Resisting Burgeoise Temptations [Archive]

Forward Union

11th October 2004, 16:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 10:42 AM
Enigma you have given me the answers but not the reason behind your decision

Why you don't want a ferrari?

Why you dont wish you were born rich ?

Why is your decision to not aspire for such burgeoise items more right
than the millions who dream to own these items and be rich one day?
I can't answer for Enigma, but the reason I don't want material possessions, Cars, Clothes accessories etc.. is because such things bring me no happiness. I would rather Draw, talk with my friends, hang out in the woods or fields, enjoy the scenery.

I don't let the pressures of fashion, appearance and material gain weigh down my mental freedom.

Eddie999

11th October 2004, 19:22

Material possessions are not important in life, they are not needed to be happy. Next time you are thinking of buying designer clothes remember that they were probably produced in a windowless, airless sweatshop by a child working a 12 hour shift just so they can survive.

It is the fault of the media and of advertising that so many people are so materialistic. They think that they need expensive possessions to be 'somebody' and they use them to measure their own self worth.

I recommend you watch the film 'Fight Club' as there are some excellent scenes in there all about material possessions, advertising, western society etc (also the group in the film are anarchists.)

RedAnarchist

11th October 2004, 19:39

You're born naked, you die naked.

Those who need materials to enjoy life really do need to re-think their lifestyle.

comrade_mufasa

11th October 2004, 20:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 05:22 AM
Are you not tempted to own a ferrari,a gucci bag,clavin klein clothes etc ?
Ferraris are Italian trash. I will keep my eye on the nessian skyline, a real car. Plus running fast gets me more excited then pressing the gas petal of a farrari and yes I have driven one. I'm a man so what will I do with a Gucci bag unless its a backbag then it will be thrown around, dropped in trash cans to hide evidince form police "I don't have spray paint on me", and blood from fights so no I wouldn't pay large amounts of money for a gucci bag. Clavin Klein is for people who don't like real clothes like Dickies.

Its not that I can't afford those things becouse I could steal everthing but the Farrari, and thats only becouse I'm to sceard to steal a car, its becouse I don't need them to live happy.

XYZYX

11th October 2004, 21:14

I mean, I like to look nice, but I don't waste a whole lot of money on clothes. As far as the other items, really I think that the money needed to buy those could be a lot better spent if you have that kind of money.

Osman Ghazi

12th October 2004, 12:29

You sound like a christian fundamentalist.

More like a Hindu fundamentalist, I'm sure.

DaCuBaN

12th October 2004, 13:47

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 12 2004, 12:29 PM

More like a Hindu fundamentalist, I'm sure.
the word, is 'nut'

Read Scepticism Inc, damnit!

Professor Moneybags

12th October 2004, 13:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 06:39 PM
You're born naked, you die naked.

Those who need materials to enjoy life really do need to re-think their lifestyle.
I'll remember that next time you start whining about starving Africans and workers "not getting paid enough".

DaCuBaN

12th October 2004, 13:59

I'll remember that next time you start whining about starving Africans and workers "not getting paid enough".

Enjoying life is not synonymous with survival, as you seem to suggest.

Scott M

12th October 2004, 14:34

this comes into human nature....survival of the fittest....everyone has this primal instinct to be better than their fellow commrades....however, you cannot do this simply by owning a more expensive materialistic possession than the next man...

why is it that this post even exists?!?! who cares if someone owns a Gucci bag, or a fucking Ralph Lauren designer watch....it achieves nothing but ego....

if i had the opportunity to either splash out on this bogus material trash you're going on about or preserve it then no prizes for guessing the answers. We can resist these temptations through the concept of freedom. I have the freedom of pressure groups forcing me to keep up with society.

why dont i want a ferrari? im also an environmentalist and id rather walk. Besides, even if i do use a car, if it gets me from a to b im happy....why do you WANT a ferrari? simple, it improves your social standing and you feel you can say you're better than the next guy, and that my friend is nothing more than an egotistical ideology.

why cant we just enjoy the fine pleasures in life such as beautiful scenery, freedom to roam, freedom to speak and freedom to learn...

scott

DaCuBaN

12th October 2004, 15:49

everyone has this primal instinct to be better than their fellow commrades

I don't <_< Why would I want to make my 'fellow man' feel envious of me? Invert this, and perhaps you have something: Noone wants to feel lesser than the next; Equality :)

why do you WANT a ferrari? simple, it improves your social standing and you feel you can say you're better than the next guy

A sweeping generalisation, although I'm sure it's valid in some cases. What must be remembered about something such as a ferrari, is that it's a thrill-seekers delight. I can only take it you've never tried to control a motor vehicle at 130mph+...

