Should a socialist economy produce cosmetics (beauty products)?

[getfiscal]

I am wondering what your opinions are about beauty products within a socialist society. Should they be mass produced and available for consumers? Or should society place barriers in front of their use, or discourage them in some way? Do you personally oppose beauty products as somehow intrinsically sexist, or only within capitalist patriarchy?

[Lobotomy]

Cosmetic products are not inherently wrong. Every person, male and female, would probably look better with a small amount of makeup, because no person is without flaws. It is of course sexist that society currently expects women to use cosmetic products, but not men. But that's not a good reason to ban cosmetics altogether.

[The Young Pioneer]

Can we ban dresses, too? That shit rides up like nothing else.

[daft punk]

I think that would be up to the women to decide. Obviously we would nationalise the big companies and some of the probably make cosmetics. Some is made small scale though and wouldnt get nationalised. Put it this way, some Marxist women wear makeup, some dont, some just wear a bit, some just wear in occasionally. My guess is if it changes it would be gradual. It's not a big deal.

There is nothing wrong with it as such, in my opinion.

[Wubbaz]

In socialism, production is based on democracy. If people want pineapples, thumb tacks, belts or cosmetic products, we will decide that we'll produce that. So yeah, it kind of comes down to personal opinion and to be honest, people can eat, smoke, drink or put whatever stuff in their face they want, as long as they don't limit my ability to do what I'd like to do. :)

[Igor]

I think that would be up to the women to decide.

Why just women? I'm male and I do use cosmetics, as do increasingly many other men.

[getfiscal]

Obviously we would nationalise the big companies and some of the probably make cosmetics. Some is made small scale though and wouldnt get nationalised.
So the CWI supports a mixed market economy?

[The Stalinator]

Can we ban dresses, too? That shit rides up like nothing else.

NO

[Le Rouge]

If a girl wants to wear a dress or put makeup, it's her choice not your. Why ban dresses? A communist society is supposed to be free. People will wear what they like, and not what the fucking party says.

"Let's ban pants too!!! They are so sexists. I mean, they were designed for men. :O "

[getfiscal]

If a girl wants to wear a dress or put makeup, it's her choice not your.What about elective plastic surgery? For example, if a woman wanted breast implants, should they get a free surgery from society? Should they have to pay?

[RevSpetsnaz]

While i think true beauty is without makeup i see nothing wrong with it.

[NewLeft]

What about elective plastic surgery? For example, if a woman wanted breast implants, should they get a free surgery from society? Should they have to pay?

Yes, with their time. :rolleyes:

[daft punk]

So the CWI supports a mixed market economy?

No but you cant nationalise every fish and chip shop on day one. We would take over the top 200 companies, plus anything deemed bad. After that, any private company would have to start paying decent wages and if they threatened redundancies their books would be opened and if necessary they would be nationalised. After that, more stuff would be gradually nationalised depending what it is. It would take maybe 30 -50 years or more til most small stuff was nationalised.

It would be a transition economy not a mixed one.

[Le Rouge]

What about elective plastic surgery? For example, if a woman wanted breast implants, should they get a free surgery from society? Should they have to pay?

It Depends on the kind of society.


Let's ban tv too!!! jk

[getfiscal]

It would be a transition economy not a mixed one.An economy that combines state-owned enterprises and a wide range of private enterprises competing on a market is a mixed market economy. It is also not a planned economy, in any real sense, because resources are being allocated by price decisions set by private actors (however much these prices and firms might be regulated).

[Rafiq]

Oh great, more Utopianism/Idealism. As if it fucking matters.

[getfiscal]

Oh great, more Utopianism/Idealism. As if it fucking matters.
I think ridiculing debates over makeup and such are part of a sexist agenda to trivialize women's choices. For example, during the health care debates there was a push for a tax on plastic surgery as a "vanity" measure, as if women's beauty choices are silly and frivolous.

[NoMasters]

I doubt it. However, if we didn't have corporations forcing us to believe what beauty is, "beauty" products would change dramatically.

Beauty is the goodness within a person...

[Ocean Seal]

Yes, all day everyday.
Its not wrong for the everyday average proletarian to have a luxury or two.
That's pretty much it.
I don't wear beauty products but I like other things, so I'll go with the answer all day everyday.

[gorillafuck]

of course cosmetics should be made. why would they not be made?


