. Heck, there's even a Simpsons episode explaining that.

That's the problem my friend: 'surface' understanding doesn't explain shit. This whole global warming thing is doing a favour to the entire oil and petrochemical industry by making people believe that the only problem we got or at least the greatest we got is global warming, which is only scam. Next a scientist (read puppet paid by oil billionaire) comes along and presents his proof of how anthropic global warming is nonexistant, thus there are no problems in this world (they forgot about oil spills, smog, groundwater contamination and air pollution near petrochemical plants...and of course about poverty, child labour and others). What are now people going to believe? They certainly have no idea as to whether we are responsable for global warming, they don't know what wavelengths of the EM spectrum carbon dioxide absorbs and they certainly can't calculate the effects. So this whole understanding is a joke; As I said you don't educate them at all, you only try to convince them that you are right without them ever understanding the subject.

In the end, they'll never really know whether you are right or wrong, so why even bother? So they agree with you? Of course they do, you convinced them! But that doesn't make true or false, good or bad. All it means is that you convinced someone of something they know nothing about. If you can do something then just do it!



What is the supposed "primary" activity at the beach? Either swimming or tanning. What is the supposed "primary" activity at a club? Either dancing or drinking. Neither is directly tied to dating. They're just activities that happen to be associated with finding attractive people. There's nothing intrinsically special about these acitivities that can't be replicated in other activities.

They are social activities. So it is to build a wheelchair accessible trail. But all I'm saying is that by seeing that ad, the first thing I'd think isn't to enroll in order to get laid. :lol: What if older people want to enroll? They'll be forbiden?


This only happens when there's a profit motive. What I'm talking about, obviously, is what happens post-capitalism. If there's no financial benefit to lying about what you're doing, why even bother doing it?

Didn't you mention that we should convince people that moving cow dung is fun?


Let me repost the entire article that was only excerpted at http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1504004&postcount=3

1.Promote democracy in the workplace - employees are free to vote on a differentiated pay structure, if that's what they want.

2.Now that workplace democracy is the norm, start promoting equal pay - this isn't to say you're forcing it on everyone - instead, it's kind of like forming a new party in a new democracy, where this new party is promoting the concept of equal pay.

3.Replace product advertising with job advertising. Again, you're not forcing people to no longer advertise their products - you try to convince them instead. Point out the harm (psychological, environmental, etc) to society caused by product advertising versus the increased motivation as a result of job advertising. It's like teaching gardeners to water their plants - you don't force them to water their plants, you're just telling them that watering their plants is a better idea than not watering their plants.

So how long will it be between steps 1 and 3? Months, years, decades? It's hard to predict, but the point is to begin the path.

Thanks for that. But I still see no reason why we should display ads that convince people to water their plants. If they like having plants or they sometimes work in agriculture that is an essential knowledge that they already know. If they don't, why should they care?

[cyu]

you only try to convince them that you are right without them ever understanding the subject... you convinced them! But that doesn't make true or false, good or bad. All it means is that you convinced someone of something they know nothing about.

So would you try to convince them or not? If you don't convince them, how do you get them to stop polluting against their will? Shoot them or threaten to shoot them?


But all I'm saying is that by seeing that ad, the first thing I'd think isn't to enroll in order to get laid. What if older people want to enroll? They'll be forbiden?

No ad campaign works the first time anybody sees the ad - it's just a process that builds. How do people get the idea they can find attractive people at dance clubs? Either it's by advertising or by word of mouth - the same can be achieved by advertising just about any other activity. If you do it long enough, you change the culture.

As far as old people enrolling, personally I'd say it's a restriction of freedom if you don't let anyone in - but freedom of association should of course also allow anybody there to ignore anybody they want. I don't see how it would be worse than today's clubs, in which the doormen decide who enters or who is rejected.


Didn't you mention that we should convince people that moving cow dung is fun?

If the general electorate believes that this activity is important and fulfills an important role in the economy, then yes, it's certainly possible. I don't see how that is related to why any company would pretend its products are safe when there is no profit motive in doing so.


If they like having plants or they sometimes work in agriculture that is an essential knowledge that they already know. If they don't, why should they care?

How do they get the "essential knowledge"? What you call education, I call advertising. What you call advertising, I call education. It's just semantics. Until you provide a clear and convincing distinction between what you consider education and advertising, I'll continue to call both the same thing.

[Ovi]

So would you try to convince them or not? If you don't convince them, how do you get them to stop polluting against their will? Shoot them or threaten to shoot them?

You don't tell them to stop polluting, or convince them that pollution is bad for wasps. What good is that for? You need better machines, better chemical reactors that are made not to pollute. Those who design them surely know far more about that than most do.

