Western Society

[7189]

(WARNING: THIS IS A RANT. Apologies if this is in the wrong area. Wasn't sure where to post it.)

I believe Western society is disintegrating. The signs are everywhere: the control of the media; the hailing of mediocrity; the obsession with appearances, (for instance, 'beauty' operations involving slicing up the human body and filling it with toxins), money, and style (or 'bling' if you will); the discarding of substance and principle; and the rule of hypocrisy, overly evident in the forced political correctness we see everywhere, so forced that it is clear to the critical eye that it is completely politically incorrect!

Capitalism has depreciated our culture and our values. Perfect example: Paris Hilton, A-list celebrity. Who the hell is this little brat? What has she done? NOTHING. Famous for being famous, and good looking? I think she's rank, and look at every picture in the magazines of her and I guarantee she'll have the same annoying expression on her face. EXACTLY THE SAME. Like a mask. No soul. Pathetic. When she's wrinkled she'll be an empty shell of a human. Unless she fills herself with toxins, which she probably will. Another example: shoes. Why the hell is everything about shoes? Maybe it's just in my community but everyone is always going on about shoes, clothes, hairstyles, and shopping.

I hate this bloody society. This culture of processed crap. It's not as if I'm an 'old fogey' or anything. I'm only 19. I'm so disillusioned. Sometimes I wish a meteor would just destroy it all. Typical teenage blues I guess. Anyone here agree with me? Please, post your opinions.

[redstar2000]

Do you imagine things were "better" in the past?

Your "rant" could have been and was written back in the 1880s when capitalism really began to "bite".

In fact, the society of the "soulless machine" was deplored all the way back at the beginning of the 19th century.

There are many reasons to hate capitalism...Paris Hilton is pretty far down on my list.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[7189]

Why compare with the past? I'm lamenting the present. But to be honest, culturally I prefer the sixties!

This is about modern culture. I could rant for years about all the other crap effects of capitalism, but this particular rant is on culture. And at the moment, it seems one of our cultural icons is Paris Hilton. Pretty central to the discussion I'd say.

This post does not intend to be anachronistic, and if it does, explain to me why please.

I'd like to hear your views. Not a pithy critique of my post.

[redflag32]

I agree 7189,society has gone to the dogs,even music isnt sacred anymore,this bubbelgum pop crap that has raped our airwaves is making me want to go deaf.Your post is about the culture the west finds itself in now and not about capitalism in general,i agree with you totally about the cultural side of things,actually your post could have been written by me,but remember that capitalism is also coming closer to a crises and with it will go this plastic culture we find ourselves in.

Heres hoping anyway.

[piet11111]

poeple are looking for meaning to their lifes but they cant find anything anymore.
and that is good because communist society will provide meaning to poeple and capitalism cant.

there is no need to be worried about the pointlessness in life as that all works in our favour.
just try to keep yourself entertained through this and exploit it as much as possible.
bored ? pull of some mean pranks to local businesses for instance put ipecac in the board of directors coffee machine.
15 minutes till explosive diarrhea or flush half a pound (or more) of carbide down a toilet that is not yours.
carbide and water leads to very expensive plumbing bills (btw do run like hell)

[Gryphon]

(WARNING: THIS IS A RANT. Apologies if this is in the wrong area. Wasn't sure where to post it.)

I believe Western society is disintegrating. The signs are everywhere: the control of the media; the hailing of mediocrity; the obsession with appearances, (for instance, 'beauty' operations involving slicing up the human body and filling it with toxins), money, and style (or 'bling' if you will); the discarding of substance and principle; and the rule of hypocrisy, overly evident in the forced political correctness we see everywhere, so forced that it is clear to the critical eye that it is completely politically incorrect!

Capitalism has depreciated our culture and our values. Perfect example: Paris Hilton, A-list celebrity. Who the hell is this little brat? What has she done? NOTHING. Famous for being famous, and good looking? I think she's rank, and look at every picture in the magazines of her and I guarantee she'll have the same annoying expression on her face. EXACTLY THE SAME. Like a mask. No soul. Pathetic. When she's wrinkled she'll be an empty shell of a human. Unless she fills herself with toxins, which she probably will. Another example: shoes. Why the hell is everything about shoes? Maybe it's just in my community but everyone is always going on about shoes, clothes, hairstyles, and shopping.

I hate this bloody society. This culture of processed crap. It's not as if I'm an 'old fogey' or anything. I'm only 19. I'm so disillusioned. Sometimes I wish a meteor would just destroy it all. Typical teenage blues I guess. Anyone here agree with me? Please, post your opinions.