Oh great, more Utopianism/Idealism. As if it fucking matters.how is this question "idealism"?:confused:

[The Jay]

All that I have to say on the matter is that, while I have no use for them, cosmetics should not be banned, since people will most likely want them; however, hopefully the culture will no longer put pressure on women to use them.

[Rafiq]

of course cosmetics should be made. why would they not be made?

how is this question "idealism"?:confused:

To think that a descision over something so.... Mediocre... Will occur before a post revolution implies human consent has some kind of an authority over material conditions that do not exist and have not manifested themselves for us to adjust (making these descisions).

[getfiscal]

To think that a descision over something so.... Mediocre...
The beauty industry is one of the largest industries in the world. I would suggest that finding this a "mediocre" issue comes from sexism.

[Rafiq]

The beauty industry is one of the largest industries in the world. I would suggest that finding this a "mediocre" issue comes from sexism.

Why do you assume I'm a sexist? Go on, spit it out you pile of frozen piss. I think I can guess.

[gorillafuck]

To think that a descision over something so.... Mediocre... Will occur before a post revolution implies human consent has some kind of an authority over material conditions that do not exist and have not manifested themselves for us to adjust (making these descisions).the question is about a developed post revolutionary society, I think.

[getfiscal]

Why do you assume I'm a sexist? Go on, spit it out you pile of frozen piss. I think I can guess.
I think denigrating gendered consumption is a symptom of sexism but I did not call you sexist. Dismissing cosmetics as something trivial that we'll figure out later is similar to saying that, say, women's work in the home isn't a socialist issue.

[Ostrinski]

No, they shouldn't be banned. They will probably be used less and less as patriarchal social relations wither away.

[Strannik]

General rule, I think, is that a socialist economy should produce whatever the people want. The question is - what happens if its a commodity that people want but that can be produced only in a manner that damages the environment (for example)? What if sum of individual wishes is damaging the long-term social interest?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah, let's put the anti-sex brigade in charge of making sure women don't wear paint on their faces. Brilliant fucking idea. Woohoo to abstinence for paving the way to glorious fucking feminism, under the guidance of the dear party led by the omni-intelligent BB.

Fucking shit on a bed and call me incontinent, this is an idiotic, anti-liberation, anti-feminist, chauvinist kind of idea. Shall we fucking ban 6 packs on men, then?:rolleyes:

[Rafiq]

the question is about a developed post revolutionary society, I think.

Which is why it's idealist

[MarxSchmarx]

This shouldn't be seen as a woman's issue. Under capitalism yes women purchase the vast majority of cosmetics (and Venezuela famously has the highest per-capita cosmetic consumption as well), but this is almost entirely due to the gender roles capitalism fosters.

What is at stake is the principle of being able to control how your face looks, and on this point women aren't alone - men grow different facial hair, for example

What is not at all clear is that the demand for cosmetics won't be equal across the sexes once capitalist-imposed gender norms are removed or even mitigated. I would be surprised if, after a generation, the demand for cosmetics would be so lopsided. Thus in thinking of a post-capitalist society, we shouldn't see this as a gender issue.

Indeed, why not refuse to produce scissors and razors, so that men have to grow out their beards? And only one kind of woman's clothes should be manufactured - the kind which covers them head to toe in a bag with a little slit for their eyes.

[Brosip Tito]

It'll be a decision made by the workers' councils.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This shouldn't be seen as a woman's issue. Under capitalism yes women purchase the vast majority of cosmetics (and Venezuela famously has the highest per-capita cosmetic consumption as well), but this is almost entirely due to the gender roles capitalism fosters.

What is at stake is the principle of being able to control how your face looks, and on this point women aren't alone - men grow different facial hair, for example

What is not at all clear is that the demand for cosmetics won't be equal across the sexes once capitalist-imposed gender norms are removed or even mitigated. I would be surprised if, after a generation, the demand for cosmetics would be so lopsided. Thus in thinking of a post-capitalist society, we shouldn't see this as a gender issue.

Indeed, why not refuse to produce scissors and razors, so that men have to grow out their beards? And only one kind of woman's clothes should be manufactured - the kind which covers them head to toe in a bag with a little slit for their eyes.

Folks, cosmetics as an industry is more than just chemicals used for facial looks. It's also as basic as cutting one's head hair and nails.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Since women workers will want cosmetics a workers state will produce cosmetics for their use. Shouldn't this decision be made by the workers, including working women rather than by bureaucratic planners?