Suffice to say, it's "fun" :D

Ferrari started off it's life making engines, and moved into race cars - ergo, it is not 'brands' that we should fear, but the entire apparatus that surrounds it: Marketing.

Just don't be a sucker ;)

Invader Zim

12th October 2004, 16:09

Fashonable and expensive items bring me no pleasure.

I like to be able to get good use out of an item, not just own it because it has some expensive label.

I am perpaired to spend money, I live in a capitalist society, and I wont live as a hermit, and if I want something and I have the money and its practical and not extravagant I may consider getting it. For example I did spend money on a newish graphics card, a Raedon 9600 pro. But I got that not for the image, like the objects you described, but for the practicality of it. I needed a new graphics card, my old one I over clocked a bit... and it never worked properly again. So I got a new one, I wasn't going to spend a minimum of £300 of a Geforce 6800 or some other monster of a card. Instead I payed a fraction of that and got a card which does everything I need of it.

I dont know if thats what you were talking about, but no I dont want some ridiculously expensive item for the sheer hell of it.

cubist

12th October 2004, 19:07

Well to start of with I want to ask leftist people a few things

How do you combat burgeoise temptations?

Are you not tempted to own a ferrari,a gucci bag,clavin klein clothes etc ?
These are expensive things but the pleasure you get on pressing the accelator of a ferrari is unmeasurable

the power of a hurricane is greater than a ferrari and i don't want one of them, as is a nuclear bomb,

the point is revolution india as much as nice clothes and ferraris are important to people, where does it getthem, the people that respect those that bare the symbols of materialism are shallow, vain, leechlike and back stabbers out fo rthemselves and no one else your back is only covered whilst you serve a purpose. i don't need those people around me i don't want those people

If not why is it because you don't want one or is it that you can't afford?
Why you dont want one of these luxury items?

now i may not be able to afford a ferrari, but calvin klien i most definately can, unfortunately the shit that the media dictates as fashion is not my style, i would rather buy a pair of £9.00 skate jeans from tk maxx and eat better meals and pay of my debts,

Why do you want them? where will they get you will you fell better when shallow people look up to you?

Is it that
because you can't afford it you fool yourself into thinking you don't want it?

NO, is it that silly people like you rank them too highly to realise your being parted with your money by people who are better at monopolsing on peoples weaknesses than yourself.

But at the bottom of your heart you just wish you were born rich like paris hilton?

no i would rather be the bloke in the porn video :)

why wish for what you are not, why wish to be someone who doesn't know what life is, i am very happy being unjealous, i feel fulfilled with my life and the situations i have no choice but to face

Life is very tough especially when you live in burgeoise society
There are so many attractions and temptations no life in the third world is hard i though you of all people would understand that,

Sometimes I have seocnd thought about changing the world

Its depressing at times to think that we have chosen to fight
poverty,inequality and injustice
when you could have lived your life enjoying the finer things that are at offer

its depressing that you doubt the antibourgoise ideals, oh wait your restricted for a reason
LIFE is a fine enpough thing, items of material value change with the wind, be happy with what you got and help others understand that the most important possession in life is life.

Morever the people living around who have chosen to go the other way
are always there tempting you backwards with each step we take forward

speak for yourself every time i see a poser i think TWAT, a material girl i think shallow whore

One last question
Why is equality such a virtue that we should fight for it and die for it?
Why can't we just accept and live in a unequal world like everyone else
It would simplify life a lot

how is being oppressed a simple life, how is working on a coffee farm not knowing if you can feed yourself tonight let alone your 5 kids, 2 of which have aids.

whats simple for the 9 year boy working 14 hours A DAY TO FEED HIS BABY SISTERS AFTER THEY WERE KILLED FROM A DREADFUL AIDS EPADEMIC.

YOU MAKE ME SICK

It is so much easier to live in a capitalist,consumerist world
than stand up against it

I AM SURE THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF STARVING AND DYING PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO DISAGREE BUT THEY HAVE NO CHOICE

The Garbage Disposal Unit

12th October 2004, 20:46

Hmmm . . .