It will get worse, through Globalization, they are exporting this life-style to other countries.

[bcbm]

You're not alone comrade. Most of the time I wish the whole damn thing would just collapse in on itself. Wishful thinking at this point, it seems.

Reverse globalization is showing some promise though. Anything to counter the mess that the neoliberals are pushing.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 7189
I'd like to hear your views. Not a pithy critique of my post.

It's a package deal. :lol:

My objection is that "cultural complaints" about capitalism are, of necessity, superficial.

The problem is not "Paris Hilton" or even the cultural apparatus that manufactured her...there are far more serious reasons to hate capitalism.

The froth of "cultural icons" that displeases you now will be replaced tomorrow and then again the day after that.

You said that you "preferred the 1960s"...you imagine that we didn't have "Paris Hilton" back then? That we didn't have "famous writers" who couldn't write or "famous musicians" who couldn't play or "famous artists" who couldn't paint? They're forgotten now...but in their time they were "icons".

The "celebrity industry" manufacturers new icons every year...and some of them become "hits" and hang around for awhile.

But it doesn't mean anything at all.

How could it? :blink:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Commie Rat]

My objection is that "cultural complaints" about capitalism are, of necessity, superficial.

Superfical complaints about a superfical culture. ha :lol:

[7189]

redstar2000, how on earth can cultural complaints be superficial? Are you crazy, or is culture of no value to you?

Don't lecture me on the far more serious reasons to hate capitalism! I know these. I could list them for hours. This post is about culture, something which you obviously consider unimportant, something which I consider bizarre.

Paris Hilton is just an example. My argument is not about icons, it is about culture in general.

And if you can list icons as pathetic as Paris Hilton from the 60s to support your argument I'd be much obliged!

Doesn't mean anything? Are you nuts? Are you implying culture doesn't mean anything? That's ridiculous.

Even this icon thing means something. People love her! That's why she's an icon. Her and all the other mediocre nothing celebrities that everyone seems to look up to and give large amounts of their money through related purchases!

Please tell me you care about this! Only by saving the culture can we improve the mindset of the people, instill some moral values, some principles, some integrity and decency. Only once we have done this can we tackle the more grisly elements of capitalism. This is my fervent belief. Read my post fully. Please! It's not just about Paris Hilton and stupid icons, there are many more important elements of this cultural destruction, like hypocrisy, indifference, superficiality, and mediocrity, the killers of intellectual developments and moral advancement!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 7189
And if you can list icons as pathetic as Paris Hilton from the 60s to support your argument I'd be much obliged!

The names wouldn't mean anything to you...as I said, they've been forgotten.

But "just for fun", try this link...

MrPopHistory (http://www.mrpophistory.com/samples.htm)

Your patience will be exhausted long before you reach the end of the list. :lol:


Even this icon thing means something. People love her! That's why she's an icon. Her and all the other mediocre nothing celebrities that everyone seems to look up to and give large amounts of their money through related purchases!

People "love" Paris Hilton??? :lol:


Only by saving the culture can we improve the mindset of the people, instill some moral values, some principles, some integrity and decency.

Those "things" (whatever they might be) are a product of a social/economic/political system, not a cause! You cannot "save" a culture; you can only watch it change in response to changes in material reality.

Here's a little example that I read about a few years ago. Did you know that up until the 1930s, it was illegal for men to go bare-chested or for women to wear two-piece bathing suits on public beaches in the U.S.?

There was an actual "struggle" over this; some small towns in New Jersey changed their laws in order to attract people to their public beaches...and were furiously denounced as "immoral" and "indecent" by public officials and religious leaders.

Small resort towns were in serious economic difficulties during the "Great Depression"...and "changed their culture" to deal with that problem.

The change worked...by the beginning of World War II, two-piece bathing suits for men were completely obsolete and had become customary for women.

Another example: do you know why there was a "sexual revolution" in the "western" capitalist countries in the 1960s?

The birth-control pill appeared...and it worked! The "great fear" of an unwanted pregnancy disappeared. Women were now free to engage in as much sexual activity as they wanted with as many partners as they wished.

The "culture" changed...because material reality changed!


It's not just about Paris Hilton and stupid icons, there are many more important elements of this cultural destruction, like hypocrisy, indifference, superficiality, and mediocrity, the killers of intellectual developments and moral advancement!

What else would you expect? Capitalism in the "west" is getting old...and its culture reflects that. It does seem to be becoming intellectually "stagnant". It is apparently more and more concerned with distracting people from an increasingly grim reality.