[NewLeft]

Since women workers will want cosmetics a workers state will produce cosmetics for their use. Shouldn't this decision be made by the workers, including working women rather than by bureaucratic planners?

No, this is not strictly a women's issue. It's a whoever wears cosmetics issue.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Point well taken. I was born back in the 1950s and during my formative years internalized certain notions, among which is the identification of cosmetics with women. Mea culpa. Mea culpa maxima. Of course men who use cosmetics should be equally empowered in this decision-making process. I was focusing upon what is IMO still a vital point, that production must be for the use of the working class as decided democratically by the workers. The socialist/communist movement has been set back a generation due to the imposition of barracks socialism upon the workers of countries that underwent a revolutionary process. If we are to ever regain the trust of the working class, we must assure them that future revolutions will bring about true workers' democracy, not the rule of a "vanguard" party.

[Polyphonic Foxes]

Oh great, more Utopianism/Idealism. As if it fucking matters.


Why exactly is it idealistic to disscuss make-up?

I can't really think of a reason, I suspect you were just trolling and racking up the rep points.

[RedAtheist]

Make-up is a symptom of a bigger problem, the obsession with beauty. Make-up does not free women to look they way they want to look. It's a way for them to look the way society wants them to look. It's a 'choice' that they are pressured into by capitalist society, given the amount of judgement they receive for having flaws. It serves the interests of the capitalist class for them to receive this kind of judgement, since they make a ridiculous amount of profit from women's desire to be 'beautiful'. This kind of judgement should be condemned in a socialist society.

Real freedom means being able to walk around looking as flawed as one wants without being despised for it and having people appreciate you and form relationships with you based on your personality.

I hope that at some point in the future, appearance will no longer be an issue and people simply won't notice each other's physical flaws (just like how I hope people won't pay attention to race in the future society), but I recognise that this will take time.

In the early days of socialism we shouldn't force women to endure the judgment that comes from having obvious physical flaws (any more than we should force gays to come out of the closet), but we should do all we can to discourage this judgemental attitude. I try to criticise people any time they attack another person for their appearance and I think a socialist government should do this on a larger scale (e.g. launch campaigns in school against those who think that having the wrong appearance somehow makes one 'inferior'.)

P.S. Making men feel like crap about their physical flaws and telling them to wear make-up and obsess over their appearance too, is not a solution. Our goal should not be to create a world where everybody is equally oppressed, but to create a world where no one is oppressed. Telling people to hate their natural body for no reason other than that society disapproves of it, is oppressive.

[Rafiq]

It'll be a decision made by the workers' councils.

Neither Zizek nor I agree.

[Rafiq]

Why exactly is it idealistic to disscuss make-up?

I can't really think of a reason, I suspect you were just trolling and racking up the rep points.

A post revolutionary society will develop material conditions beyond itself, furthering the constraint of capitalist society. It will be us who will have to adjust to those conditions, not the other way around.

To speculate as to whether make up will be produced under socialism is Idealist in that it implies we have an understanding of the complexities of post revolutionary societies, we are, in the end, speculating about socialism within the constraint of the capitalist mode of production, and therefore lack the capabilities to think beyond that. Matter before thought means something more than what it appears to the eye as.

Material conditions manifested carry a potential beyond themselves, beyond understanding, and occur regardless of human consent. Communism is not our end goal, it's not the end of some kind of a maze. The process of overthrowing bourgeois society is communism. The result of that is completely unknown to anyone.

To believe material conditions are going to adjust to your ideas are absurd. First, let socialism exist, and then decide on such mediocre subjects.

Do you have any Idea of how ridiculous it would be for the under-developed bourgeoisie living in Feudalism to speculate as to whether jewelry will exist once they get their beloved Liberty? No, they were simply in pursuit of for filling their interest as a class in feudalism, and the result of that was largely unknown to them. They had a concrete set of demands, their beloved Markets, their Bourgeois Freedom, their Liberty. The result of these demands is unknown.

In this sense, communism is not comparable to capitalism, in that, as capitalism was something only after being set into place was labeled capitalism. Remember, material conditions precede ideology, precede thought, etc.

Socialism, Communism, in themselves are comparable (as well as opposed to) to, say, Bourgeois-Libertarianism, Liberalism, etc. Not capitalism.

Actually, 20th century communism itself was merely a different form of capitalism, and a different means of expressing the rule of capital.