And what makes you think that ads made by the majority are 'good' ads? Take pollution again. If most didn't knew anything about it, that means a minority would have to convince them what it means. What makes you think that minority has good intentions? What if they work in a huge factory that dumps wastes in a river because it means less work (with the same technology)? They could just as well deny any pollution criticism and monopolize with their own belief that pollution is good.


If the general electorate believes that this activity is important and fulfills an important role in the economy, then yes, it's certainly possible. I don't see how that is related to why any company would pretend its products are safe when there is no profit motive in doing so.

So it's perfectly normal to use any advertising tactics to convince people, even lying. Ok, I got the idea.


How do they get the "essential knowledge"? What you call education, I call advertising. What you call advertising, I call education. It's just semantics. Until you provide a clear and convincing distinction between what you consider education and advertising, I'll continue to call both the same thing.
That's just stubberness. As I already said, you can call yourself educated if you know the thing you're supposed to know, not just think that you do (e.g. advertising).

[Pogue]

I bought it yesterday and read most of it. Its interesting but its a bit dull that every article keeps going on about 'classical economics'. Its also got a really rubbish view on capitalism with alot of focus on 'dropping out'. Interesting though.

[cyu]

Those who design them surely know far more about that than most do.

Says who? You? While I may agree, how can you be sure others will? What if two different groups come up with different designs? How do you judge which is better without "propaganda / education / adveritising / debate"?


And what makes you think that ads made by the majority are 'good' ads?

There is no better alternative. If you can come up with a better one, I'd love to hear it.

You certainly can't have 51% of the electorate determining 100% of the communication. That's just tyranny of the majority.

If you have anything less than 50% controlling 100% of the communication, that's minority rule, which is even worse.

Thus the only thing remaining is proportional control of communication: if 30% support something, 45% oppose it, and 25% want to hear more discussion about it, then 30% of the programming will be produced by supporters, 45% by opponents, and 25% will be produced by those who want to hear more discussion.


What makes you think that minority has good intentions? What if they work in a huge factory that dumps wastes in a river because it means less work (with the same technology)?

Again, we're talking about two entirely different scenarios. You're talking about the capitalist environment - in which the factory has a profit motive - and I'm talking about a post-capitalist environment, in which the factory has no profit motive - there isn't even a motive to do "less work" because the employees are there voluntarily - if they didn't like doing "more work" they wouldn't be there at all; they would instead be at home watching TV or surfing the internet. Reread this again: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531489&postcount=53


So it's perfectly normal to use any advertising tactics to convince people, even lying.

You and I both know that's a straw man. Regardless of whether you think lying is "moral" or not, there is an inherent weakness in lying: while it may work if your "marks" believe you, if word ever leaks out that you were lying, then all your efforts will have gone to waste, because your "marks" would more likely than not be even more against your propaganda than before you started.

It would in fact be much more effective if you were honest that you were trying to brainwash them - but just doing it so well that they don't care. In fact, if they were the electorate themselves that voted on a self-brainwashing program, it would be a completely different story. Say everyone were suffering from PTSD or a phobia of eating and they voted on a program that would make their PTSD or their phobia of eating to go away, you don't think they'd support that?

You might draw an analogy to using violence / slavery to motivate people: even if it works for a while, as long as the oppressor / slave master is in power, if you ever lose power, your slaves are obviously not going to work for you again. In fact, trying to force someone (or even convince someone) with external motivations (such as violence or bribes) works like reverse psychology - they may do what you want in the short term, but in their minds, it creates a connection between doing the activity and something negative: you're actually convincing them to dislike the acitivity, since their only rationalization for doing it is either to avoid pain or get the reward. On the other hand, if you "brainwash" an internal motivation into them (such as how ads try to get people to have an internal desire to visit amusement parks), then the activity becomes "intrinsically rewarding" - reverse psychology can also work the same way: by punishing someone for doing something, you often just make them want to do it more - even if they don't actually do it for fear of punishment.



you can call yourself educated if you know the thing you're supposed to know, not just think that you do (e.g. advertising).


There are certainly a lot of people that "think" they are educated, but are merely brainwashed, wouldn't you agree? For example, all the followers of Keynes, Friedman, and Mises.

[Ovi]

Says who? You? While I may agree, how can you be sure others will? What if two different groups come up with different designs? How do you judge which is better without "propaganda / education / adveritising / debate"?

As you said, there is no profit motive, thus the better one can be chosed objectively.



There is no better alternative. If you can come up with a better one, I'd love to hear it.

You certainly can't have 51% of the electorate determining 100% of the communication. That's just tyranny of the majority.

If you have anything less than 50% controlling 100% of the communication, that's minority rule, which is even worse.

Thus the only thing remaining is proportional control of communication: if 30% support something, 45% oppose it, and 25% want to hear more discussion about it, then 30% of the programming will be produced by supporters, 45% by opponents, and 25% will be produced by those who want to hear more discussion.