But, you know, you aren't going to change that; modern culture is responding to the dysfunctional nature of modern capitalism itself.

All you can really do is ignore it as much as you can; concentrate on stuff that you perceive as important and worthwhile.

Ranting against it serves no useful purpose that I can see; those who are both intelligent and rebellious have already turned their backs on it...or soon will.

Meanwhile, may I suggest that you subject that "category" which you refer to as "moral advancement" to some critical scrutiny. What does that mean, exactly, and how is it measured?

I think you may have skated out onto some very thin ice...and reconsideration may be in order.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[piet11111]

People "love" Paris Hilton??? laugh.gif

love to hate redstar that is the only reason the media goes after that poor excuse for a person.

[Cheung Mo]

Paris Hilton represents the epitome of all that is wrong with the USA's celebrity factory, which in turns merely represents a miniscule subset of all the wrongs that unregulated capitalism has brought to both Western and global society.

[Jormungand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:44 PM
(WARNING: THIS IS A RANT. Apologies if this is in the wrong area. Wasn't sure where to post it.)

I believe Western society is disintegrating. The signs are everywhere: the control of the media; the hailing of mediocrity; the obsession with appearances, (for instance, 'beauty' operations involving slicing up the human body and filling it with toxins), money, and style (or 'bling' if you will); the discarding of substance and principle; and the rule of hypocrisy, overly evident in the forced political correctness we see everywhere, so forced that it is clear to the critical eye that it is completely politically incorrect!

Capitalism has depreciated our culture and our values. Perfect example: Paris Hilton, A-list celebrity. Who the hell is this little brat? What has she done? NOTHING. Famous for being famous, and good looking? I think she's rank, and look at every picture in the magazines of her and I guarantee she'll have the same annoying expression on her face. EXACTLY THE SAME. Like a mask. No soul. Pathetic. When she's wrinkled she'll be an empty shell of a human. Unless she fills herself with toxins, which she probably will. Another example: shoes. Why the hell is everything about shoes? Maybe it's just in my community but everyone is always going on about shoes, clothes, hairstyles, and shopping.

I hate this bloody society. This culture of processed crap. It's not as if I'm an 'old fogey' or anything. I'm only 19. I'm so disillusioned. Sometimes I wish a meteor would just destroy it all. Typical teenage blues I guess. Anyone here agree with me? Please, post your opinions.
I wish I knew you in real life. We would kick it all the time. My average day involves at some point me sitting down and sparking a bowl and then contemplating the problems of society. The ones you've described here are things I stress over often.

Maybe because the beautiful girls don't like me but still...

[Commie Rat]

Maybe because the beautiful girls don't like me but still...

The beautiful girls love me becasue I hate paris hilton. But not Snoop Dogg, i love snoop dogg, he is my hero. NWA aiight

[7189]

People "love" Paris Hilton??? :lol:

They love to read about her in magazines. They love to watch her and other pointless nothing celebrities on television. In effect they support these idiots and maintain their status as icons.


Those "things" (whatever they might be) are a product of a social/economic/political system, not a cause! You cannot "save" a culture; you can only watch it change in response to changes in material reality.

True, but it can also work the other way. The fabric of a culture can influence the social, economic and political system. For instance in Italy one cultural element is the importance of the family and particularly the mother-son relationship, a phenomenon which has traditionally resulted in fewer marriages and consequently altered demographics, i.e. lower birth rates. This originates from Italian culture, it is same in Spain, with the 'hogar' mentality. The relationship is a two-way one, you cannot deny that.


What else would you expect? Capitalism in the "west" is getting old...and its culture reflects that. It does seem to be becoming intellectually "stagnant". It is apparently more and more concerned with distracting people from an increasingly grim reality.

Maybe, but I have an obvious contradiction to your argument. Reality TV! The morbid fascination people have with other people's trials and tribulations can clearly be seen through their interest in reality television, something which has exploded onto our screens in a plethora of different, equally mundane, and mind dissolving formats and which has been , sadly, positively embraced by the general public.

To be honest, I think it is drawing our attention to this reality, or at least, it is drawing my attention to it, and that's why it disenchants me!


But, you know, you aren't going to change that; modern culture is responding to the dysfunctional nature of modern capitalism itself.

So defeatist, but probably true. Doesn't stop me from ranting about it though does it? Where else can I vent my steam? Most of my friends think I think too much about it and are sick of it, as are my family.


Meanwhile, may I suggest that you subject that "category" which you refer to as "moral advancement" to some critical scrutiny. What does that mean, exactly, and how is it measured?

