View Full Version : Clothing in a communist society (split from RapeX thread)
'course, the simple step of legalising prostitution might help, and getting the idea that scantily clad women somehow "were asking for it" out of people's heads would go a long way too.
The thing is society promotes scantily clad women as they objectify women as sex objects. Society still has the label of tomboy for women that behaves closer to what society consider as male gender roles, this includes women that dress for industrial work.
Since I think mostly in terms of function, women dressing like tomboys doesn't seem like a bad thing, why not minimize the difference between genders?
Since I think mostly in terms of function, women dressing like tomboys doesn't seem like a bad thing, why not minimize the difference between genders?
Now, I'm all for a time when gende0r roles are eliminated, but having everyone act like a single gender isn't the way to do it; that will just demonise those that don't, in either gender.
Rather, we need to concentrate on amking all roles acceptable for all people, untill simple gender labels simply don't have any meaning.
Anyway, that said...
The thing is society promotes scantily clad women as they objectify women as sex objects.
doesn't it strike you that the problem is not the choice of clothing, but the interpretation here?
(sorry this is all rather offtopic)
Jazzratt
25th May 2008, 00:03
The thing is society promotes scantily clad women as they objectify women as sex objects.
Oh fuck off. We don't need this neo-puritan bullshit.
Society still has the label of tomboy for women that behaves closer to what society consider as male gender roles, this includes women that dress for industrial work.
See Kami's post, in bold.
Since I think mostly in terms of function, women dressing like tomboys doesn't seem like a bad thing, why not minimize the difference between genders?
Right. So basically do what? Ban skirts? Most women dress in trousers and shirts, like men, gender inequality still exists, rape still exists. This islamic ideal that clothing affects approches to women is clearly not the problem.
Now, I'm all for a time when gende0r roles are eliminated, but having everyone act like a single gender isn't the way to do it; that will just demonise those that don't, in either gender.
Rather, we need to concentrate on amking all roles acceptable for all people, untill simple gender labels simply don't have any meaning.
Why should a female industrial worker dress different from a male industrial worker?
Why should a female technician dress differently then a male technician?
Why should a female engineer dress differently then a male engineer?
Why should a female farmer dress differently then a male farmer?
If women and men for the most part dress the same, it reduces gender to the male and female form.
Oh fuck off. We don't need this neo-puritan bullshit.
Hey I don't care if women walk around nude (except for the safety issue in that clothing protects the body). Just thinks said clothing objectives women.
Right. So basically do what? Ban skirts? Most women dress in trousers and shirts, like men, gender inequality still exists, rape still exists. This islamic ideal that clothing affects approches to women is clearly not the problem.
No, sexualize work clothes, ie fire fighter porn yet instead of men you have women and do similar works for other types of work clothes. Get women to dress in work clothes because society says it is sexy and men would find them attractive in them (and vice a versa, that women find men in work clothes sexy).
I think a communist society would have made huge progress in narrowing gender differences if most men and women find the opposite sex in nothing but overalls far more sexy then the opposite sex in lingerie.
Herman
25th May 2008, 01:12
sexualize work clothes, ie fire fighter porn yet instead of men you have women and do similar works for other types of work clothes. Get women to dress in work clothes because society says it is sexy and men would find them attractive in them (and vice a versa, that women find men in work clothes sexy).
Er... there's nothing wrong with finding work clothes sexy. You're just being a puritan here.
Er... there's nothing wrong with finding work clothes sexy. You're just being a puritan here.
Why?
Like I said I have nothing wrong with nudity and if it was possible to have men and women go around nude all the time I would support that but it is impracticable. Women clothing in general is also impractical and too bourgeois like men's suits (which I would also like to see go away).
If women and men for the most part dress the same, it reduces gender to the male and female form.
If you're stupid enough to think everyone would want to dress the same, wake up.
If you're authoritarian enough to make them, fuck off.
Women clothing in general is also impractical and too bourgeois like men's suits (which I would also like to see go away).
Hang on, why the fuck is clothing bourgeois?
Also, I like suits. I find a good suit aesthetically pleasing. We don't need to reduce everything to utilitarian practicality, you know.
I think a communist society would have made huge progress in narrowing gender differences if most men and women find the opposite sex in nothing but overalls far more sexy then the opposite sex in lingerie.
Do you seriously think you can dictate the aesthetics of a whole society? If that's your future, I want out.
If you're stupid enough to think everyone would want to dress the same, wake up.
If you're authoritarian enough to make them, fuck off.
I'm not talking a Mao suit.
I mean if for the most part you can't tell men from women's clothing (of course other then undergarments due to the differences in the male and female forms) as there is no difference, the form of the human that wares it make the clothing male or female.
Think if women could borrow their boyfriends clothing and boyfriends could borrow their girlfriends clothing without it being creepy as while the clothing would be different they would be unisexual.
Hang on, why the fuck is clothing bourgeois?
Because you can't do work in them, thus the clothing is not designed with the proletariat in mind.
Also, I like suits. I find a good suit aesthetically pleasing. We don't need to reduce everything to utilitarian practicality, you know.
People that wear them avoid getting dirty, I think it is horrible that kids are told not to dirty their clothes espcially when they are wearing a suit. Instead society should tell people go ahead get dirty and clothing should be designed with this mind. Image if most of the adults in a communist society don't think playing in the dirt is immature as they are not afraid to be kids again even if just for awhile.
Do you seriously think you can dictate the aesthetics of a whole society? If that's your future, I want out.
Capitalist society does that now, the psychological damage has to be repaired, we need to replace the image of the sexy women as Barbie dolls, and instead to convey that the female form is still very sexy without tight limiting clothing, thus women can still be free without be limited by clothing.
Mujer Libre
25th May 2008, 01:57
Psy- nobody here has a problem with men and women being able to wear the same clothes- it's just that the way you said it, you made it sound as though women, in order to not be raped, should dress like men.
That, of course, only further cements gender divisions, rather than breaking them down at all.
But bringing this back to the original discussion, what women wear doesn't really have anything to do with rape, the sexism in society, our the general fetishisation of power, has FAR more to do with it.
And on the issue of aesthetics- what the fuck? When I'm working in the garden I'll wear grubby overalls, but when I want to go out to socialise I want to look good. You're reducing the working class solely to "workers" who have no social life, no desire for beauty, fun and frivolity. That's idiotic and Emma Goldman would hate you!
Psy- nobody here has a problem with men and women being able to wear the same clothes- it's just that the way you said it, you made it sound as though women, in order to not be raped, should dress like men.
That, of course, only further cements gender divisions, rather than breaking them down at all.
But bringing this back to the original discussion, what women wear doesn't really have anything to do with rape, the sexism in society, our the general fetishisation of power, has FAR more to do with it.
Yet there is a trend in women's clothing to limit what women can do in them. Think of action films with female action charters were they start off in limiting clothing and rip parts away to make it more functional as most of the dress is actually designed to constrain the women.
And on the issue of aesthetics- what the fuck? When I'm working in the garden I'll wear grubby overalls, but when I want to go out to socialise I want to look good. You're reducing the working class solely to "workers" who have no social life, no desire for beauty, fun and frivolity. That's idiotic and Emma Goldman would hate you!
On the contrary I think worrying about looking goods hinders socializing, take it from someone that has played warehouse soccer, hockey and miniature golf with co-workers (I worked the night shift and we played in the warehouse at breaks), when you don't care getting dirty you have much more fun and have a much better social life.
Mujer Libre
25th May 2008, 02:40
Yet there is a trend in women's clothing to limit what women can do in them. Think of action films with female action charters were they start off in limiting clothing and rip parts away to make it more functional as most of the dress is actually designed to constrain the women.
You know, we don't all wander around dressed like action heroes or Vogue models. I like wearing skirts, and tailored coats and have done all sorts of practical things in them, and I don't see who you are to tell me how I should dress?
Also, what about men who like wearing women's clothes?
On the contrary I think worrying about looking goods hinders socializing, take it from someone that has played warehouse soccer, hockey and miniature golf with co-workers (I worked the night shift and we played in the warehouse at breaks), when you don't care getting dirty you have much more fun and have a much better social life.
Did you completely NOT read my post? There are times when you dress to get dirty, and times when you don't.
Getting dressed up can be its own reward. It's FUN to take care of yourself, to fuss over what goes with what and to be a little over the top.
yes, FUN. And wearing a three-piece suit might hinder you if you were playing soccer, but that's not the be-all and end-all of socialising. *gasp*
It's also fun to wear trackies to the gym, or to a soccer match played in mud. I know this, but people do other things...
I think by this stage you're just defending yourself for the sake of it.
You know, we don't all wander around dressed like action heroes or Vogue models. I like wearing skirts, and tailored coats and have done all sorts of practical things in them, and I don't see who you are to tell me how I should dress?
Why should workers make you these clothing with limited functionality? It is simply more efficient to have all clothing designed to meet general workplace requirements, thus workplaces don't have to worry about if clothing is safe and durable as all clothing is designed with the workers saftey in mind.
Also what about emergencies, if there is a train derailment and you are in a skirt even if you wanted to help it would be too unsafe to let you, while everyone with work clothes would have enough protection to work in certain areas. If you were on the train the skirt might make your rescue a bit embarrassing with people getting a up skirt look as rescue workers carry you to safety, let alone the skirt would have provided far less protection then jeans to flying debris during the crash. This is why I find nudity impracticable in a industrial environment and don't think women clothing is much better, yet I want women to be apart of the industrial environment.