Within the context of the current society, bourgeoisie goods aren't tempting, particularly, because I can't fucking afford them.

However, considering in a greater context, what in particular makes any of the goods, silly brand names excluded, inherently bourgeoisie? After the revolution, there's no reason why comfy jeans, snaazy kicks, good eats, etc. can't be produced by the people at large for their own consumption. Just because the bureaucrat bores that ran the Soviet Union were too busy stockpiling arms to manufacture lava lamps, doesn't mean that lava lamps will be abolished after a revolution. Fuck, if I don't get freedom, equality, and a motherfucking lava lamp, I want no part in yr revolution!

Sod sacrifice!

_______________________
(Which parts am I serious about? *Dum-dum-duuuum . .. *)

tcip

12th October 2004, 23:01

NovelGentry

12th October 2004, 23:13

What will happen to those kids if you put them out of business?

Maybe they'll have time to grow their own food and eat better. I suppose lots of things could happen to them... needless to say, it's better to starve to death as a free human being than to starve to death as the tool of another.

tcip

12th October 2004, 23:19

Maybe they'll have time to grow their own food and eat better.

Why don't they?

I suppose lots of things could happen to them... needless to say, it's better to starve to death as a free human being than to starve to death as the tool of another.

I think in this sentence you tacitly say what is going to happen to them.

And they disagree with your preference every day at the punch card.

Vinny Rafarino

13th October 2004, 02:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:13 PM

Maybe they'll have time to grow their own food and eat better. I suppose lots of things could happen to them... needless to say, it's better to starve to death as a free human being than to starve to death as the tool of another.
Starving to death is NEVER a viable option.

If you are presented with the fact that you may indeed "starve to death", you must rise up and take what you require from those that have a surplus by any means necessary.

If the ruling elite fails to provide even the most basic of human needs, then they must be removed from the position that makes this possible.

In other words, execute them and distribute their surplus value to those that need it to survive.

revolutionindia

13th October 2004, 05:06

...

Vinny Rafarino

13th October 2004, 05:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 06:39 PM
You're born naked, you die naked.

Those who need materials to enjoy life really do need to re-think their lifestyle.
Why exactly is that?

Do you think that a communsit society will suddenly decide to do away with all material possessions?

If you do then you have confused what Communism is really about.

We DO NOT wish to remove material possession.

We DO NOT wish to remove individuality.

We DO NOT wish everyone to "share" everything.

We DO NOT wish to live in "communal housing".

We DO NOT wish to socially regress into neo-primativism.

What we DO WANT is is to socially, intellectually and technologically PROGRESS, that includes materialistically.

We want to create a society that is free of class distinctions yet is as comfortable and ENTERTAINING as a modern society should be.

Never mind, some of you will just never get it.

I recommend you watch the film 'Fight Club' as there are some excellent scenes in there all about material possessions, advertising, western society etc (also the group in the film are anarchists.)

I agree.

This film can teach you what we SHOULD NOT do.

BuyOurEverything

13th October 2004, 06:10

Thank you RAF. I find it rather pathetic that every time someone such as RI makes a post regarding material goods, everyone clamours to prove how 'communist' they truly are. "I don't want a Ferrari" "I don't want nice clothes" "Hell I don't even need clothes!" "Oh ya? Well I don't even need food motherfucker, I can eat my own shit!" If you think communism is about running around naked in the forest eating berries, I'd take a hard look at why you're a communist in the first place and not a religious fundamentalist or a cult member.

apathy maybe

13th October 2004, 07:09

In today's society I don't see the need for crap. The reason? It holds me down. The less stuff I have, the freer I am (to a point). Also, it is not just about people. The more crap you have, the more crap is taken from the environment. Now I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a polluted shit hole.

Also why do you want to have higher status then someone else? It is probably because of the way you were brought up. I was brought up not to want to "be better" then someone else. Sure when I was younger I did want to control other people, but I realise now that people are people, not toys.

(Also please don't use the word "we" as if all communists / anarchists / political opinionists agree with what you say.)

Guest1

13th October 2004, 07:09

One thing though, fight club is not an Anarchist group. There is clearly a leader and they have very little of a political goal.