So the best thing we got is to trick people of what is good and what is bad? If there are 2 groups that produce 2 different designs, how will advertising choose the best one?


Again, we're talking about two entirely different scenarios. You're talking about the capitalist environment - in which the factory has a profit motive - and I'm talking about a post-capitalist environment, in which the factory has no profit motive - there isn't even a motive to do "less work" because the employees are there voluntarily - if they didn't like doing "more work" they wouldn't be there at all; they would instead be at home watching TV or surfing the internet. Reread this again: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531489&postcount=53



You and I both know that's a straw man. Regardless of whether you think lying is "moral" or not, there is an inherent weakness in lying: while it may work if your "marks" believe you, if word ever leaks out that you were lying, then all your efforts will have gone to waste, because your "marks" would more likely than not be even more against your propaganda than before you started.

Not really. The only way to make believe that you are lying in your ads is to make ads that say just that. Many know margarine is harmful, but how much do we know about it? There are loads of ads that claim it's healthy for children (I've seen them). But if the truth already leaked out, why do people still buy it and feed their children with it?



There are certainly a lot of people that "think" they are educated, but are merely brainwashed, wouldn't you agree? For example, all the followers of Keynes, Friedman, and Mises.
Still, you can't be educated by watching ads.

[cyu]

there is no profit motive, thus the better one can be chosed objectively.


I don't see how the profit motive comes into play. Sure, sometimes it does, but not always. For example, currently you and I are having a disagreement. There is no profit motive for either of us in this debate - yet we use what I would consider "propaganda" to make our points. Even if you believe a legitimate choice could be made using "objective" criteria, how would you communicate this decision to everyone else? You can only do that by communicating the decision combined with the criteria you used - you may not consider that advertising or propaganda, but I would.


So the best thing we got is to trick people of what is good and what is bad?

How do you define "trick"? If nothing in the message is a lie, is it still "tricking"?


If there are 2 groups that produce 2 different designs, how will advertising choose the best one?

Do you even understand anarchism? One of the points of decentralization is that if 2 groups of people want to do things in different ways, they go off and each does things their own way. It is only when one group's actions have negative effects on the other group, that the other group has the right to affect the first group's actions - but if you believe in decentralized democracy, the say of any individual is proportional to how much the decision would hurt him.



Many know margarine is harmful, but how much do we know about it? There are loads of ads that claim it's healthy for children (I've seen them). But if the truth already leaked out, why do people still buy it and feed their children with it?



Read this again: 'we're talking about two entirely different scenarios. You're talking about the capitalist environment - in which the factory has a profit motive - and I'm talking about a post-capitalist environment, in which the factory has no profit motive - there isn't even a motive to do "less work" because the employees are there voluntarily - if they didn't like doing "more work" they wouldn't be there at all; they would instead be at home watching TV or surfing the internet. Reread this again: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531489&postcount=53 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531489&postcount=53) '



you can't be educated by watching ads.


This is just dogma - you have no evidence for that statement that can't easily be disproved. It does depend on your definition of "ad" though. What does "ad" mean to you? How about a 15 or 30 second message shown during the middle of a TV program - that's an "ad" right? Say there's a forest fire 50 miles from where you live, and in the middle of a TV program, they broadcast a 15 second message saying there's a forest fire in such-and-such a place. You can't learn something from that?

Say they broadcast a message saying that a bunch of people are getting together to build a wheel-chair accessible path along a scenic mountain path, at such-and-such a time, at such-and-such a place - you didn't learn something from that?

[Ovi]

Do you even understand anarchism? One of the points of decentralization is that if 2 groups of people want to do things in different ways, they go off and each does things their own way. It is only when one group's actions have negative effects on the other group, that the other group has the right to affect the first group's actions - but if you believe in decentralized democracy, the say of any individual is proportional to how much the decision would hurt him.


Says who? You? While I may agree, how can you be sure others will? What if two different groups come up with different designs? How do you judge which is better without "propaganda / education / adveritising / debate"?

You said that you can't choose the best one without ads. Tell me how ads help.


Read this again: 'we're talking about two entirely different scenarios. You're talking about the capitalist environment - in which the factory has a profit motive - and I'm talking about a post-capitalist environment, in which the factory has no profit motive - there isn't even a motive to do "less work" because the employees are there voluntarily - if they didn't like doing "more work" they wouldn't be there at all; they would instead be at home watching TV or surfing the internet. Reread this again: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531489&postcount=53 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1531489&postcount=53) '



This is just dogma - you have no evidence for that statement that can't easily be disproved. It does depend on your definition of "ad" though. What does "ad" mean to you? How about a 15 or 30 second message shown during the middle of a TV program - that's an "ad" right? Say there's a forest fire 50 miles from where you live, and in the middle of a TV program, they broadcast a 15 second message saying there's a forest fire in such-and-such a place. You can't learn something from that?