Also, what about men who like wearing women's clothes?
They are no more practical when men wear them, a man wearing a skirt in a factory is just as dangerous then a women wearing a skirt.
Did you completely NOT read my post? There are times when you dress to get dirty, and times when you don't.
Getting dressed up can be its own reward. It's FUN to take care of yourself, to fuss over what goes with what and to be a little over the top.
yes, FUN. And wearing a three-piece suit might hinder you if you were playing soccer, but that's not the be-all and end-all of socialising. *gasp*
It's also fun to wear trackies to the gym, or to a soccer match played in mud. I know this, but people do other things...
To me three-piece suits symbolizes the exploitive managers that oppress the industrial worker.
Jazzratt
25th May 2008, 11:55
Hey I don't care if women walk around nude (except for the safety issue in that clothing protects the body).
It depends entirely on the environment. When someone isn't working then the protection afforded by clothes can be emulated with sun tan lotion.
Just thinks said clothing objectives women.
You're an idiot if you think that, clothing doesn't do anything of the sort. It's all the bullshit of our patriarchal society and the male gaze that objectifies women.
No, sexualize work clothes, ie fire fighter porn yet instead of men you have women and do similar works for other types of work clothes. Get women to dress in work clothes because society says it is sexy and men would find them attractive in them (and vice a versa, that women find men in work clothes sexy).
Ah, so it's perfectly okay to objectify people if you're doing it to change their dressing habits?
I think a communist society would have made huge progress in narrowing gender differences if most men and women find the opposite sex in nothing but overalls far more sexy then the opposite sex in lingerie.
I think that a communist society would focus on eliminating the need for manual labour through technology so the need for this is highly disputable. If anything you should be trying to make lab coats and hazardous material gear sexy - if you do continue on your batshit line.
Anyway, I'm going to split this thread because it's going way off topic.
It depends entirely on the environment. When someone isn't working then the protection afforded by clothes can be emulated with sun tan lotion.
True but we really don't have to plan production for nudity other then producing more sun tan lotion and signs warning that clothing is required beyond that point due to saftey concerns (like like hard hat required signs for areas that need them).
You're an idiot if you think that, clothing doesn't do anything of the sort. It's all the bullshit of our patriarchal society and the male gaze that objectifies women.
I'm not thinking it from why society says clothing objectives women, I'm thinking it from how men's clothing is designed and how women's clothing is designed. They are designed differently for the different gender roles, men's clothing in general are more durable and offers more production, women's clothing focus more on fashion and less on functionality.
Ah, so it's perfectly okay to objectify people if you're doing it to change their dressing habits?
The use of clothing associated of different jobs in porn (and more body types) shows sexuality within the form of the human body, that women don't have to aspire to be a super model to be sexy.
I think that a communist society would focus on eliminating the need for manual labour through technology so the need for this is highly disputable. If anything you should be trying to make lab coats and hazardous material gear sexy - if you do continue on your batshit line.
I doubt you could totally limit manual labor and only limit it.
Why should a female industrial worker dress different from a male industrial worker?
Why should a female technician dress differently then a male technician?
Why should a female engineer dress differently then a male engineer?
Why should a female farmer dress differently then a male farmer?
If women and men for the most part dress the same, it reduces gender to the male and female form.
But there is nothign wrong with having a distinction there.
It depends entirely on the environment. When someone isn't working then the protection afforded by clothes can be emulated with sun tan lotion.
Not really. My own living environment is hazardous enough that I try to have clothes on at all times. I'm just a risk to myself, plain and simple.
gla22
25th May 2008, 18:32
Men are different than women. People need to get over this and stop trying to make everything completely the same.
CheGuevaraRage
25th May 2008, 18:37
Psy you want to cancel the fredom of chlothing to achieve gender equality...
First...you are constatly saying that women should dress like men,so by that you cancel the women's freedoms..so you are an sexist...
Second...we want equal rights but we dont want to be all the same...difference is good...we are not bloody nazis...
Psy you want to cancel the fredom of chlothing to achieve gender equality...
I want to get rid of class symbols, meaning I don't care what you wear as long you don't have clothing that says "I am better then you because I wear clothing that prevents me from working"
First...you are constatly saying that women should dress like men,so by that you cancel the women's freedoms..so you are an sexist...
Second...we want equal rights but we dont want to be all the same...difference is good...we are not bloody nazis...
I never said I wanted everyone to be the same but I don't want to carry over the bad habits of this consumerist society to a workers' society.
Clothing should be designed to last to minimize necessary labor time, also clothing should be designed for at least to general work so people can be asked to help by strangers, ie walking past a park and be asked to carry bags of gravel and socially expected to take time to help out (thus clothing designed with this in mind).
Don't Change Your Name
25th May 2008, 22:03
Why should workers make you these clothing with limited functionality?
Uh, because other workers (such as her) enjoy using those clothes?
It is simply more efficient to have all clothing designed to meet general workplace requirements, thus workplaces don't have to worry about if clothing is safe and durable as all clothing is designed with the workers saftey in mind.
It's also a nice way for you to say "I glorify work! Who cares about having fun? Arbeit match frei!" I wonder exactly why are workers working then, because there's it's their duty with some deity or abstract philosophical concept, perhaps? Why can't human activities serve human desires?
This reminds me of some ignorant girl I once heard say that she opposed communism because "I don't like that stuff about everyone having to dress the same way". Although this is not exactly the same thing, I guess I can't blame her. :lol:
Also what about emergencies, if there is a train derailment and you are in a skirt even if you wanted to help it would be too unsafe to let you, while everyone with work clothes would have enough protection to work in certain areas.
Aw, now you're protecting her. Who do you think you are, the dad of the working class?
men's clothing in general are more durable and offers more production, women's clothing focus more on fashion and less on functionality.
You really need to see more of the fashion on offer these days...
Uh, because other workers (such as her) enjoy using those clothes?
But the question would be if it would be worth the extra labor time to manufacture them, especially if they are less durable thus have to replaced more often. Then changes in fashion would come into question, like how the USSR got stuck with warehouses full of platform shoes because when the USSR started to mass produce platform shoes they were out of style and no one wanted them.
It's also a nice way for you to say "I glorify work! Who cares about having fun? Arbeit match frei!" I wonder exactly why are workers working then, because there's it's their duty with some deity or abstract philosophical concept, perhaps? Why can't human activities serve human desires?
I not against having fun, it is just that if clothes can hold up to general work they are durable enough for most activity thus it makes a logical quality standard.
To me a communist society workers would be free of doing the same task for their lives, for example when in a office a fluorescent tube goes out instead of having a dedicated janitor change it, simply train all the office workers how to set up a ladder and change the fluorescent tube safely which would be a break from their previous task, and allow workers to experience different tasks.
Yet dresses and kilts and ladders don't exactly mix, meaning clothing design would have to take ladders in mind.
Aw, now you're protecting her. Who do you think you are, the dad of the working class?
I'm thinking these questions should be asked when designed clothing.
I want to get rid of class symbols, meaning I don't care what you wear as long you don't have clothing that says "I am better then you because I wear clothing that prevents me from working"
Life does not revolve around working. Especially in an, ahem, communist society, work and life will not be separate categories of daily existence and what "work" means will be radically different. Assuming "work" as such still exists there will still be much less of it and therefore much more time for fun, frivolity, etc. So why the fuck should we only have work clothes available?!
But the question would be if it would be worth the extra labor time to manufacture them
What people want will be produced. And anyway, I'm sure a fashion cottage industry of sorts wouldn't be out of the question. In any case, I can bet people with any tailoring skills would rather create interesting clothes than bland, durable, work clothes.
for example when in a office a fluorescent tube goes out instead of having a dedicated janitor change it, simply train all the office workers how to set up a ladder and change the fluorescent tube safely which would be a break from their previous task, and allow workers to experience different tasks.
Oh god, we will still have office work? I'm out.
Yet dresses and kilts and ladders don't exactly mix, meaning clothing design would have to take ladders in mind.
Or a comrade in pants could change it. Or people could just not look up their co-workers skirt/kilt while they change the bulb.
I'm thinking these questions should be asked when designed clothing.
I think only one question is worth asking: what do people want?
Life does not revolve around working. Especially in an, ahem, communist society, work and life will not be separate categories of daily existence and what "work" means will be radically different. Assuming "work" as such still exists there will still be much less of it and therefore much more time for fun, frivolity, etc. So why the fuck should we only have work clothes available?!
I don't think we will totally get rid of physical labor, or that is needed, we'd probably find enough people that would be willing to do some physical labor thus simply reducing necessary labor time and rotating workers would work.
Also mixing production with hobbies would make leisure and work different, for example doing work in a TV station for some would be seen as a leisure activity from working in a factory, just like some kids working on a school play doesn't see really as work.
Also when I say work clothes I mean clothing were the wearer can do general work, so for example if you pop in a TV station to watch a live show and workers there ask you if you can help them move some stuff around you are able to.
What people want will be produced. And anyway, I'm sure a fashion cottage industry of sorts wouldn't be out of the question. In any case, I can bet people with any tailoring skills would rather create interesting clothes than bland, durable, work clothes.