[The Stalinator]

Make-up is a symptom of a bigger problem, the obsession with beauty. Make-up does not free women to look they way they want to look. It's a way for them to look the way society wants them to look. It's a 'choice' that they are pressured into by capitalist society, given the amount of judgement they receive for having flaws. It serves the interests of the capitalist class for them to receive this kind of judgement, since they make a ridiculous amount of profit from women's desire to be 'beautiful'. This kind of judgement should be condemned in a socialist society.

Are you kidding me? I wear makeup maybe once a week. I wear makeup because it's fun to put on, it gives me a different look, and it finishes off a good outfit well. I don't wear makeup the way people tell me to -- I wear makeup the way I want to whether people like it or not. I have people give me shit about my favourite way to wear makeup all the time, saying it's "too bold". I don't give a shit, I think it looks great.

Don't you think it's a bit sexist to assume that all women are so weak to other peoples' closed-minded opinions that the only reason they dress up or use cosmetics is for other peoples' acceptance?

[Die Neue Zeit]

It'll be a decision made by the workers' councils.Neither Zizek nor I agree.

Don't forget comrades Cockshott, Macnair, and myself.

[Lanky Wanker]

The solution here is education/understanding, not banning/restriction. Cosmetics wouldn't be half the problem they are currently if we didn't keep raping women's self-esteem with this "U GOT 2 WEAR MAKE UP *****1!!!" crap. Women don't wear make up because they're naturally unattractive, they're naturally unattractive because they wear make up.

That said, there is a nice side to make up which The Stalinator mentioned. Make up is a great thing if it's used in the right way (for self-expression/body art).

[artanis17]

Out of topic a bit but...High heels should be banned... Not healthy, noisy, when a woman friend of me have those they disturb me because she loses flexibility I don't like watching her back if she ll fall or not...

[kuros]

Make-up is a symptom of a bigger problem, the obsession with beauty. Make-up does not free women to look they way they want to look. It's a way for them to look the way society wants them to look. It's a 'choice' that they are pressured into by capitalist society, given the amount of judgement they receive for having flaws. It serves the interests of the capitalist class for them to receive this kind of judgement, since they make a ridiculous amount of profit from women's desire to be 'beautiful'. This kind of judgement should be condemned in a socialist society.

Real freedom means being able to walk around looking as flawed as one wants without being despised for it and having people appreciate you and form relationships with you based on your personality.
I dont think a lot of people want to form romantic relationships based purely on personality, i know i dont.

[9]

Out of topic a bit but...High heels should be banned... Not healthy, noisy, when a woman friend of me have those they disturb me because she loses flexibility I don't like watching her back if she ll fall or not...

:rolleyes:

lol this thread

[bcbm]

In the early days of socialism we shouldn't force women to endure the judgment that comes from having obvious physical flaws . . .

P.S. Making men feel like crap about their physical flaws and telling them to wear make-up and obsess over their appearance too, is not a solution.

what are 'obvious physical flaws?'


i'll also say i think it is likely cosmetics will exist in whatever future 'revolutionary' society you want to imagine. people have been adorning their bodies with makeup for at least 30,000 years

[gorillafuck]

I think we're all missing the most important question, which is: will people in a socialist society produce ankle bracelets?

I for one think ankle bracelets are a symptom of capitalist society intended to cause people to feel social pressure to buy ankle bracelets.

discuss.

[9]

I personally dislike ankle bracelets, so I think they should be banned so dumb *****es wont wear them. IMO.

[gorillafuck]

I personally dislike ankle bracelets, so I think they should be banned so dumb *****es wont wear them. IMO.ban for sexism

[Red Noob]

Bourgeoisie love beauty culture, you know, thrive to look perfect, meet our incredibly high standards, portray everyone on TV as perfect, the kind of stuff that affects culture in a negative way. Yea, I'd like to see that gone personally. But that's just me.

[Sasha]

To godwin this thread:


An extract from the diary of Lieutenant Colonel Mervin Willett Gonin DSO who was
among the first British soldiers to liberate Bergen-Belsen in 1945.