"category"? :P It's simple really. If this culture didn't breed so much indifference and hypocrisy the affluent west may actually care about what McDonald's and other unscupulous companies are doing to the ecosystem. It may actually care that while it's sat down sniffing lines of Cocaine it is tearing apart the state of Colombia by paying for the warmongers there. It may actually bother to make life better for people in general instead of satisfying it's own self-indugent, bland, pointless pleasures.


I think you may have skated out onto some very thin ice...and reconsideration may be in order.

How portentious! Reconsideration? I'm just posting my views! What are yours?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 7189
The fabric of a culture can influence the social, economic and political system. For instance in Italy one cultural element is the importance of the family and particularly the mother-son relationship, a phenomenon which has traditionally resulted in fewer marriages and consequently altered demographics, i.e., lower birth rates. This originates from Italian culture; it is same in Spain, with the 'hogar' mentality. The relationship is a two-way one, you cannot deny that.

Yes I can and do "deny it". I am not a student of Italian history, but I assume that there were important material reasons for the emergence of this "special mother-son relationship"...it didn't just "fall out of the sky" or develop as a consequence of "special Italian genes".

Objective material conditions -> culture -- an eight-lane freeway

Culture -> objective material conditions -- a bike path


Maybe, but I have an obvious contradiction to your argument. Reality TV!

That's not real! It's as much a fantasy as anything scripted in Hollywood.

Good grief!


If this culture didn't breed so much indifference and hypocrisy, the affluent west may actually care about what McDonald's and other unscrupulous companies are doing to the ecosystem. It may actually care that while it's sat down sniffing lines of Cocaine it is tearing apart the state of Colombia by paying for the warmongers there. It may actually bother to make life better for people in general instead of satisfying it's own self-indulgent, bland, pointless pleasures.

The "ethos" of capitalism from the very beginning is to "make life better" for yourself and for that number of people around you that you care about.

Expecting people to be "self-sacrificing" as a "mode of life" is pointless. Sometimes they will be...under unusual circumstances.

You have to remember that in the modern world, being self-sacrificing does not "win points for you in Heaven"...Heaven is known not to exist. We live in the "here and now" and that's all there is.

Nor are we likely to have any knowledge of the "long-range consequences" of our decisions. Does that "Big Mac" cut down another tree in the Amazon rain-forest? Does that line of cocaine buy another bullet in some Andean country? And for which side in the class struggle there?

How would one ever know?

For sure, I mean.

And what would it mean to "make life better" for "people in general"? Let's say someone sincerely wanted to do that...how would they go about it?

Suppose, for purely "self-indulgent" reasons, they decide not to have kids and spend their money on "pleasure" instead. By not adding to the population of "affluent westerners", they've reduced the "load" on the planet.

"Moral advancement"? :blink:

You are perfectly free, you know, to reject "popular culture" entirely...except for those places (usually urban) where it actively intrudes into public spaces.

You may likewise avoid both "Big Macs" and cocaine, if neither appeal to you.

You may adjust your "consumption pattern" to suit your tastes...at least by and large.

But the system rolls on...and is largely indifferent to the very small number of people who "opt out".

Capitalism will not be overthrown by "moral advancement" or "better culture".

If only it were that easy. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Thorez]

The thread starter is right on with his description of the degenerate state of capitalism. Western culture is in a truly deplorable state.

With corporate hegemony in the media, there is virtually no free speech for people like you and me i.e rational, revolutionary. Everything you see on television is owned by 5 or 6 people with the names Sumner Redstone and Rupert Murdoch coming to mind.

For example, a pathetic excuse for a debate you'd hear on cable news in concern to Iran's righteous nuclear program calls for either Nazi-like war mongering or the brutal imposition of sanctions. I have yet to hear any of these pundits defy these insane proposals and point out, "Hey, wait a minute. If we and Israel posess nuclear weapons, how can we possibly discourage anyone else from developing a nuclear program? Iran is entitled to defend itself from potential aggressors."

American culture can best be summed up as superficial, tastless, and simplistic: Reality shows, game shows, sitcoms, plastic surgery, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Talk Radio, "Infotainment".