The question is will these clothes last
Oh god, we will still have office work? I'm out.
Even a newspaper would still have offices for the journalists. I used the office worker simply to mean they are in a office.
Or a comrade in pants could change it.
That would mean the workers in skirts/kilts would be missing out in being able to rotate to different tasks.
Or people could just not look up their co-workers skirt/kilt while they change the bulb.
Easier said then done:cool:
Revolutiondownunder
29th May 2008, 05:18
Men are different than women. People need to get over this and stop trying to make everything completely the same.
If thats true then how would we ever eliminate gender roles and discrimination?
I don't think we will totally get rid of physical labor, or that is needed, we'd probably find enough people that would be willing to do some physical labor thus simply reducing necessary labor time and rotating workers would work.
Physical labor would obviously exist, but I doubt it would resemble what we know today. I hope people will have realized how horrible things like factories are and can figure out a more humane, less production oriented way to organize such endeavors. A smaller-scale seems like it would be a good start.
Also when I say work clothes I mean clothing were the wearer can do general work, so for example if you pop in a TV station to watch a live show and workers there ask you if you can help them move some stuff around you are able to.
Why should you be able to work at all times? And why would you want to? I think you fail to understand one simple fact: people enjoy useless, frivolous, glamorous things. So why try to deny or suppress that and not embrace it? You seem obsessed with this idea of people working or always being able to work but, I will say it again, life does not revolve around working!
The question is will these clothes last
Well if a cottage industry as I described arose, they would probably be more durable than some crap made in a factory. There is no reason clothes cannot be fancy, fun and well-made.
That would mean the workers in skirts/kilts would be missing out in being able to rotate to different tasks.
Or they could just switch with someone and do it when they weren't wearing that. :rolleyes:
Jazzratt
29th May 2008, 14:08
I don't think we will totally get rid of physical labor
No, but through automisation we can minimise it.
Also mixing production with hobbies would make leisure and work different, for example doing work in a TV station for some would be seen as a leisure activity from working in a factory, just like some kids working on a school play doesn't see really as work.
Why would you want workers to make TVs though? Surely that's as much a waste of time as them making pretty clothes?
Why would you want workers to make TVs though? Surely that's as much a waste of time as them making pretty clothes?
TVs last much longer then dress clothing and is heavily used in industry (like in bus, train, ferry stations and airports to show schedules and status), meaning if a TV goes out of style with the home consumer then industry can repurpose them for their own uses, meaning the TV you didn't want would be still be in use till it was no longer practical to keep in service.
Also clothing since feudal times have been used as a symbol of class and a classless society has to be careful that clothing doesn't maintain this class role. What about Africa, it will take them decades before they can waste production on dress clothing, what will they think when they see people in dress clothing on TV from industrial regions? Don't you think they will be intimidated? Don't think it would be easier to maintain unity among the workers of the world when on TV they see people dressed like workers instead of the defunct bourgeoisie/petite-bourgeoisie class? What about those who lives on environments that makes these dress clothing impractical like those living on a ship for months at a time, or rural tribes which communism can provide with TVs, wind/solar generators and satellite dishes yet being a rural tribe they don't live in a practice environment for dress clothing?
Physical labor would obviously exist, but I doubt it would resemble what we know today. I hope people will have realized how horrible things like factories are and can figure out a more humane, less production oriented way to organize such endeavors. A smaller-scale seems like it would be a good start.
Shorter shifts and rotating workers makes factories more humane.
Why should you be able to work at all times? And why would you want to? I think you fail to understand one simple fact: people enjoy useless, frivolous, glamorous things. So why try to deny or suppress that and not embrace it? You seem obsessed with this idea of people working or always being able to work but, I will say it again, life does not revolve around working!
Because I think work can be humanized, yes the current way most people relax is by sitting watching TV or going to the movies. But in a society were workers don't leave work exhausted and workplaces are far less hostile then you'd probably see more people simply wanting a change of pace as they are not physically or menially exhausted. A leisure society should embrace people having productive hobbies, for example those interested in the arts spending some of their time off doing works of art.
Well if a cottage industry as I described arose, they would probably be more durable than some crap made in a factory. There is no reason clothes cannot be fancy, fun and well-made.
I doubt they will be as durable as work/casual clothing, I also doubt they would be as general purpose.
Or they could just switch with someone and do it when they weren't wearing that. :rolleyes:
But a class division has already been created, you have a class of workers that labor value is limited not by their skills or ability but because they are ill-equipped.
Also clothing since feudal times have been used as a symbol of class and a classless society has to be careful that clothing doesn't maintain this class role.
Class is about one's relationship to production, not what one wears. Within classes different groups of people adopt different styles of dress; some members of the bourgeoisie will wear hideous and unfashionable clothes while some members of the proletariat will dress incredibly nice and fashionable. It is not clothing that creates classes, nor is clothing entirely tied to class. Prior to the Reformation in the medieval period, especially in the north, all classes of people strove for colorful, fancy and unique clothing because they enjoyed it. I see no reason why a communist society, or at least parts of it, shouldn't want to do the same. Freed from tedious hours and the immense boredom of capitalist life, I think people will do as they always have and seek beauty and fun.
What about Africa, it will take them decades before they can waste production on dress clothing, what will they think when they see people in dress clothing on TV from industrial regions? Don't you think they will be intimidated?
African societies have a long history of creating all manner of beautiful clothing for no other purpose than to dress up. That western styles have begun to take over (more through the export of second-hand clothing to Africa from the West than anything, I would bet) is an unfortunate effect of capital and imperialism. In a free society, why wouldn't Africans carry on their already existing clothing traditions?
Don't think it would be easier to maintain unity among the workers of the world when on TV they see people dressed like workers instead of the defunct bourgeoisie/petite-bourgeoisie class?
And how exactly do workers dress? I am a worker and I like to pay attention to fashion and dress nice. I know plenty of other workers who are the same. We don't just run around in utilitarian crap. Indeed, most of us resent the restrictions our employers place on our clothing options. Of course, we will dress to suit the work needed to be done, but when we aren't working, why continue to wear shit when we could get done up?
What about those who lives on environments that makes these dress clothing impractical like those living on a ship for months at a time, or rural tribes which communism can provide with TVs, wind/solar generators and satellite dishes yet being a rural tribe they don't live in a practice environment for dress clothing?
Well, for one, I should hope we would have completely destroyed the modern sea industry as-is. Nobody would spend months on a ship unless they wanted to.
Rural tribes would probably keep their own forms of dress. You also assume, probably incorrectly, that work clothes would be functional for them as well.
Shorter shifts and rotating workers makes factories more humane.
The problem is deeper than that, a complete restructuring of the industrial system and its production components is necessary. I think factories would become more like workshops, where individuals could socialize, laze off for long periods and put a bit of creativity into their work, in addition to having obviously shorter hours, if "hours" were even kept in that sense.
Because I think work can be humanized, yes the current way most people relax is by sitting watching TV or going to the movies. But in a society were workers don't leave work exhausted and workplaces are far less hostile then you'd probably see more people simply wanting a change of pace as they are not physically or menially exhausted. A leisure society should embrace people having productive hobbies, for example those interested in the arts spending some of their time off doing works of art.
Well duh, but that isn't really a response to the issue being raised. You want people to always be dressed as though they're ready to work and destroy fun, frivolity and pointlessness in clothing which I don't think most people will appreciate. In a leisure society, we'll want to have hobbies (why productive?) and we'll want to get dressed to kill and go party the night away. Why try to take that away?
I doubt they will be as durable as work/casual clothing, I also doubt they would be as general purpose.
They don't need to be general purpose because they have a specific purpose: looking fucking brilliant!
But a class division has already been created, you have a class of workers that labor value is limited not by their skills or ability but because they are ill-equipped.
During periods of "work," I think people are smart enough to figure out what they need to wear for the job. When not at work, who fucking cares what people wear!
And you seem to have an incorrect understanding of class.
Jazzratt
29th May 2008, 17:54
TVs last much longer then dress clothing
Ah so we can waste energy making as much useless crap as we want as long as it lasts a long time?
and is heavily used in industry (like in bus, train, ferry stations and airports to show schedules and status), meaning if a TV goes out of style with the home consumer then industry can repurpose them for their own uses, meaning the TV you didn't want would be still be in use till it was no longer practical to keep in service.
So the only luxuries available in your dystopia are ones that can be used in industry?
Also clothing since feudal times have been used as a symbol of class and a classless society has to be careful that clothing doesn't maintain this class role.
For anything to be a symbol of something that something has to exist. It's not like someone who wears dress clothing in a classless society is going to have any actual power over someone who isn't - to think otherwise is idealism.
What about Africa, it will take them decades before they can waste production on dress clothing, what will they think when they see people in dress clothing on TV from industrial regions?
So they produce and/or TVs but can't make clothes? What the fuck? If these TVs are being supplied from elsewhere why not clothes and other baubles.
Don't you think they will be intimidated? Don't think it would be easier to maintain unity among the workers of the world when on TV they see people dressed like workers instead of the defunct bourgeoisie/petite-bourgeoisie class?
Are we talking beige boiler suits again? Unity isn't fostered by everyone looking the same, numbskull, slavish obedience to doctrine which comes from the break down of a sense of self does - see the army.