Learn what? It's just news. Most people still won't know what fire is. What did they learn?

I do understand your point, that people need to be convinced to do stuff, otherwise they won't do it or won't work that well, without a profit motive. It's fine with me. I believe it's not necessary and, like money, advertising is an oppressive tool of capitalism and nothing more. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not, but I do know there's little reason for such a long thread.

[cyu]

You said that you can't choose the best one without ads. Tell me how ads help.

If there is disagreement, how would you settle it? If it's just between 2 people, then they can talk to each other in person or over the phone. However, if the disagreement is between 2 large groups, then the communication between them will basically have to be broadcast. What would you call this type of broadcast communication? I have no qualms about calling it advertising or propaganda, but you seem to be put off by the negative connotations of using those words.


Learn what? It's just news.

Are you claiming that you can't learn anything from news? What exactly does "learning" mean to you anyway? If education isn't being made aware of something you didn't know before, then what is education?


I believe it's not necessary

Air conditioning isn't necessary everywhere either, but it can certainly make things better in many instances.


advertising is an oppressive tool of capitalism and nothing more

Again, that's just dogma without any backing arguments. Are guns an oppressive tool of capitalism? Well, they certainly could be if the guns were controlled by capitalists. However, guns are just a tool. If they weren't controlled by capitalists, then they wouldn't be an oppressive tool of capitalism.

[Ovi]

Are you claiming that you can't learn anything from news? What exactly does "learning" mean to you anyway? If education isn't being made aware of something you didn't know before, then what is education?

Education is not news, it's understanding.


Air conditioning isn't necessary everywhere either, but it can certainly make things better in many instances.

Shooting yourself in your foot ain't necessary either. And air conditioning is useless in almost all casses. A well designed passive house wouldn't need it.


Again, that's just dogma without any backing arguments. Are guns an oppressive tool of capitalism? Well, they certainly could be if the guns were controlled by capitalists. However, guns are just a tool. If they weren't controlled by capitalists, then they wouldn't be an oppressive tool of capitalism.
Guns aren't, but bosses are and they should be abolished. You consider ads to be like guns, I consider them to be like bosses: always useless and oppressive.

[cyu]

Education is not news, it's understanding.

Sounds like empty rhetoric to me. If a news report tells you there's a fire buring in such-and-such a place, or people building a wheel chair accessible trail at such-and-such a place, that's not making you understand anything? If it doesn't make you understand that there's a fire burning, then you must be pretty stupid.



A well designed passive house wouldn't need it.



I could simply change the analogy to say: "A well designed passive house isn't necessary everywhere either, but it can certainly make things better in many instances." What would you have to say then?



Guns aren't, but bosses are and they should be abolished. You consider ads to be like guns, I consider them to be like bosses: always useless and oppressive.


How are ads like bosses and not guns? Bosses control themselves. Guns don't, ads don't. Guns can be controlled by everyone in society, ads can be controlled by everyone in society. Different groups of people can use guns in different ways, different groups of people can use ads in different ways.

If ads are useless and oppressive, why not guns?

[Ovi]

Sounds like empty rhetoric to me. If a news report tells you there's a fire buring in such-and-such a place, or people building a wheel chair accessible trail at such-and-such a place, that's not making you understand anything? If it doesn't make you understand that there's a fire burning, then you must be pretty stupid.



I could simply change the analogy to say: "A well designed passive house isn't necessary everywhere either, but it can certainly make things better in many instances." What would you have to say then?

Ads are not like passive houses, they're like air conditioning. :lol:



How are ads like bosses and not guns? Bosses control themselves. Guns don't, ads don't. Guns can be controlled by everyone in society, ads can be controlled by everyone in society. Different groups of people can use guns in different ways, different groups of people can use ads in different ways.

If ads are useless and oppressive, why not guns?
Because guns can be usefull. Bosses are never usefull.
Still, how do ads solve problems? If there's a disagreement, how will manipulating people into thinking what you want lead to easier and better decision making? Those who control more people win?

[The Something]

This thread is like watching tennis. Back and forth.....

[cyu]

Still, how do ads solve problems? If there's a disagreement, how will manipulating people into thinking what you want lead to easier and better decision making? Those who control more people win?
What if I ask you the same about guns? If there's a disagreement, how will shooting people or threatening to shoot them lead to easier and better decision making? Those who control more guns win?

The point of ads is that it is a step down from guns. I don't see how you can think guns are acceptable while ads are not. Guns are clearly more extreme.

Since I fully accept guns, then it would be stupid not to accept more moderate things like ads as well.

[cyu]

This thread is like watching tennis. Back and forth.....


Off topic, but...
http://imgur.com/tzJWT.jpg