As for having stuff, wanting to be comfortable and keep the technological and cultural advancements of thousands of years of human history does not mean wanting to be "better" than everyone else. When the means of production are brought into the control of the workers, it will be simple to live with "from each according to their abilities, to each according their needs" while providing a bit of wants as well for everyone, and working towards more sustainable growth. The technology is there, and will be advanced, to "green" our revolution too. We don't have to kill ourselves to do it.

And the we is a generalization that is pretty accurate, and refers to at least 95% of all real radical socialists (marxists, anarchists, etc...). Primitivists are not a serious political movement and never will be.

apathy maybe

13th October 2004, 07:44

Yes, primitivism is not a serious movement. But I wasn't talking about them. Sure most leftists would agree with what RAF said, but a lot of other stuff that he has said, I sure as hell disagree with. For example "from each, to each" is a good idea, but I don't like it. I think it takes freedom away, so to say that all anarchists (I accept that to communists this is a fundamental part of their ideology) agree with this is incorrect.

And yes technology is a good thing, if used correctly. But unfortunately in the hands of capitalists, technology is used quite often in a bad way.
To "green" our revolution there would be two ways, use technology right, or become primitivist. I'ld rather the first one.

Danton

13th October 2004, 07:49

Assuming that this time of great abundance follows any "revolution",then it follows that the community will be in surplus and we will all drive ferrari's and wear velour tracksuits, we will be tanned and toned and the very streets will be paved with gold...

apathy maybe

13th October 2004, 08:01

Reminds me of some graffiti I saw in a book.
come the revolution we'll all drive Rolls Royces
what if we don't want to?
come the revolution you won't have any choice

Not that I agree with this. Why do you need a car that drives at 200KM an hour? Or a computer that is more powerful then a 486 if all you want to do is word processing and Internet browsing?

RedAnarchist

13th October 2004, 09:48

RAF, your namesake is Prada-Meinhof! Do you know what bourgoise trigger-happy maniac means?

Yes, Communism is not about getting rid of all materials, but why do you think i was clamouring to prove my communisticness or trying to act all revolutionary, as if i didint care about any material object whatsoever? My words were taken out of context. I did not mean that we should just run around naked and eat berries, but that we do not need most material goods and that many goods such as sports cars are just "status symbols" for the bourgoise. The Cuban revolutionaries in the 1950's didint need Ferrarris and "fashion" to survive or to overthrow the tyrannical Batista did they? Obviously, we dont have to live like them as we are not guerillas, but those who are materialistic are usually shallow and can only conform to the capitalist norm.

Eddie999

13th October 2004, 12:43

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2004, 04:36 AM

I agree.

This film can teach you what we SHOULD NOT do.
You say what happens in the film is wrong (I assume you are refering to the bombing of the financial buildings) but your name is Comrade RAF. A left wing terrorist group that carried out numerous bomb attacks - makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?

Vinny Rafarino

13th October 2004, 16:36

Trust me lads, there is no reason for you to explain to me wat the RAF is. :lol:

Sure most leftists would agree with what RAF said, but a lot of other stuff that he has said, I sure as hell disagree with

Most "leftists" have absolutely no idea what communism is, much less how it should be practised.

And yes technology is a good thing, if used correctly. But unfortunately in the hands of capitalists, technology is used quite often in a bad way.

We are not talking about how capitalists "handle" technology are we?

(Also please don't use the word "we" as if all communists / anarchists / political opinionists agree with what you say.)

If you disagree with what I said then you are not a Communist, period.

Why do you need a car that drives at 200KM an hour? Or a computer that is more powerful then a 486 if all you want to do is word processing and Internet browsing?

Technically we don't "need" anything beyond what allows us to live. We intend to use techonogical advancements simply for the progression of the entire species, not just the rich.

If you can't handle it then perhaps communism is not for you.

You say what happens in the film is wrong (I assume you are refering to the bombing of the financial buildings) but your name is Comrade RAF. A left wing terrorist group that carried out numerous bomb attacks - makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?

To someone that is confused such as yourself, sure I may appear like a hypocrite.

Fortunately enough, Communists understand that an absurd Hollywood production about testosterone filled "tough guys" blowing up the "financial foundation" of the USA in order to give everyone a "good credit score" is simple NONSENSE.

Perhaps you may understand this someday when the thought of "being cool" like Brad Pitt is nothing more than a childhood fantasy.

redstar2000

13th October 2004, 16:36

Material possessions that I would like to have but can't afford...