I feel quite uneasy towards the prospect of exporting degenerate American culture abroad. This image of McDonald's in Moskva profoundly disturbs me:

http://www.esquilax.com/cutural_dysfunction/images/moscow-first-mcdonlads.JPG

From what I've observed, people abroad seem to be enthusiastic towards American "culture" which is in actuality a rootless cosmopolitan compilation of all the most mundane elements of Europe. They utter American exclamations such as "okay", "thank you", "oh my god", and countless others. They indulge in American television, films and music. They consume McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and other toxic American junk. They've even got their own version of MTV complete with reality television and whatever drivel that is passed off as music.Though the generation of our parents abroad (equivalent to baby boomers) seem to reject U$A influence, youths seem to be quite enthusiastic for filthy American fashion, mannerisms, entertainment, and so on. What's described here is a systematic attempt to inflict genocide upon the incorrupted cultures of the world. Have I mentioned that there is Wal-Mart in Chairman Mao's People's Republic of China? :o


Capitalism will not be overthrown by "moral advancement" or "better culture".

Capitalism will be repaired with a prescription of reforms, I gather? Your social democrat tendencies are just as harmful as the corporate platform of the Republicans and Democrats. Why do I sense that you're an agent despatched by George Soros after having heard comments to the effect of,"Germany reunited with widespread celebrations." Understand that your misguided principles of capitalist reformation have never accomplished anything of significance for the working-class. History shows that only revolution whether in Russia or China has brought about vital change.

[Horatii]

History shows that only revolution whether in Russia or China has brought about vital change.

Who the fuck are you people? Am I the only person on this board that doesn't advocate mass extermination and starvation as a means of "revolution?' (vanguard dictatorship)?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:29 PM

History shows that only revolution whether in Russia or China has brought about vital change.

Who the fuck are you people? Am I the only person on this board that doesn't advocate mass extermination and starvation as a means of "revolution?' (vanguard dictatorship)?
What i think he means is that it brought the counrtys out of fuedalism and into capitalism, and is therefor progressive.


This image of McDonald's in Moskva profoundly disturbs me:

Why?


Have I mentioned that there is Wal-Mart in Chairman Mao's People's Republic of China?

Yet again, so what, china is not communist

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Thorez
Capitalism will be repaired with a prescription of reforms, I gather?

No. As I've been saying repeatedly lately, the "age of reform" in all the "old" capitalist countries is over.

I think that Marx was right...and we live in the "beginning of the end" of capitalism in the "west".

That doesn't mean that communist revolution is "just around the corner"...it may be 50 or even 100 years in the future. But it does mean that the "glory years" of capitalism are finished...and things are going to steadily get worse from here on out.

In this context, yapping about "culture" is essentially pointless. The "culture" looks bad because the system that created it is beginning to die.

It's like criticizing some guy for his bad haircut...in a cancer ward. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:44 PM
Sometimes I wish a meteor would just destroy it all.
You can bet that the theory of evolution never excluded this possibility, so take heart. For all we know, humans are on their way to extinction.


Back at ya. I think, Redstar's point in criticizing your Paris Hilton example is this: seeing the bigger picture. It's like you are complaining about the disintegration of the peanut skin as you eat them, when you're supposed to notice that no new peanuts can be grown. ( :huh: does this metaphor make sense?).

[Karl Marx's Camel]

You have many good points, 7189. I agree with you in what you are saying regarding the superficiality of society. :( :angry:

[Cheung Mo]

Of course Germans celebrated when their country was united: Who wants to be separated from their countrywomen and countrymen by American and Soviet arrogance anyways?

Neither side represented socialism: Get over it.

[BobKKKindle$]

I totally agree with your views - We are increasingly living in a society that is a slave to the market system, a society where our very perceptives are driven by the media and the corporate drive to maximise demand and profits through advertising. To a certain extent, the society of the 19th century is preferable, because people had a greater ability to form their own opinions based on their own observations and not have opinions forced upon them by capitalism.

[Zingu]

7189, you would be interested in reading One Dimesional Man by Herbert Marcuse or some of Erich Fromm's work like The Sane Society.

[LoneRed]

i own the one dimensional men but have yet to read it, any good?

[7189]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:45 PM
Capitalism will not be overthrown by "moral advancement" or "better culture".

If only it were that easy. :)

How can you be so sure? It is my fundamental belief that everything commences at the human psyche in politics. If the human psyche, or opinion, changes, so will the political system, through revolution or gradual democratic change. The masses have the power not the elite.

It is also my belief that the human psyche is more connected with the cultural elements in society than with the economic, social and political elements, as the cultural elements relate more to the emotional side of humanity.

At the moment the psyche is one of indifference, of apathy. 'Let's sit back and let the crap wash over us' attitude. Because of this there is no effort anywhere to alter our culture, and fundamentally our society.