What about those who lives on environments that makes these dress clothing impractical like those living on a ship for months at a time,
Ships are absolutely enormous and I imagine ones designed by a future society would make the comfort of the crew paramount, meaning their would be plenty of areas where dress clothing wouldn't be dangerous. Again, the future will not be 24/7 work.
or rural tribes which communism can provide with TVs, wind/solar generators and satellite dishes yet being a rural tribe they don't live in a practice environment for dress clothing?
Why wouldn't it be practical? Is there something about rural tribes which means they are constantly doing work in a hazardous environment? Do they not have homes? Communal Buildings? TIME OFF?
Shorter shifts and rotating workers makes factories more humane.
Fuck that. Replacing humans with machines makes factories more humane.
Class is about one's relationship to production, not what one wears. Within classes different groups of people adopt different styles of dress; some members of the bourgeoisie will wear hideous and unfashionable clothes while some members of the proletariat will dress incredibly nice and fashionable. It is not clothing that creates classes, nor is clothing entirely tied to class. Prior to the Reformation in the medieval period, especially in the north, all classes of people strove for colorful, fancy and unique clothing because they enjoyed it. I see no reason why a communist society, or at least parts of it, shouldn't want to do the same. Freed from tedious hours and the immense boredom of capitalist life, I think people will do as they always have and seek beauty and fun.
Why would people need another type of clothing to socialize? Are you suggesting a person in jeans wouldn't be properly dressed to socialize? That conspicuous consumption is justifiable?
African societies have a long history of creating all manner of beautiful clothing for no other purpose than to dress up. That western styles have begun to take over (more through the export of second-hand clothing to Africa from the West than anything, I would bet) is an unfortunate effect of capital and imperialism. In a free society, why wouldn't Africans carry on their already existing clothing traditions?
I think that would be more ceremonial clothing rather then clothing designed to be conspicuous consumption.
And how exactly do workers dress? I am a worker and I like to pay attention to fashion and dress nice. I know plenty of other workers who are the same. We don't just run around in utilitarian crap. Indeed, most of us resent the restrictions our employers place on our clothing options. Of course, we will dress to suit the work needed to be done, but when we aren't working, why continue to wear shit when we could get done up?
Because work clothes are comfortable and it is too inconvenient to wear dress clothing (most are not machine washable and are fragile yet cost far more). Basically clothes of commoners are better made in terms of functionally then dress clothes.
Well, for one, I should hope we would have completely destroyed the modern sea industry as-is. Nobody would spend months on a ship unless they wanted to.
There probably still be people willing to work on ships.
Rural tribes would probably keep their own forms of dress. You also assume, probably incorrectly, that work clothes would be functional for them as well.
Tribes in dense forests have adopted clothing similar to what track crews wear as they are far more practice then tribal clothing, jungle tribes are starting to do the same as railways and roads continue to push deeper into jungles.
The problem is deeper than that, a complete restructuring of the industrial system and its production components is necessary. I think factories would become more like workshops, where individuals could socialize, laze off for long periods and put a bit of creativity into their work, in addition to having obviously shorter hours, if "hours" were even kept in that sense.
Industrial workplaces require some level of discipline.
With full employment and worker rotation it is possible to have the shift end before the worker realizes, with a orderly productive workplace the worker can take pride in the short time they worked they accomplished a lot.
Well duh, but that isn't really a response to the issue being raised. You want people to always be dressed as though they're ready to work and destroy fun, frivolity and pointlessness in clothing which I don't think most people will appreciate. In a leisure society, we'll want to have hobbies (why productive?) and we'll want to get dressed to kill and go party the night away. Why try to take that away?
Why take away the freedom of workers to socialize in clothing they find comfortable?
They don't need to be general purpose because they have a specific purpose: looking fucking brilliant!
Why do people need a special type of clothing to look fucking brilliant?
During periods of "work," I think people are smart enough to figure out what they need to wear for the job. When not at work, who fucking cares what people wear!
And you seem to have an incorrect understanding of class.
We are talking a post capitalist society, meaning there would be no point in link the word class with just the relationship to production.
Ah so we can waste energy making as much useless crap as we want as long as it lasts a long time?
The problem with dress clothing is they are conspicuous consumption, that their function is so people can feel more important then other people.
So the only luxuries available in your dystopia are ones that can be used in industry?
The problem is what does a society do with dress clothing when they go out of style?
For anything to be a symbol of something that something has to exist.
There are still symbol of the caste even though it mostly no longer exists.
It's not like someone who wears dress clothing in a classless society is going to have any actual power over someone who isn't - to think otherwise is idealism.
People in suits automatically look more important then those in more comfortable clothing, that means in town halls the workers that didn't dress up are at a disadvantage to those that did dress up.
So they produce and/or TVs but can't make clothes? What the fuck? If these TVs are being supplied from elsewhere why not clothes and other baubles.
TVs can easily be localized (you only have NTSC, SECAM and PAL), casual/work clothing also can be easily localized but dress clothing is harder to localize.
Are we talking beige boiler suits again? Unity isn't fostered by everyone looking the same, numbskull, slavish obedience to doctrine which comes from the break down of a sense of self does - see the army.
That is what I'm against, you can wear an AC/DC t-shirt at work to a warehouse or factory where you don't have to wear a heavier shirt, industrial workers already have far more freedom in what they can wear then office and retail workers. Why should industrial workers give up freedom for the other workers?
Ships are absolutely enormous and I imagine ones designed by a future society would make the comfort of the crew paramount, meaning their would be plenty of areas where dress clothing wouldn't be dangerous. Again, the future will not be 24/7 work.
But they would seem out of place with the worker on duty.
Why wouldn't it be practical? Is there something about rural tribes which means they are constantly doing work in a hazardous environment? Do they not have homes? Communal Buildings? TIME OFF?
When outside the village is a environment that will make short work of dress clothes they are highly impractical.
Fuck that. Replacing humans with machines makes factories more humane.
Humans do like be useful, the problem with industrial production in capitalism is not human labor but the quantity of human labor.
Mujer Libre
30th May 2008, 01:12
Ooh- Psy has learnt a new phrase- "conspicuous consumption." Looking nice is NOT about consuming for the sake of consuming- it's a pretty basic human desire. Since prehistory people have made adornments for themselves- it's hardly solely related to capitalism.
Also- to refer to all colourful and ornate African clothing as "ceremonial" is bullshit and reduces African culture(s) to nothing more than a novelty, a spectacle. Have you ever seen the elaborate ways in which many African women do their hair? It takes hours and hours. Bourgeois decadence? Or the way those Ndebele people paint their houses? More bourgeois decadence?
Besides, in a communist society people would probably WANT to make clothes as a hobby, a creative outlet (OH NOES THE DECADENCE!) and since people would have much more time on their hands,I expect more fantastic creations!
By the way, the way you fetishise 'the factory' is fucking hilarious.
Ooh- Psy has learnt a new phrase- "conspicuous consumption." Looking nice is NOT about consuming for the sake of consuming- it's a pretty basic human desire. Since prehistory people have made adornments for themselves- it's hardly solely related to capitalism.
This is pretty much the sole purpose of dress clothing and suits. Also class systems did exist in pre-history.
Also- to refer to all colourful and ornate African clothing as "ceremonial" is bullshit and reduces African culture(s) to nothing more than a novelty, a spectacle. Have you ever seen the elaborate ways in which many African women do their hair? It takes hours and hours. Bourgeois decadence?
<sarcasm> Yes women spending hours on their hair will smash the stereotype that women are vain and shallow</sarcasm>
Or the way those Ndebele people paint their houses? More bourgeois decadence?
Decorating houses is different, it is art and not fashion.
Besides, in a communist society people would probably WANT to make clothes as a hobby, a creative outlet (OH NOES THE DECADENCE!) and since people would have much more time on their hands,I expect more fantastic creations!
Why would we want people to make clothing as a hobby? A factory can produce better quality of clothing with less labor power. You seem to want people to be different just for the sake of them being different. People can still be a individual in mass produced clothing, it is actually easier as instead of trying to be different in appearance (that is a treadmill as it eventually becomes a fad) one uses more efficient mediums to project who they are, like through art.
By the way, the way you fetishise 'the factory' is fucking hilarious.
Factories has become more humane under capitalism, factories now are much better for workers the factories of the 19th century, are you saying communism can not continue to humanize factories? That the only solution to the plight of the industrial workers is replace them all via automation? That is not humanizing factories that is de-humanizing factories since the goal would be totally getting rid of the human element in factories.
I think some communists here have a failure of imagination and can't image what a communist factory that still had human labor could be like.
Marsella
30th May 2008, 04:40
So what are you exactly saying Psy?
How should clothes 'be' in a communist society?
Decorating houses is different, it is art and not fashion.
Where do you draw the line? Fashion is art.
This is pretty much the sole purpose of dress clothing and suits. Also class systems did exist in pre-history.
The sole purpose of dress and suits is to look nice. That's it. Is all decoration "Conspicuous Consumption"?
<sarcasm> Yes women spending hours on their hair will smash the stereotype that women are vain and shallow</sarcasm>
Much like everyone wearing the same clothing will smash the stereotype of soulless communism?
Why would we want people to make clothing as a hobby?
There's quite a satisfaction in it. Plus it can look exactly how you want it to. You should try it.
A factory can produce better quality of clothing with less labor power.