1. A university library card ($250/year)

2. A comfortable couch. (about $300 used)

3. Broadband. ($40/month)

4. A new air conditioner. (about $350)

5. A new Mac 64-bit "god machine". (about $1,500)

6. A small apartment on the 10th floor or higher with first-class soundproofing and an independent power supply. (probably unavailable at any price).

I really can't think of anything else at the moment.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Eddie999

13th October 2004, 17:11

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2004, 03:36 PM
To someone that is confused such as yourself, sure I may appear like a hypocrite.

Fortunately enough, Communists understand that an absurd Hollywood production about testosterone filled "tough guys" blowing up the "financial foundation" of the USA in order to give everyone a "good credit score" is simple NONSENSE.

Perhaps you may understand this someday when the thought of "being cool" like Brad Pitt is nothing more than a childhood fantasy.
I only recommeneded the film because I assumed that most people wouldn't want to read the novel the film is based on. A shame really because the novel is so much better. Futhermore I have no inclination to be 'cool' like Brad Pitt. Why do you resort to personal attacks when cannot think of anything constructive to say?

revolutionindia

13th October 2004, 17:20

...

NovelGentry

13th October 2004, 17:27

Starving to death is NEVER a viable option.

If you are presented with the fact that you may indeed "starve to death", you must rise up and take what you require from those that have a surplus by any means necessary.

If the ruling elite fails to provide even the most basic of human needs, then they must be removed from the position that makes this possible.

In other words, execute them and distribute their surplus value to those that need it to survive.

I didn't say it was a viable option.... but I have little doubt that is what would happen for the majority of people who didn't have that work. No matter how much people SHOULD rise up and take those things, that doesn't mean they will.

It should be noted that in my original statement I also implied that they would starve to death anyway, which most of them will. My response was geared towards whether or not you want to starve to death under the control of capitalist money hungry folk, or whether you'd rather starve to death free of that grasp.

One thing though, fight club is not an Anarchist group. There is clearly a leader and they have very little of a political goal.

While it may seem they do have a leader to us, Tyler makes it very clear otherwise. Remember when Norton's character says "Why didn't you tell me about this?" (in the car)... and he replies something along the lines of "You're not special." Isn't that sort of implying he's not a leader? and nor is Tyler if he actually believes he's not special.

cubist

13th October 2004, 18:48

Originally posted by REDSTAR
Broadband. ($40/month)i get broad band for free :lol:

some stupid fucker has anunsecure wireless router :lol:

fucking good speeds tooo

Professor Moneybags

13th October 2004, 19:07

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2004, 01:07 AM
If you are presented with the fact that you may indeed "starve to death", you must rise up and take what you require from those that have a surplus by any means necessary.
So it would be okay for starving Africans to murder you and take everything you own (you have access to a computer, so you obviously have a "surplus").

Guest1

13th October 2004, 19:29

Originally posted by Apathy [email protected] 13 2004, 03:01 AM
Not that I agree with this. Why do you need a car that drives at 200KM an hour? Or a computer that is more powerful then a 486 if all you want to do is word processing and Internet browsing?
One problem, if you examine a 486, I think you'll find techological developments since then actually mean you are selfish for wanting to use one. Computer chips have gotten smaller and smaller, using up less materials, energy efficiency has gone up, using up less electricity. You would be going backwards to a technology that doesn't exist anymore, and would require more resource waste to recreate, for benefits that don't exist. Kinda like advocating helping the environment by going back to 1950s cars :lol:

This is the semi-primitivist moralism that plagues some of the left these days. Get rid of it.

Being "humble" just for its own sake serves no good.

Nothing wrong with people who want a great computer to have it. I enjoy a pretty kickass computer myself, though I need to get some more ram and a new hard drive soon.

cubist

13th October 2004, 22:38

RI,

what amazes me, is becauce you place items like a ferrari so highly you think we should,

don't judges others by your weaknesses

revolutionindia

14th October 2004, 04:16

...

DaCuBaN

14th October 2004, 08:56

One problem, if you examine a 486, I think you'll find techological developments since then actually mean you are selfish for wanting to use one.

Rather than letting it go to a landfill site? :blink:

Computer chips have gotten smaller and smaller, using up less materials, energy efficiency has gone up, using up less electricity

Yup, that's why my CPU is actually larger in my new box than my old one, and my 486 runs off a 200W PSU, yet my XP2500 needs a 480W. Miniaturisation and efficiency have improved, but they counter-effect one another.