Your point about material reality is a good one, but I still believe that a cultural revolution will result in a more socialist leadership, as with a positive revolution in culture the human psyche will actually be prepared to accept this more enlightened form of government.

Capitalism is not the same, you are right, but is it getting old? Is it approaching its end? Your attitude smacks of Menshevik tendencies. Wait for the end to come, even if it isn't in my lifetime. Fair enough. But taking that attitude, although sponsored by Marx and his theory of dialectical materialism, may not be such a clever idea. The Bolshevik way? I don't believe that is a solution either. I believe this needs to come from the masses together, not in violent revolutionary form, but in a rejection of capitalist culture, which in my opinion will result in a more socialist system with better 'moral fibre' if you will, and a much more interesting, stimulating, principled culture.

[7189]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:10 AM
7189, you would be interested in reading One Dimesional Man by Herbert Marcuse or some of Erich Fromm's work like The Sane Society.
Cheers! I might just do that! Any other interesting writers you know of? Relating to this topic of course.

[citizen_snips]

I've not read either of those books but I found a good expression of this sentiment in the song "Freedom of speech won't feed my children" by the manics. I tend to hum it when I'm sick to death of society at large.

[drain.you]

It is apparently more and more concerned with distracting people from an increasingly grim reality.
Has it ever been about anything else? Its just a way for our minds to be controlled by the elite surely?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 7189
It is my fundamental belief that everything commences at the human psyche in politics. If the human psyche, or opinion, changes, so will the political system, through revolution or gradual democratic change.

But where does "opinion" come from?

Human genius?

Divine inspiration?

Pure contingency?

Historical materialism posits that "opinion" comes from objective material conditions.

No other source.


Your attitude smacks of Menshevik tendencies. Wait for the end to come, even if it isn't in my lifetime.

More precisely, whether you wait or whether you "do something" is unlikely to make any significant difference. You might still very well choose to "do something" because it's in your own class interests...a perfectly valid reason to act.

When masses decide to "do something", that can make a significant difference...and it's the only thing that can!

What individuals do is, normally, too trivial to detect.


I believe this needs to come from the masses together, not in violent revolutionary form, but in a rejection of capitalist culture, which in my opinion will result in a more socialist system with better 'moral fibre' if you will, and a much more interesting, stimulating, principled culture.

Well, you're "bucking" some massive odds. Everything we think we know about major revolutions suggests that old ruling classes must almost always be overthrown...they won't quietly go away simply because of a shift in "culture".

The largest corporations are, in fact, widely despised in all of the "old" capitalist countries...but that doesn't stop them from getting bigger and wealthier and more powerful with every passing year.

You don't "win the game" by "declaring victory" and walking off the field; you have to play to the finish.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Horatii]

Well, you're "bucking" some massive odds. Everything we think we know about major revolutions suggests that old ruling classes must almost always be overthrown...they won't quietly go away simply because of a shift in "culture".

You might want to learn a little about history before making claims like that. Just my opinion.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:46 PM
I feel quite uneasy towards the prospect of exporting degenerate American culture abroad. This image of McDonald's in Moskva profoundly disturbs me:

http://www.esquilax.com/cutural_dysfunction/images/moscow-first-mcdonlads.JPG
Обед Чемпиона (the lunch of champions)?! :lol: Yup, I'm sure champions all eat at McDonalds. Advertisements these days don't even try to tell you the merits of whatever they're trying to sell you. They just have some stupid slogan or flashy image to spit at you. Look at Britney's tits and buy Pepsi. Watch a computer-generated lizard and buy our car insurance. Buy Nike shoes because they have a curved line thing on them. And the sad thing is, this advertising actually works. :(

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)Everything we think we know about major revolutions suggests that old ruling classes must almost always be overthrown...they won't quietly go away simply because of a shift in "culture".[/b]


Horatii
You might want to learn a little about history before making claims like that.

Of course I am not a trained professional historian. Are you?

Nevertheless, I have read quite widely in the subject...probably a good deal more than 99% of the population.

I stand by my statement. If you want to discuss the rare exceptions -- if any -- feel free.

If you want to explain how a "cultural shift" manages to overthrow an old ruling class "quietly", by all means do so.

It will surely come as a "great revelation" to us all. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[7189]

Before you pontificate, read Zeev Sternhell's article, 'Fascism: reflections on the fate of ideas in twentieth century history'.

This fellow is a trained historian, and a pretty eminent one too. Read.