Because a factory can do it, I wouldn't be allowed to? There goes my miniatures hobby, factories can build and paint them much more efficiently than I can...
You seem to want people to be different just for the sake of them being different.
Why not?
People can still be a individual in mass produced clothing, it is actually easier as instead of trying to be different in appearance (that is a treadmill as it eventually becomes a fad) one uses more efficient mediums to project who they are, like through art.
Firstly, fashion IS art, you philistine.
Secondly, the first thing you note when you meet someone is their appearance; it's a far, far, far more efficient way of projecting oneself than waiting for people to ask to look through your sketchbook.
Where do you draw the line? Fashion is art.
Fashion communicates very little, you can tell next nothing about a culture via fashion. Fashion is not art, as the artist can communicate anything through art and art is a form of communication. Technically you can throw art work on t-shirts and other clothing but that is not fashion, your basically just using the clothing as a canvas for art (nothing wrong with that),
So what are you exactly saying Psy?
How should clothes 'be' in a communist society?
Clothing should not get in the way socializing, as soon you have special type of clothes just to make the person look good, then clothing gets in the way. For example you have speakers having to have clothing projecting that they are important and the speakers that ignore the fake image by wearing what they are comfortable with are seen as less important. We have to remeber the brightest people that ever existed had little fashion sense, are we going to have a society that shuns the smart people because they can't figure out fashion trends?
Firstly, fashion IS art, you philistine.
Is not, art is communication and fashion communicates little.
Secondly, the first thing you note when you meet someone is their appearance; it's a far, far, far more efficient way of projecting oneself than waiting for people to ask to look through your sketchbook.
That is exactly the problem, appearance tells little. Could you tell Einstein was smart by looking at him? Is Bush better then Einstein as Bush has a better appearance then Einstein?
Judging people by appearance is a horrible habit of society that should be snuffed out.
Fashion communicates very little, you can tell next nothing about a culture via fashion.O RLY? How, then, do you account for the appearance of entire sub-cultures based solely on fashion? And the difference in fashion among cultures? You can tell a hell of a lot about a culture through fashion, you're just not looking.
Fashion is not art, as the artist can communicate anything through art and art is a form of communication.You have a very narrow, and for that matter incorrect, definition of art. Under said definition, such things as interior design and architecture certainly wouldn't fall under if clothing didn't. Tell me, what can a building communicate that clothing can't?
Quite frankly, you need to actually go and look at some fashion, since you don't seem to have the blindest idea what it is.
That is exactly the problem, appearance tells little. Could you tell Einstein was smart by looking at him? Is Bush better then Einstein as Bush has a better appearance then Einstein?
We're not talking about physical appearance, but choice of clothing.
Marsella
30th May 2008, 05:49
Clothing should not get in the way socializing,
It doesn't. In fact, it aids socializing.
as soon you have special type of clothes just to make the person look good, then clothing gets in the way.
So, either I go naked or I wear a paper bag.
Great.
For example you have speakers having to have clothing projecting that they are important
And what is wrong with feeling important?
and the speakers that ignore the fake image by wearing what they are comfortable with are seen as less important.
Society generally sees someone wearing dirty torn clothes as someone unworthy to give an opinion.
The point is not the clothes, but the attitutes to homeless/poor people & the conditions which give rise to them.
We have to remeber the brightest people that ever existed had little fashion sense,
Presumably because they cared more about other things...and were still considered 'the brightest people that ever existed.'
So you fail right there you pitiful useless ****.
are we going to have a society that shuns the smart people because they can't figure out fashion trends?
Fallacy.
(and no offence, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a red sock does not go with a green one.)
You're a huge fucking dumb ****.
Plagueround
30th May 2008, 05:52
Fashion communicates very little, you can tell next nothing about a culture via fashion. Fashion is not art, as the artist can communicate anything through art and art is a form of communication. Technically you can throw art work on t-shirts and other clothing but that is not fashion, your basically just using the clothing as a canvas for art (nothing wrong with that),
I generally don't like when people put a huge emphasis on fashion and clothing, because in modern society it's often used as the status symbols and class divisions you're describing. I disagree however, that fashion and clothing cannot be art and that you can tell nothing about a culture through fashion. Fashion and architecture are probably among the most defining outward characteristics of a culture; they incorporate the art of a culture into their design.
I understand where you are coming from on this one and I'm all for making dress clothing a bit more functional (when I had to wear a 3 piece suit and wingtip shoes for my brother's wedding I wanted to choke someone out) but I think the majority of people have and always will like to have difference in clothing and there isn't anything with people getting dressed up, especially in a society where everyone has access to the "nice" clothing.
What you're describing here also makes people think you have this obsession with a very odd "endless factory" grey dystopia.
Since you seem to be having trouble with understanding how fashion can convey messages, let me elaborate a little.
In the gothic fashion (Which I find particularly fascinating), one might wear clothing associated with funerals, or even purposefully take on a corpse-like appearance to convey a message of futility (nihilism is quite prevalent under this particular subculture). Similiarly, many dress as we imagine vampires to, conveying alienation.
On the other hand, Heavy Metal fashion often features bronze and iron age influences, as well as neopagan, likely influenced by the "bardic" aesthetic of such bands as blind guardian; you could look deeper and see some sort of longing for "better times". Also prevalent are quasi-miliatary items, sometimes conveying warrior-culture, sometimes anti-war.
We can even see messages in "chav" fashion in britain; the prevalance of burburry (traditionally associated with the rich) shows the an envy between classes.
in short, you're either blind or a philistine to not see the art in fashion.
Edit: Yes, I'm pretentious as hell -.-
Mujer Libre
30th May 2008, 09:05
I got my hair dyed today. I must be a shallow, materialistic woman...
Also- I think to dismiss fashion as devoid of meaning and symbolism is nonsense. Do I really need to elaborate?
Kami has already made good points, and he's just touched on the tip of the iceberg!
Bilan
30th May 2008, 15:14
The thing is society promotes scantily clad women as they objectify women as sex objects. Society still has the label of tomboy for women that behaves closer to what society consider as male gender roles, this includes women that dress for industrial work.
Since I think mostly in terms of function, women dressing like tomboys doesn't seem like a bad thing, why not minimize the difference between genders?
Women, men, or anyone, have no obligation, requirement, or need to dress in any way than ways which make them feel comfortable, however that manifests - as a 'tom boy', suave, or whatever.
Suggesting that people should change their appearance to over come a problem rooted in patriachy, you start to legitimize the objectification of women because of their clothes; she was asking for it because she looked like that.
As for fashion, haha, I think anyone in the CC can guess what my views on fashion are. ;)
Essentially, there is no reason why this woman
http://www.sweden.se/upload/Sweden_se/english/articles/SI/2006%20uppdaterad/Rookies%20take%20over/dagmar_fashion_sweden.jpg
is any different from this one
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/305379629_0cf039ac22.jpg
...in the fact that they both dress in ways that make them feel comfortable. Which is the only thing that matters.
Jazzratt
30th May 2008, 15:20
Here we have some of those "powerful" people in suits:
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3430166.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=A6F75B5D5F9A091C7FA58F50DE6A7F9CA55A1E4F32AD3138
Not the chap on the far-right. I bet as one of the early immagrants to britain from jamaica he had a lot of power. :rolleyes: I mean look at him, he's wearing a hat that isn't even hardened plastic :scared:
O RLY? How, then, do you account for the appearance of entire sub-cultures based solely on fashion? And the difference in fashion among cultures? You can tell a hell of a lot about a culture through fashion, you're just not looking.
You have a very narrow, and for that matter incorrect, definition of art. Under said definition, such things as interior design and architecture certainly wouldn't fall under if clothing didn't. Tell me, what can a building communicate that clothing can't?
Architecture is immortal thus art, since fashions is based on fads the message changes thus is extremely poor medium of communication thus a extremely poor medium for art.
We're not talking about physical appearance, but choice of clothing.
[/quote]
Einstein didn't wear good looking suits, then professor rarely do.
Since you seem to be having trouble with understanding how fashion can convey messages, let me elaborate a little.
In the gothic fashion (Which I find particularly fascinating), one might wear clothing associated with funerals, or even purposefully take on a corpse-like appearance to convey a message of futility (nihilism is quite prevalent under this particular subculture). Similiarly, many dress as we imagine vampires to, conveying alienation.
On the other hand, Heavy Metal fashion often features bronze and iron age influences, as well as neopagan, likely influenced by the "bardic" aesthetic of such bands as blind guardian; you could look deeper and see some sort of longing for "better times". Also prevalent are quasi-miliatary items, sometimes conveying warrior-culture, sometimes anti-war.
We can even see messages in "chav" fashion in britain; the prevalance of burburry (traditionally associated with the rich) shows the an envy between classes.
in short, you're either blind or a philistine to not see the art in fashion.
Edit: Yes, I'm pretentious as hell -.-
And do you think the same message will be conveyed 100 years from now?
Society generally sees someone wearing dirty torn clothes as someone unworthy to give an opinion.
The point is not the clothes, but the attitutes to homeless/poor people & the conditions which give rise to them.
You missed my point, my point is even a presentable speaker in casual clothing (that is in good condition) would not seem as important as a speaker in a suit.
Presumably because they cared more about other things...and were still considered 'the brightest people that ever existed.'
So you fail right there you pitiful useless ****.