You would be going backwards to a technology that doesn't exist anymore, and would require more resource waste to recreate

I agree; however there are quite literally thousands of older computers in perfect working order out there (they say the lifespan of a PCB is around 10-30 years). Get one, install a good linux distro (http://www.damnsmalllinux.org) on it, and watch it fly...

like advocating helping the environment by going back to 1950s cars

Better to mantain and continue to run an old 5l Dodge than to allow it to rust in a scrap-heap. It's been built already after all.

Being "humble" just for its own sake serves no good.

It's the misconception that poor=righteous. It holds some weight in itself, but it's immensely petty. So long as 'leftist' are branded as petit-bourgeois and the like, you will find people doing everything they can to avoid looking that way.

It's all about self-confidence - not humility.

All I am saying is it is not a crime to aspire to own a ferrari

True: I would assert that the 'crime' is in spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on a frivolity. Think what that money could do in this world.

We live in a capital economy, we've been raised in a capital economy, so the desire to 'own' is always going to be present in the majority of us - even if you reject the idea, it's still going to be applicable subconsciously. However, making a conscious decision to spend your money on a ferrari for you is, to me, a horrible thought. To address the topic itself, perhaps a more useful title would be "Resisting Bourgeois Excess".

apathy maybe

15th October 2004, 02:04

Do you care about other people or the environment? If so, don't waste you money on crap. Be that a new computer or a new car.

1) you already have a perfectly good car or computer (if you don't , this doesn't apply).
2) these things have already been built. to buy a new one means diverting resources from things which can actually help people.

Basically, resources should be used where needed. You don't need a super duper great computer.

Palmares

15th October 2004, 02:48

I wanted a ferrari when I was a kid. :)

But anyway, there are many angles inwhich to look at why leftists avoid temptations: need over want; not supporting corporations; not supporting what such temptations represent; and various others I may have missed.

Need over want is quite simple: wasting resources for the various wants of a given individuals is viewed as a bad thing, for such reasons as the survival of our environment, and also humanity itself.

Not supporting corporations: who makes ferraris? :lol:

What these temptations represent: it would be a great exaggeration to say all temptations represent what some despise, but it may appear that many do. Such things can include the bourgeois, capitalism, greed, selfishness, etc.

Practicing such things does not neccessitate asceticism, but if one is dogmatic about it, there is then a strong argument that it is.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have a few extra things. The key is moderation, to which will then hopefully entail sustainibility.

Subversive Pessimist

15th October 2004, 09:29

I don't like any special or expensive clothing. When it comes to cloths I often think that the more simple the better. Cars don't interest me, but that's just me. But I would like to be able to eat good food all day long, living in a warm country and having a beach just outside the house. I want to be able to play paintball every now and then.

I don't see why I should resist this desire. I think most people, if not everyone, has some sort of desire of where they want to live, or something they want to get, varying from small things like eating ice cream on a warm summer day to having a nice house just on the outskirts of a beautiful forest, a nice car, a widescreen and a nice boat.

I think this thread should be a reminder to the backward moralism that we continue to see among some leftists these days.

Like Che y Marijuana said:

Nothing wrong with people who want a great computer to have it. I enjoy a pretty kickass computer myself, though I need to get some more ram and a new hard drive soon.

But on the other hand, I also agree with Cthenthar when he says:

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have a few extra things. The key is moderation, to which will then hopefully entail sustainibility.

I think in a communist society we will find a natural balance. People are different and are having different needs. In a communist society we will not have to buy things from the bourgeoisie, and everything is owned by everyone. Because of that I do not think that we have to worry about these things like we have to at this point. :)

ComradeStrawberry

cubist

15th October 2004, 17:36

All I am saying is it is not a crime to aspire to own a ferrari and
you cannot come to the conclusion that it will bring you misery without owning it.

i didn't conclude it would bring me misery i concluded that it will make people i don't like want to associate with me. it will give me a status i don't deserve and don't want

thats not all you are saying becuase i say i don't want one and you say i do
by saying things like

Ascetic denial while living in the middle of a material world will only make you look like an idiot

and its not ascetic denial its called freedom of thought, unfortunately you believe that you have freedom in this material world, but buy buying what they tell you your freedom is nothing but an illusion. you can not have freedom if you sucumbe to what other people tell you is good,

firstly have you driven a ferrari?