"Once one accepts the idea that social and economic problems are psychological phenomena, one can change the relationships between people, one can transform life without touching the social and economic system. If exploitation is a pyschological and not an economic phenomenon, it is sufficient, in order to end it, to give everyone the feeling of working for the good of the country, of being in the service of some higher cause rather than their personal interests. As if by a miracle, exploitation and alienation disappear."

(p151)

That's just one example! There are plenty of others, scattered through out the article.

His work gives a perfect example of what you call quiet 'cultural shifts': FASCISM in Italy and Germany! They were quiet 'cultural shifts' because they were initially endorsed by the government before taking control themselves. There was no revolution, they were ushered in by conservatives as a viable alternative to the faltering liberalism which people had become disillusioned with!

Obviously, I'm not suggesting we move in that direction! That would be ridiculous. Fascism is for fools. But what of a 'global fascio' if you will, a united world? A great international. That's Trotskyism! Man caring for his brother man, and men working together of all creeds and races for the glory of humanity as a whole. Call me a foolish idealist if you want, but Sternhell's influential work proves that it can be done...culture is more powerful than you would think redstar2000...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Zeev Sternhell+--> (Zeev Sternhell)Once one accepts the idea that social and economic problems are psychological phenomena, one can change the relationships between people, one can transform life without touching the social and economic system.[/b]

Yes, but you see I don't accept the idea that "social and economic problems are psychological phenomena".

In fact, I don't think such a statement makes any sense at all.

Fascism is not a "form" of "mental illness"...it's an ideology that arises from objective material conditions and its supporters support it because they perceive that it's in their material class interests to do so.


Originally posted by [email protected]
His work gives a perfect example of what you call quiet 'cultural shifts': FASCISM in Italy and Germany! They were quiet 'cultural shifts' because they were initially endorsed by the government before taking control themselves. There was no revolution, they were ushered in by conservatives as a viable alternative to the faltering liberalism which people had become disillusioned with!

Many words have been used to describe fascism: until now, quiet has never been one of them. :blink:

They were not "revolutions" because the ruling classes in those countries remained intact (except for dispossessed Jewish capitalists).

Professor Sternhell looks like he might have some interesting ideas; for example, his contention that the Vichy regime in France was fascist...something with which I would agree.

In fact, I'd go further and argue that all of the so-called "authoritarian" regimes were/are fascist at their roots...they all shared a similar conception of the role of the state, the ideas that should be "encouraged" and the ideas that should be "ruthlessly suppressed", the primacy of wealth and private property, the "military virtues", etc.

Sternhell's idea that fascist ideology "began in France" looks far more problematical...it seems to me that you can find "proto-fascist" ideas all over 19th century Europe. Trying to assign "blame" to one particular country doesn't look very useful to me.

(Sternhill also wrote a book that indisputably documents the Israeli plans and practices to ethnically cleanse Palestine of Palestinians from the very beginning. Not that anyone would be surprised by that now...but a very useful work at the time.)

More about Zeev Sternhell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeev_Sternhell).


7189
Call me a foolish idealist if you want...

I want. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[7189]

More about Zeev Sternhell.

Great...you read Wikipedia. :blink:

This is going nowhere. I'm getting bored with this. Sorry. Oh well, here I go.


Fascism is not a "form" of "mental illness"...it's an ideology that arises from objective material conditions and its supporters support it because they perceive that it's in their material class interests to do so.

There is more to the picture than mere, 'material class interests'. Obviously these are essential, but it's not black and white as you would postulate. What is? Any academic, especially if he or she is an historian, professional or not, should understand monocausality, the theory put forth by the great E. H. Carr! Something, judging by the obstinacy of your posts, you clearly don't!

Examples? What about the Volksgemeinschaft? What about the desire of national unity and of national glory extant in fascist societies? The Youth Movements? The enthusiastic building of solidarity and brotherhood, en masse? The enjoyment of being part of a giant cultural organism? Misguided, for sure. Pyschopathic, yes. But these were all motivating factors, and the important point is that they were cultural ones! You cannot deny that what I write has some truth in it! Saying 'Yes I can deny it' as you have done so far proves your ignorance of this matter! You simply refuse to budge, and without good reason!

Well let me ask you: what on earth did the lower classes have to gain from the fascist movements? Nothing! The fascists continued to endorse the capitalists as their predecessors had. Big industrialists continued dominating after they came to power! Workers continued toiling at low wages in the same crappy conditions!

What motivated them? What made them choose fascism instead of socialism, even when the promise of Sorelian style syndicalism fell flat on its face? The cultural steps! Which are inextricably tied in with the Volksgeist!