Why have clothing to show importance when the most important people in society don't want wear them?
Fallacy.
(and no offence, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a red sock does not go with a green one.)
So in your vision of communism people shouldn't wear red socks with a green one? Really since fashion is constantly in flux with people looking to be different then people copying them, then it is inevitable for wearing red socks with green socks would eventually become a fashion fad.
I generally don't like when people put a huge emphasis on fashion and clothing, because in modern society it's often used as the status symbols and class divisions you're describing. I disagree however, that fashion and clothing cannot be art and that you can tell nothing about a culture through fashion. Fashion and architecture are probably among the most defining outward characteristics of a culture; they incorporate the art of a culture into their design.
Like I said earlier since clothing can't covey the same message over the decades it is poor medium of communication. If one wears dress clothing from even the 1980's you won't be conveying the message indented by the fashion designer.
I understand where you are coming from on this one and I'm all for making dress clothing a bit more functional (when I had to wear a 3 piece suit and wingtip shoes for my brother's wedding I wanted to choke someone out) but I think the majority of people have and always will like to have difference in clothing and there isn't anything with people getting dressed up, especially in a society where everyone has access to the "nice" clothing.
I don't think everyone having access to "nice" clothing will make everything okay,
the bulk of workers put comfort and convenience above fashion, if we go down the road of clothing making the person then the bulk of the population would be classed as socially awkward as they would not be following fashion trends.
What you're describing here also makes people think you have this obsession with a very odd "endless factory" grey dystopia.
It is probably because I don't see the industrial world as a dystopia, I acknowledge modern capitalists (and the USSR) humanized the industrial to a point and that communism probably can do even better thus industrial is not a bad word.
And do you think the same message will be conveyed 100 years from now?
Ephemeralilty does not dilute beauty, and it is beauty that art is about.
And yes, it would, to any who study history. We look back at the clothing worn in the past now, why would people stop?
You missed my point, my point is even a presentable speaker in casual clothing (that is in good condition) would not seem as important as a speaker in a suit.
Tell me, in a society where everyone could afford the very best clothing, had a roof over their heads and could keep themselves groomed at will, wouldn't it say something about the character of the one who didn't?
Why have clothing to show importance when the most important people in society don't want wear them?
Most people do. Had you not noticed how everyone wore clothes? They'd tell you to fuck right off if you told them to wear work clothes all the time.
As I illustrated earlier, your "poor medium" argument is bullshit. You can't see beauty, and therefore expect the rest of us to do without? Fuck off.
Kropotesta
30th May 2008, 19:47
PSY, how would you go about enforcing this?
communard resolution
30th May 2008, 20:07
PSY, how would you go about enforcing this?
Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IcCVPWixn4&feature=related
Dig?
Ephemeralilty does not dilute beauty, and it is beauty that art is about.
And yes, it would, to any who study history. We look back at the clothing worn in the past now, why would people stop?
That is just snap shots of fashion, you can't tell much of a society by its fashion. For example the USSR dress clothing looked very western, now does that means the USSR was western and culturally nothing more then the USA of the east as if clothing conveys a culture that is what one have to conclude by looking at how people dressed up in the USSR. Or more likely the USSR just copied western fashion, proving fashion is not a expression of individuality but a expression of a lack individuality and clothing says nothing about a culture and the USSR culturally different to the USA that one would conclude if one looks at the music, movies, TV, theater, and other art work of the USSR.
Tell me, in a society where everyone could afford the very best clothing, had a roof over their heads and could keep themselves groomed at will, wouldn't it say something about the character of the one who didn't?
Most people do. Had you not noticed how everyone wore clothes? They'd tell you to fuck right off if you told them to wear work clothes all the time.
Most people already wear clothing that compromise appearance for comfort, durability and low cost. Most people you to fuck off if you tell them to go change in clothing that is relatively unconformable.
That is just snap shots of fashion, you can't tell much of a society by its fashion.
1. Yes you can.
2. Snap shots are all we can ever get of societies of the past.
For example the USSR dress clothing looked very western, now does that means the USSR was western and culturally nothing more then the USA of the east as if clothing conveys a culture that is what one have to conclude by looking at how people dressed up in the USSR.
Dude, you're rambling nonsense. The USSR's culture WAS pretty much "western", and Russia, historically, always has been (at least ,western russia has)
Or more likely the USSR just copied western fashion, proving fashion is not a expression of individuality but a expression of a lack individuality and clothing says nothing about a culture and the USSR culturally different to the USA that one would conclude if one looks at the music, movies, TV, theater, and other art work of the USSR.
You're telling me something cannot be used as an expression of individuality because it has a norm? Hell, a norm is required for one to go against it!
Most people already wear clothing that compromise appearance for comfort, durability and low cost. Most people you to fuck off if you tell them to go change in clothing that is relatively unconformable.
When you eliminate cost as a concern, durability matters little. Why does fashion have to be uncomfortable? If you think people are just going to wear ugly, mass-produced clothing, think again. People won't, no matter how hard you make them try.
There are nations with strict dress codes. Iran, for example. I'm sure we all admire Iran :rolleyes:
Kropotesta
30th May 2008, 20:44
Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IcCVPWixn4&feature=related
Dig?
No, I don't dig.
:cool:
Plagueround
30th May 2008, 20:51
Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IcCVPWixn4&feature=related
Dig?
Dude check out his hair. That man knows fashion.
communard resolution
30th May 2008, 20:58
Dude check out his hair. That man knows fashion.
Agreed. It doesn't get in the way of his work and it looks good. Therefore it is good.
PSY, how would you go about enforcing this?
Simple, engineers being thought that design should be based upon its intended function or purpose, only after that aesthetics should be added to the design but not to the extent that it significantly comprises the functionality of the design.
1. Yes you can.
2. Snap shots are all we can ever get of societies of the past.
Art is different, art is not a snap shot because it can communicate across time and culture.
Dude, you're rambling nonsense. The USSR's culture WAS pretty much "western", and Russia, historically, always has been (at least ,western russia has)
Art works of the USSR tells a completely different story. Even the USSR artworks that criticized the USSR had a style uniquely Eastern European and proved Eastern Europe had a its own culture that one wouldn't know just looking at clothing.
You're telling me something cannot be used as an expression of individuality because it has a norm? Hell, a norm is required for one to go against it!
Art doesn't have this problem, artist in Japan stole ideas from the USA and make them uniquely theirs and now US artists are taking ideas from Japan and making them uniquely theirs.
When you eliminate cost as a concern, durability matters little.
There still would be a cost in terms of labor and costs to environment.
Why does fashion have to be uncomfortable? If you think people are just going to wear ugly, mass-produced clothing, think again. People won't, no matter how hard you make them try.
They already do. Most don't find mass-produced clothing ugly, which is why you have designer jeans.
Kropotesta
30th May 2008, 21:12
Simple, engineers being thought that design should be based upon its intended function or purpose, only after that aesthetics should be added to the design but not to the extent that it significantly comprises the functionality of the design.
That doesn't really answer my question. What would you do with people that actually want to wear what they desire?
That doesn't really answer my question. What would you do with people that actually want to wear what they desire?
It is not a question of stopping them, it is a question of projecting suits of clothing from a past era, so when the masses see someone in a suit in the streets they would assume they are actor like how most people would assume a person in clothing of a deferent period is an actor of some sorts.
Kropotesta
30th May 2008, 22:06
What's the point in that?
What's the point in that?
It solves the problem of people being influenced by people dressed up. If in the minds of the masses that those in nice mass-produced clothing are as presentable to those in fancy dresses and suits then it doesn't mater.
Kropotesta
30th May 2008, 22:22
It solves the problem of people being influenced by people dressed up. If in the minds of the masses that those in nice mass-produced clothing are as presentable to those in fancy dresses and suits then it doesn't mater.
Well sorry but the most plausible solution to that is to dissolve uniforms and have people wear what they please. This would get rid of the connotations of dress as anyone could dress that way if they desire to do so.
Well sorry but the most plausible solution to that is to dissolve uniforms and have people wear what they please.
If people are able to wear what they please while people still have the impression that difficult to manufacture impractical clothing is a justifiable symbol of importance then society becomes run based around who looks good. Appearances become more important then ideas, skilled and abilities.
Kropotesta
30th May 2008, 22:38
If people are able to wear what they please while people still have the impression that difficult to manufacture impractical clothing is a justifiable symbol of importance then society becomes run based around who looks good. Appearances become more important then ideas, skilled and abilities.
That's ridiculous. Why would someone think a person is important because person x is wearing something person y isn't but could if they actually wanted to.
That's ridiculous. Why would someone think a person is important because person x is wearing something person y isn't but could if they actually wanted to.
Kami gave this argument, "Secondly, the first thing you note when you meet someone is their appearance; it's a far, far, far more efficient way of projecting oneself than waiting for people to ask to look through your sketchbook."
So we already had in this discussion the defense of fancy clothing being it is a easy way to judge people by appearance. So we have the idea that someone in clean and rather nice mass-produced clothing is somehow less worth socializing with then someone in fancy clothes.
Kropotesta
30th May 2008, 23:30
So we have the idea that someone in clean and rather nice mass-produced clothing is somehow less worth socializing with then someone in fancy clothes.
That is because being well-groomed with swanky clothes is stereotypical of the rich, however that's because that is their 'uniform' and money issues.