The way I look at it is that if I like you, decide that a ferrari, is in fact what I want. I work hard and climb the ranks of the employement system. I buy a ferrari, i drive it everyone loks at me and thinks "lucky bastard I want a ferrari," I am doing something I vow not to do, which is to encourage people to enslave themselves for the sake of something ascetically pleasing. I am not a social peer, I am a believer in equality across the board and whilst your petit bourgoise arse thinks capitalism and the material world we live in is good, i know it isn't.

Further to this, to me life is not about aspiring to be better in the eyes of social peers, it's about self fulfilment and enjoyment and whilst some may find enjoyment in being looked at with envy. I find enjoyment in knowing my personal goals are infact achievable, and they are only achievable becuase I do not let the opinoins of the material world create an illusion in my mind, and enslave me to work hard for some bourgoise fat cat. For items of material value that will not bring me the satisfaction that they bring you. now capitalist imperial will have you believe that infact it is i that is the deluded one, with my faith in a better system, yet that is not the case. and whilst he continues to try so hard to believe his own lies.

now clean healthy food, and a roof over my head and clothes whilst not fashionable warm and dry, unfortunately is something I am enslaved to, which is sad, but when my alternative is prison for stealing, or starvation or freezing on the streets, or a mixture it's bareable for now,

call it spite that i believe i work to keep my money and spend it when i need it to continue to live, i am

gaf

15th October 2004, 21:04

first bourgeoisie is not a problem,greed is.
second we have to make more guillotine for all those bastard who think they can make a better world (using piramidal power to achieve it
third you could get more serious and help them to destroy this society(the quicker the better)
fourth begin from scratch again and relearn to communicate an respect each other without a ferrari , a nintendo,or an atom bomb

cubist

16th October 2004, 09:54

first bourgeoisie is not a problem,greed is.

silly me i though those who where bourgoise were capitalist elites and thus greedy!

Palmares

16th October 2004, 10:06

No offence gaf, but cubist is 100% correct. The bourgeois mentality is of narcissistic individualism, and hence they represent greed.

As long as they hold this view, they are the problem.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

16th October 2004, 19:17

Communists are materialists. Since all things are material, pleasure comes from the material. Therefore there's nothing wrong with being a communist and enjoying material goods.
The trouble is that under capitalism, a lot of truly enjoyable goods are either unaffordable ( I can't buy a Ferrari with my pay - not unless I wanted to eat for a few years), or are completely transient (Chocolate and alcohol)

What I look for when I buy clothes, cars, whatever is first of all durability. this ensures that what I spend money on lasts with a minimum of maintenance (Which costs money) and uses less resources. secondly I check the price. If I can buy something just as durable but not as expensive, I'll buy the alternative.

About the computers and the cars, silicon is one the most common elements in the earth, and plastic, parts and metal can be recycled. Ever care to think of that? I recycle when I can. but when it isn't easy to recycle the best thing to do is to simply use less resources.

gaf

16th October 2004, 23:14

recycling humaan won't be a good thing to start again

Palmares

17th October 2004, 05:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 04:17 AM
Communists are materialists.
Not all communists believe in dialectical materialism.

I think you really mean marxists.

Raisa

23rd October 2004, 02:29

Resisting bourgeois temptations sounds like a bourgeois dillemma all in itself.

The fact that you have the choice to resist or give in.
Alot of people are not faced with this problem because its not a choice, bourgeois temptations resist them. :blink:

The Garbage Disposal Unit

23rd October 2004, 06:13

a) Mmmm, strictly speaking doesn't a "bourgeoisie temptation" refer temptations that, by their nature, are unavailable to the proletariat? Being proletarians (I'm unemployed right now. Lumpen as fuck! ;)) then, this thread is mostly irrelevant, given the nature of the terms.

Just kidding. Really, I know what's going on. I'm not that literal. Look, I'm not wearing socks!

b) As a materialist, I don't believe that pleasure comes from material things in that sense - you're smashing two meanings of the word together. I, for one, envision people as a whole, freed from alienation and atomization taking less pleasure in things and more in each other - in situations and meaningful interaction. Mind you, even if our only post revolutionary goal was to cover ourselves in a pile of "nice stuff" there's no reason we couldn't. Nothing WE (the workers) produce now, can't be produced after the revolution. But I think I said this earlier. Damn, it's later than I thought.