Many words have been used to describe fascism: until now, quiet has never been one of them.

I'm not saying fascism was 'quiet'. I said its rise was quiet. Though admittedly I didn't make this clear, and for that I apologise. :blush: However, as you quite rightly argue, once the fascists came to power and began to establish themselves and their iron fisted control, the movement certainly was not quiet.


Sternhell's idea that fascist ideology "began in France" looks far more problematical...it seems to me that you can find "proto-fascist" ideas all over 19th century Europe. Trying to assign "blame" to one particular country doesn't look very useful to me.

You have misunderstood Sternhell. He doesn't simply claim that it 'began' in France, to say such a thing is to grossly simplify his work, and betrays a very rudimentary knowledge of his theories (obtained for instance by reading a Wikipedia article).

He claims that the roots of fascism, not fascism itself, lay in a negative reaction to or a rejection of, the French values of liberalism, established by the French revolution. He also claims it is a violently anti-Enlightenment movement, which also began in France.

He does not claim that fascism is French, as you believe. He claims that it emerged from a history of revolt, not only in France, but in a multitude of countries, against the ideas of the French Revolution and the central ideas of the Enlightenment, like the supremacy of rationality, Cartesian thought, Rousseau's theories concerning social development, Lockean politics and Smith's economics.

This revolt, according to him culminated into a sort of 'frenzy' at the end of the 19th century, which, after the Great War, crystallised into political forms, like Futurism, fascism, and Nazism.


I want.

Oh, and let me just say that your final glib response really illustrates your immature approach to this, something which, in my opinion, greatly diminishes your standing in this polemic!

[redstar2000]

It would appear that having run out of arguments, you simply wish to assert that "you're right" and that I am "boring", "obstinate", "ignorant", "immature", etc., for rejecting your quaint notions of "cultural determinism".

Ok, have it your way...you are perfectly free to crusade for a more "morally advanced" culture (whatever in the world that might be). :blink:

I won't stop you...promise. :lol:

But I can't take you seriously either. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[7189]

It would appear that having run out of arguments

Ahem. Did you read my post at all?


But I can't take you seriously either.

The same to you.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 7189
Ahem. Did you read my post at all?

What...did I miss an insult?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[7189]

It would appear that having run out of arguments, you simply wish to assert that "you're right" and that I am "boring", "obstinate", "ignorant", "immature", etc., for rejecting your quaint notions of "cultural determinism".

You have completely misunderstood me! It is not my intention to make this argument acrimonious!

Let me just clear this up.

The argument's boring because its just you and me going over the same crap again and again. I'm not saying you're boring.

Secondly, I never said you were ignorant.

Thirdly, I said you were being immaturely obstinate, which you are and have been this entire thread. You cannot say the same of me, as I have agreed with your remarks 90 percent, having only disagreed with your complete obstinacy towards my theory, an obstinacy I find quite unfounded and therefore immature.


What...did I miss an insult?

I was referring not to insults, (as I haven't been insulting you at all, merely criticising your posts) I was referring to the points I made. I would like to see what you think of them. That's all. I have enjoyed discussing this topic with you (before it became rather dull). If I didn't I would have just let this thread go on without posting again.

[Janus]

Historical materialism posits that "opinion" comes from objective material conditions.
Of course, any attempt to ignore that is foolish and idealistic.

As for moral developments, that is a factor but material conditions always supersedes that.

[redchrisfalling]

When you say "western society" i think of America, capitolism, pop culture, etc...(just so were on the same page) And i don't think it's detierateing so much as solidifying. No matter how much you hate it, those bourgoise fuckers are good at what they do. Today there are fewwer and fewwer strike, almost no civil unrest, people everywhere are indifferent to EVERYTHING. The chances of a succesfull revolution are slipping away because the capitalist pigs have created a system which apeases the masses. They are perfecting a prison that will prison eveyone with out their knowledge.

We can see it for what it is from the outside but the average person has no idea, which is the whole point of a controled system. I forget who originaly said it but "the greatest feat the devil ever achived was convinceing the world he didn't exist." Thats whats happening, things aren't getting noticably "better" or "worse" just more and more hidden. Capitalism was horrible in the 1800's, it was horrible in the 1900's, it still sucks today, but people don't care today. Western society has mutated, and addapted. It's revolting...but it serves it's purpose. If people are watching Paris Hilton and worrying about the size of their 'Bling" they will sit quietly and do nothing.

The question now is how do we fight such a passive aggresive system? We have to act fast because within my life time things have gotten more and more desperate. The time is know, but for what?