I can give no adequate description of the Horror Camp in which my men and myself were to spend the next month of our lives. It was just a barren wilderness, as bare as a chicken run. Corpses lay everywhere, some in huge piles, sometimes they lay singly or in pairs where they had fallen. It took a little time to get used to seeing men women and children collapse as you walked by them and to restrain oneself from going to their assistance. One had to get used early to the idea that the individual just did not count. One knew that five hundred a day were dying and that five hundred a day were going on dying for weeks before anything we could do would have the slightest effect. It was, however, not easy to watch a child choking to death from diptheria when you knew a tracheotomy and nursing would save it, one saw women drowning in their own vomit because they were too weak to turn over, and men eating worms as they clutched a half loaf of bread purely because they had to eat worms to live and now could scarcely tell the difference. Piles of corpses, naked and obscene, with a woman too weak to stand proping herself against them as she cooked the food we had given her over an open fire; men and women crouching down just anywhere in the open relieving themselves of the dysentary which was scouring their bowels, a woman standing stark naked washing herself with some issue soap in water from a tank in which the remains of a child floated. It was shortly after the British Red Cross arrived, though it may have no connection, that a very large quantity of lipstick arrived. This was not at all what we men wanted, we were screaming for hundreds and thousands of other things and I don't know who asked for lipstick. I wish so much that I could discover who did it, it was the action of genius, sheer unadulterated brilliance. I believe nothing did more for these internees than the lipstick. Women lay in bed with no sheets and no nightie but with scarlet red lips, you saw them wandering about with nothing but a blanket over their shoulders, but with scarlet red lips. I saw a woman dead on the post mortem table and clutched in her hand was a piece of lipstick. At last someone had done something to make them individuals again, they were someone, no longer merely the number tatooed on the arm. At last they could take an interest in their appearance. That lipstick started to give them back their humanity.

Source: Imperial War museum/banksy manifesto

[Tenka]

Out of topic a bit but...High heels should be banned... Not healthy, noisy, when a woman friend of me have those they disturb me because she loses flexibility I don't like watching her back if she ll fall or not...
High heels are good if the heels are thick. I got some a few years ago and it took me only about an hour to be able to walk fine in them. The really thin heels seem dangerous, though.
Anyway, any talk of banning any petty cosmetic thing that's not a real public health concern, that some people will go on using regardless of the existence of patriarchy, is bound to be problematic when not simply ridiculous.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Out of topic a bit but...High heels should be banned... Not healthy, noisy, when a woman friend of me have those they disturb me because she loses flexibility I don't like watching her back if she ll fall or not...

I think you'll find at least 50% of the population will disagree with you there.

Why do Marxists think it's okay to talk of 'banning this' and 'banning that' all the time? It's like some of you have swallowed Capitalist propaganda for breakfast and have projected onto yourselves the ideas of authoritarian anti-democracy. Crazy.

[Psy]

High heels are good if the heels are thick. I got some a few years ago and it took me only about an hour to be able to walk fine in them. The really thin heels seem dangerous, though.

Yet high heels serve no function and just causes design complications, thus wasting engineers to design new high heels is a waste of talent as you'd get better results sticking with a form follows function approach and adhering to the KISS (keep it simple stupid) rule of design.



Anyway, any talk of banning any petty cosmetic thing that's not a real public health concern, that some people will go on using regardless of the existence of patriarchy, is bound to be problematic when not simply ridiculous.
Yhea but from a planning of production standpoint there would be issues of wasted resources on items that don't really perform much function for their labor cost. I.E throwing the R&D of the cosmetic industry towards developing better cleaning solvents for industry.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

These things shouldn't be banned. But a socialist society should do a better job of ensuring that such things do not become socially compulsory as they are in all societies today. It's only a problem when women feel that they are more valued as human beings if they have red nails, or that men have a smart suit. Who cares? Let people wear what they want, we will judge them on their actions and deeds not their presentation. Makeup and fancy clothes should be manufactured as long as there are men and women alike who feel the desire to make themselves more attractive.

A more interesting question is non-reconstructive cosmetic surgery (at least that which does not involve body/gender identity issues). There is little or no social utility and it usually acts to reinforce the social value of certain body types. There's a legitimate question as to whether social resources should be spent giving those out (perhaps in a socialist economy there would be good-natured plastic surgeons who do it for free :P)

[Paul Cockshott]

tend to think such surgery is culturally enforced seld harm little better than foot or skull binding.

[Black_Rose]

Bourgeoisie love beauty culture, you know, thrive to look perfect, meet our incredibly high standards, portray everyone on TV as perfect, the kind of stuff that affects culture in a negative way. Yea, I'd like to see that gone personally. But that's just me.

Most men on television have few blemishes on their faces for instance. In contrast, the close ups of the faces of MLB pitchers (who don't have to worry about their appearance with the exception of their uniforms) have some pigmented sports.