So if anyone could look like that way if desired, it would no longer be a sign of importance.
Also I don't talk to, or even want to talk to someone purely based on them being. dressed in posh clothes, do you?
I'd rather speak to someone who has the same clothing taste as myself, giving a basic shared interest.
Why would people need another type of clothing to socialize? Are you suggesting a person in jeans wouldn't be properly dressed to socialize? That conspicuous consumption is justifiable?
I didn't say anything about needing it. I said people enjoy wearing all sorts of clothes and have always enjoyed putting on things that are fashionable or unique and make them look good without any utilitarian purpose. Obviously nobody needs to wear a specific outfit to socialize and many people wearing different clothing styles hang out together.
You also seem to misunderstand the idea of dressing up. It does not just mean putting on a suit and all of that shit, though that is fun too. Just putting on some nicer jeans and a fashionable hoody and scarf is a form of dressing up as well for some.
Because work clothes are comfortable and it is too inconvenient to wear dress clothing (most are not machine washable and are fragile yet cost far more). Basically clothes of commoners are better made in terms of functionally then dress clothes.
Dress clothing can be just as or more comfortable than work clothing, depending on what one finds comfortable and what job one does. Cost would be irrelevant in a communist society.
Industrial workplaces require some level of discipline.
With full employment and worker rotation it is possible to have the shift end before the worker realizes, with a orderly productive workplace the worker can take pride in the short time they worked they accomplished a lot.
Discipline, order and production are overrated. I much favor the guild system where the focus was quality, not quantity. It isn't about how much useless crap you can turn out.
Why take away the freedom of workers to socialize in clothing they find comfortable?
What the fuck? That's what you are trying to do by limiting clothing to utilitarian worker crap. I am arguing exactly the opposite- that everyone should be free to socialize in the clothing they find comfortable, meaning they can wear a suit, a track outfit, tight jeans and an 80's tee, boots and braces, a studded leather jacket or a fucking pair of overalls; it is up to them.
We are talking a post capitalist society, meaning there would be no point in link the word class with just the relationship to production.
Well that's what class means, sorry. Once production is controlled by the workers, we'll be effectively in a classless society. Of course social inequalities will still exist and be combated, but fashion has nothing to do with oppression.
The problem with dress clothing is they are conspicuous consumption, that their function is so people can feel more important then other people.
We're talking about dressing up, ie people dressing in a more fancy way than they normally do, not explicitly about specific styles of western clothing. And anyway, their function is that the person wearing them thinks they look damn good in them and so choose to wear them.
The problem is what does a society do with dress clothing when they go out of style?
Recycle the materials into other things.
People in suits automatically look more important then those in more comfortable clothing, that means in town halls the workers that didn't dress up are at a disadvantage to those that did dress up.
Why would a modern cultural bias that isn't even always true carry over into a communist society?
That is what I'm against, you can wear an AC/DC t-shirt at work to a warehouse or factory where you don't have to wear a heavier shirt, industrial workers already have far more freedom in what they can wear then office and retail workers. Why should industrial workers give up freedom for the other workers?
What the fuck are you talking about?
I didn't say anything about needing it. I said people enjoy wearing all sorts of clothes and have always enjoyed putting on things that are fashionable or unique and make them look good without any utilitarian purpose. Obviously nobody needs to wear a specific outfit to socialize and many people wearing different clothing styles hang out together.
You also seem to misunderstand the idea of dressing up. It does not just mean putting on a suit and all of that shit, though that is fun too. Just putting on some nicer jeans and a fashionable hoody and scarf is a form of dressing up as well for some.
Those are two different thing, simply dressing in nicer jeans means you are still using mass produced clothing that has a general purpose.
Dress clothing can be just as or more comfortable than work clothing, depending on what one finds comfortable and what job one does. Cost would be irrelevant in a communist society.
Costs still exist in terms of labor power, environmental impact and resource for inputs, storage and distribute.
Discipline, order and production are overrated. I much favor the guild system where the focus was quality, not quantity. It isn't about how much useless crap you can turn out.
You are talking pre-industrial production. Quality can easily be achieved in mass production when there is high worker moral and discipline so workers properly perform their duties.
What the fuck? That's what you are trying to do by limiting clothing to utilitarian worker crap. I am arguing exactly the opposite- that everyone should be free to socialize in the clothing they find comfortable, meaning they can wear a suit, a track outfit, tight jeans and an 80's tee, boots and braces, a studded leather jacket or a fucking pair of overalls; it is up to them.
I am not a design minimalist and agree aesthetics has value, but don't see the point of wasting labor and resources for less durable harder to mass produce clothing specialized for socializing when general purpose clothing fills that role more then adequately. Capitalism already produces general purpose clothing in a variety aesthetics styles so it is not like a communist society would have any difficulty doing the same.
Well that's what class means, sorry. Once production is controlled by the workers, we'll be effectively in a classless society. Of course social inequalities will still exist and be combated, but fashion has nothing to do with oppression.
WRONG!
The word class existed before Marx was even born and definition simply is " A division based on quality, rank, or grade" meaning you can have a class of soilders that simply refer to their skill and while it is not what Marx meant by Marx by the word class is a appropriate use of the word.
We're talking about dressing up, ie people dressing in a more fancy way than they normally do, not explicitly about specific styles of western clothing. And anyway, their function is that the person wearing them thinks they look damn good in them and so choose to wear them.
Mostly due to feeling of inadequacy.
Recycle the materials into other things.
What about when you have another platform shoes fad and like the USSR your stuck with warehouses full of never used platform shoes that no one wants? Recycling them does not recover the wasted labor and production capacity.
Why would a modern cultural bias that isn't even always true carry over into a communist society?
Because the communist society hasn't smashed said cultural bias.
What the fuck are you talking about?
It was a responce to "Are we talking beige boiler suits again? Unity isn't fostered by everyone looking the same, numbskull,"
Industrial workers don't have dress codes except for those that relate to saftey issues. Thus industrial workers do not dress the same. Yet those workers in retail and officers do dress the same as those workplaces have strict dress codes that have nothing to do with safety.
ÑóẊîöʼn
31st May 2008, 21:59
The question of clothing in a communist society is kind of irrelevant. If people want to wear frilly knickers and tights, then they will ask clothing collectives to make them for them, or start a racy-underwear collective themselves.
Basically, people under communism will be free to make the kind of clothes they want, free from economic pressures.
communard resolution
1st June 2008, 03:53
Psy, I sincerely hope you're only arguing for the sport of it. Cause if you're really serious about your petty "what would people wear in a communist society", my advice to you is: you need to get laid.
My excuse: I'm drunk. Please forgive me, don't restrict me.
The question of clothing in a communist society is kind of irrelevant. If people want to wear frilly knickers and tights, then they will ask clothing collectives to make them for them, or start a racy-underwear collective themselves.
Basically, people under communism will be free to make the kind of clothes they want, free from economic pressures.
It would cost a lot of labor time and productive capacity to mass produce a wide variety of fancy clothing meaning shortage somewhere in the system if they are consumed on a large scale. If we dedicate more productive capacity to the fancy clothing it would take away from production of other goods, else would mean expanding productive forces that means a greater environmental impact.
It is just logical for a communist society to use marketing to shift demand away from what is harder to manufacture and towards what is more easily provided in order to keep the necessary labor time low and to minimize environmental impact.
Those are two different thing, simply dressing in nicer jeans means you are still using mass produced clothing that has a general purpose.
No they are exactly the same, people choosing to wear clothes because they think they look good in them. There is no reason to restrict that.
Costs still exist in terms of labor power, environmental impact and resource for inputs, storage and distribute.
Well given that society won't be churning out piles of useless garbage that invariably ends up in a landfill, I think the problem of labor power, etc won't be much of an issue. Clothing production is probably one of the least intensive industries if done correctly.
You are talking pre-industrial production. Quality can easily be achieved in mass production when there is high worker moral and discipline so workers properly perform their duties.
I don't see much of a need for mass production on the scale we see it today and think trying to learn from more humane forms of organization is a good idea. While the factory will obviously not be done away with completely, it will be much different than today and that goes beyond simple restructuring of labor organization.
I am not a design minimalist and agree aesthetics has value, but don't see the point of wasting labor and resources for less durable harder to mass produce clothing specialized for socializing when general purpose clothing fills that role more then adequately.
The point? People want them. The end.
WRONG!
The word class existed before Marx was even born and definition simply is " A division based on quality, rank, or grade" meaning you can have a class of soilders that simply refer to their skill and while it is not what Marx meant by Marx by the word class is a appropriate use of the word.
Well as people who draw from Marx, we're operating on the Marxian definition. And anyway, wearing different clothes won't create rank anyway.
Mostly due to feeling of inadequacy.
People like to look nice because they feel inadequate? What a load of bullshit, unless you believe the majority of the human population throughout history has felt inadequate?
What about when you have another platform shoes fad and like the USSR your stuck with warehouses full of never used platform shoes that no one wants? Recycling them does not recover the wasted labor and production capacity.
Oh noes, we made a mistake. Shit happens, who cares. I am not a productivity fetishist, we don't need to drain every ounce of productivity from people. The materials will be recycled and people will continue on.
Because the communist society hasn't smashed said cultural bias.
Why wouldn't it?
Industrial workers don't have dress codes except for those that relate to saftey issues. Thus industrial workers do not dress the same. Yet those workers in retail and officers do dress the same as those workplaces have strict dress codes that have nothing to do with safety.
And such codes will be done away with. Wow, that was tough.
No they are exactly the same, people choosing to wear clothes because they think they look good in them. There is no reason to restrict that.
Well given that society won't be churning out piles of useless garbage that invariably ends up in a landfill, I think the problem of labor power, etc won't be much of an issue. Clothing production is probably one of the least intensive industries if done correctly.
It is easy with heavily mechanized factories, yet with far more complex clothing designs and flimsy fabrics of fancy clothing it is harder to mechanize production, add the lower life cycle meaning the clothing has to re-produced more often and there would be regular shortages of fancy clothing.
I don't see much of a need for mass production on the scale we see it today and think trying to learn from more humane forms of organization is a good idea. While the factory will obviously not be done away with completely, it will be much different than today and that goes beyond simple restructuring of labor organization.
I don't see it that way, people want the products of society with a low necessary labor time. So a orderly production is the answer as it would provide the productions wanted by society with the least amount of necessary labor time.
The point? People want them. The end.
If people want cars do we give it to them? Even though it is impossible to give everyone a car? One of the functions of a production plan is to sort out what desires are reasonable.
Well as people who draw from Marx, we're operating on the Marxian definition.
Right but logically in a communist society the meaning of class would become more generalized.
And anyway, wearing different clothes won't create rank anyway.
It does now.
People like to look nice because they feel inadequate? What a load of bullshit, unless you believe the majority of the human population throughout history has felt inadequate?
No people feel inadequate and use clothing because they think they look ugly without it.
Oh noes, we made a mistake. Shit happens, who cares. I am not a productivity fetishist, we don't need to drain every ounce of productivity from people. The materials will be recycled and people will continue on.
Yes but since fashion is based on scarcity production plans will always be wrong, as soon as a style becomes easily accessible it becomes out of style.
Why wouldn't it?
Just because we solve the relationship to production doesn't mean we'd have solved cultural bias.
And such codes will be done away with. Wow, that was tough.
I was pointing out that industrial workers don't look the same, it is those that work in retail and office that do. Mass produced clothing already comes in a wider array of styles then fancy clothing and are more durable.
ÑóẊîöʼn
1st June 2008, 23:31
It would cost a lot of labor time and productive capacity to mass produce a wide variety of fancy clothing meaning shortage somewhere in the system if they are consumed on a large scale.
Do you seriously think that people are stupid enough to favour fancy clothes over food and shelter?
Obviously, if resources are tight, then one will have to wait.
If we dedicate more productive capacity to the fancy clothing it would take away from production of other goods, else would mean expanding productive forces that means a greater environmental impact.
Only if the workers want it that way. If some people are are demanding more resources than is reasonable for something frivolous, then other workers are likely to refuse them.
It is just logical for a communist society to use marketing to shift demand away from what is harder to manufacture and towards what is more easily provided in order to keep the necessary labor time low and to minimize environmental impact.
And who decides what?
Vanguard1917
2nd June 2008, 00:44
If people want cars do we give it to them? Even though it is impossible to give everyone a car? One of the functions of a production plan is to sort out what desires are reasonable.
It's not impossible at all. Even under the severe productive limitations of capitalism, it has been shown, at least in the most developed capitalist countries, that it is more than possible to provide each individual with their own car. The point of increasing the productivity of labour under communism is to produce more with less, not produce less with less.
---------------
Under communism, people will follow strict and uncompromising codes of dapper dress, as exhibited by Comrade Lenin (below).
http://home.earthlink.net/~rkcunningham/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/lenincasual.jpg
It's not impossible at all. Even under the severe productive limitations of capitalism, it has been shown, at least in the most developed capitalist countries, that it is more than possible to provide each individual with their own car. The point of increasing the productivity of labour under communism is to produce more with less, not produce less with less.
Yes it is, we have traffic jams even when not everyone drives in the major cities and even though a tiny fraction of Earthlings drive gas production is already failing to meet demand. Unless you want to cover the Earth in express ways, cars will never work on a large scale.
Do you seriously think that people are stupid enough to favour fancy clothes over food and shelter?
Obviously, if resources are tight, then one will have to wait.
Only if the workers want it that way. If some people are are demanding more resources than is reasonable for something frivolous, then other workers are likely to refuse them.
And who decides what?
It is hard for consumers to understand the consequences of what they want while in a store. It is more effective to have production planned in public meetings, so when people say they want something engineers can tell them how feasible their request is when applied to society as a whole.
Kropotesta
2nd June 2008, 10:39
It is more effective to have production planned in public meetings, so when people say they want something engineers can tell them how feasible their request is when applied to society as a whole.
Why would everyone want the same stuff?
Why would everyone want the same stuff?
I didn't say everyone wants the same stuff, I said when applied to society as whole. Meaning computers can project costs to society based on theoretical demands, capitalist society already does this but uses the data so individual producers can plan their production in the pursuit of profits.
ÑóẊîöʼn
13th June 2008, 17:16
It is hard for consumers to understand the consequences of what they want while in a store.
Good grief, do you expect stores in a classless society to be anything like the dens of hustlers we have now?
It is more effective to have production planned in public meetings, so when people say they want something engineers can tell them how feasible their request is when applied to society as a whole.How does that rule out distribution and storage areas that anyone can use in the meantime?
Good grief, do you expect stores in a classless society to be anything like the dens of hustlers we have now?
Do you expect workers in stores do have a world view while they are working? Also by the time the stores have stock the effects of its production is already bore by the means of production, it no longer matter is anyone buys it or not as it has already been manufacture.
For example even if consumers decide to save productive forces and don't buy new large HD TVs at the stores it won't save productive forces as the HD TVs would already be produced and sitting not only in stores but in warehouses as manufactures without planning simply manufacture based on previous demand. So you'd have the stupid situation of people not buying HD TVs to help society but the costs of HD TVs being manufacturing already being paid by society.
How does that rule out distribution and storage areas that anyone can use in the meantime?
Warehouses can't send out what they don't have, with production planned and prioritized warehouses can't do anything for goods that are out stock that are not a priority.
For example lets say automotive plants are busy building vehicles for industry and communities (trucks, vans, buses, light rail vehicles, ect) and they are mostly running at capacity just meeting the plan for these. Now what would be the logic of allowing the building of sports cars in this situation?
OI OI OI
2nd July 2008, 04:24
I read the first post but since I thought it was a waste of time to read all the posts to here I will respond to the first.
Why do we need to diminish the difference between the sexes ?
Isn't this sexist ? Especialy for a man to write this. Women should wear male clothes in order to look like men the first post said.
Why are men better than women?
I don't think that this is serious enough. Freedom for men and women to dress how they want , if at all.
blackgangstaaman
2nd July 2008, 07:03
mehhh fashooooo
neoeno
2nd July 2008, 23:00
I think there's truth on both 'sides' of this.
I think it's important to separate two notions of fashion: fashion as individualist art, and fashion as an industry.
The fashion industry being a system built upon capitalism that requires large-scale propagation of norms and values. This is, "a red sock doesn't go with a green sock" fashion.
Individualist fashion is, as many were getting at, art. Having factories to produce art is an absurd notion, I'm sure we can agree on that. A big portion of the pleasure of art is in the making of it. Fashion movements, as mentioned earlier, are not driven by industry but by individual creativity. Revolutionary fashion (and fashion has become such an influence on the psyche that I'm not afraid to use that term), would be empowering the individual to truly create their appearance, rather than just buy and arrange it according to what is popular.
Think about it, how can you possibly call clothing an art you participate in if you don't have the power (or the ability to get the power) to fully create it?
I'm holding out for high-heels fizzling out on their own though. They just look weird.
I read the first post but since I thought it was a waste of time to read all the posts to here I will respond to the first.
Why do we need to diminish the difference between the sexes ?
Isn't this sexist ? Especialy for a man to write this. Women should wear male clothes in order to look like men the first post said.
Why are men better than women?
I don't think that this is serious enough. Freedom for men and women to dress how they want , if at all.
The difference between the sexes we are talking about are artificial differences. In a ideal world we would do away with clothing all together but that is not practical (that is not to say I don't support nudity colonies but just on a large scale it is too impractical). So since industrial society needs clothing the next question is why should clothing symbolize gender other then where it can't be helped (under garments, swimsuit,ect). Meaning when starting from a clean slate why should society have clothing to symbolize gender (think about it, signs with a silhouette of a person in a dress is used to designate a women's area and signs with a silhouette of a person without a dress is used to designate a men's area).
Kropotesta
3rd July 2008, 11:32
So since industrial society needs clothing the next question is why should clothing symbolize gender other then where it can't be helped (under garments, swimsuit,ect). Meaning when starting from a clean slate why should society have clothing to symbolize gender (think about it, signs with a silhouette of a person in a dress is used to designate a women's area and signs with a silhouette of a person without a dress is used to designate a men's area).
Maybe you should let people design their own clothes instead of advocating same dress style, which appears would consist of a tradional male trousers and t-shirt look.
rosa-rl
3rd July 2008, 13:37
I think that there should be an explosion of styles and encouragement of different culture's styles - not those that limit women which should be struggled against but not excluded by law.
Experimentation should be the rule not the exception.
And yeah, nudism rocks!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.