/lit/ - Literature

I think this thread doesn't belong here.

>>4264324
I'm sure we have enough Marxist's and post-modernists here to generate an interesting discussion.

>>4264332
That's what this board needs, another one of those threads. Go to the catalog and pick one, shit often derails that way.

I think his viewers should heavily suggest that he donates all clothes that he doesn't wear any more to charity, that way he can profit from his actions in his usual way, entertain his subscribers and give a little to the less fortunate. He could make a decent and noble living for a while.

you've related this to Georg Lukács (photo), so I assume he's written about consumerism and whatnot. I've heard him mentioned in sociology lectures before, what would be a good/relevant/interesting place to start with him? Anything to ease me into it?

>>4264313
That's more of a cult of a celebrity than consumerism mate

>>4264350

wouldn't you say the two feed each other? the cult of celebrity enforces the solipsism of the modern individual, gives them a brand to tie into, things to buy and say and approve of and disapprove of. i am not sure how successful consumerism would be without the cult of celebrity.

>>4264355
i'm not that guy, but yeah I would agree that they feed each other.

Think of celebrity endorsements of products. Millions of people literally buy underwear because David Beckham modelled and posed for photos in, a replica of it. While all the while, they all think of themselves as individual unique snowflakes, disregarding the fact they all buy into the same consumerist bullshit.

What exactly is the problem with consumerism?

>>4264366

plenty, and i'm not going to pretend to know everything, and i'm not going to list all i know, but i think to sum it up i would say it presents false values to society that have far reaching consequences.

>>4264366
Perverts your soul and makes you incapable of entering into the kingdom of God which is both blessedness and salvation, Amen.

>>4264366
From being, to having, to appearing

>>4264392
The god of the bible doesn't exist so no.

>>4264344
History and Class Consciousness
Theory of the Novel

>>4264366
it's ultimately shallow and empty.

>>4264401
thanks. Do either of them have anything to do with consumerism?

>>4264421
no

You can start with the culture industry-essay by Horkheimer and Adorno

>>4264373
Consumerism isn't a planned thing, though.
I don't see how you could have anything else unless a group intruded, and why should their opinion matter more than anything else? Surely that would be their own complex hedonism?

>>4264366
Brand names make regular hedonism and aestheticism much more expensive while taking away the fun of descovering new unknown pleasures

>>4264411
Isnt everything though?

>>4264457
>Isnt everything though?
wow, so deep

>>4264457
>Isnt everything though?

No. You only think it is because you partake of ideas as though they were products.

>>4264457

Brand names make excellence immediately apparent. A brand name correctly utilized is merely a reputation.

>>4264457
>Brand names make regular hedonism and aestheticism much more expensive while taking away the fun of descovering new unknown pleasures

the only good answer

Anyways, to make this a literature related thread (fuck you, OP), what's a good book that criticizes materialism, consumerism, and the like?

>>4264475
Boudrillard and Debord are your friends

>>4264313
I bought a 500 dollar Isaora jacket

don't tell others what they can and can not buy. He obviously worked hard for that money; editing, uploading the videos etc.

What's the difference between this guy buying 200+ pairs of shoes a year and someone else buying 100+ books a year?

>>4264483
>What's the difference between this guy buying 200+ pairs of shoes a year and someone else buying 100+ books a year?

>>4264507

Lets assume that the books are ASoF level for the sake of argument. If one buys only trash lit, what is the difference?

>>4264523
I was just appalled at the suggestion considering the context of this board.

Late capitalism ladies and gentlemen. Late capitalism.

I think it's great. Perpetum mobile. He is, obviously, happy because he gets his shoes. His viewers are happy because they get the insight on shoes they consider buying or just want to know something about about. Capitalism at it's purest. Even a need as bizarre as information about shoes is met. Of course he adds the aspect of his personality.
"Celebrity worship" is a legitimate concern, but I don't think it applies here. This is a small scale shoe reviewer/trend commenter. He is there, because there is demand. If there was a big group of sneakerheads (let's just pretend it's a word ) that wanted both shoe reviews and philosophical commentary, a /lit/ personality would appear.
Much bigger concern is Nike, or any other corporation. Let's roll with this example though. I used to collect shoes. It was my hobby, I both spent and earned money that way ( big auctions, event. That's why you need info about all the shoes, to never miss an opportunity. ). However, some time ago I got out. Just sold all my pair. The "game" was getting ridiculous. Everyone was bumping the prices for no apparent reason, because they knew people would pay anyway. Free market, right? Not so much. People like me can always get the shoes they need and even some $ on top of it. When prices rise, I could say fuck no and find another way. That was free market. Kids just paid. Nike hyped up things unbelievably ( it's a fucking corporation after all ) and the kids - can't blame them, they didn't know any better "brainwashed" from the very beginning - just paid and paid and paid, driving the whole "sneaker game" crazy.
NOTE: this is just my opinion. I'm not an economy expert. I remember the whole sneaker thing only vaguely now.

urgh those shoes are so gaudy and disgusting

>>4264564
I agree. I think if there were a reviewer who would talk about avant garde/artisinal brands with some artistic and philosophical merit /lit/ wouldn't be spewing shit like "le capilasm is bad|

>>4264335

If it derails that way then how will the catalog help?

>>4264411
What makes the acquisition and appreciation of objects shallow? Do you think actions arising from a voluntary or idle condition are categorically or automatically more meaningful?

Like, okay, I contemplate an idea, exercise, or build a house. Either there the time and effort spent is totally abstract and invisible, or it is put towards other objects (in the example of a house, or one's body in the example of the exercise).

Just because money comes into the equation, I can't agree that consumerism is somehow rendered more shallow or 'empty.' I put scare quotes around empty because I also don't agree with your implicit negative valuation of emptiness.

>>4264468
>>4264469
Thrilling responses. I grant the poster was a bit cliche, but neither of you refuted what he was saying. Also, how do you know that poster 'partake of ideas as though they were products?' Isn't the nature of a product that it has a price? If one simply contemplates ideas without having to buy them--and I think its reasonable enough to think the guy you were replying to does so--you are wrong. So if it is the case there are things that are not 'shallow and empty,' what are they? Name some.

>>4264373
>false values

Damn. Here we go. So what are these false values? What makes them false? What are the true values, and why are the they true? Further: what are the 'far reaching consequences,' and why are they bad?

>>4264401
I hear he's fairly difficult to grasp, is this true in your experience?

OP here, haven't posted in a while

How does this affect the idea of the commodity? Does it signify an evolution in the commodity fetishism, where one is content simply to engage in a voyeuristic, vicarious practice of watching these videos to fuel consumption or is that stretching too far.

What do these clothes and materials become. Let's go back to Volume 1 of Das Kapital and explore the 'commodity,' because that's exactly what we need to do. How does their exchange value alter with the advent of the internet? Use value seems to become exchange value in this, and the necessary human labour (value) is lost in this scenario.

The sweatshops are forgotten even more.

>>4264507
>muh entertainment is morally superiour to yours. Y-you wouldn't understand, baka!

>>4264774
>muh

>>>/pol/

>>4264366
The fact that you are not simply exchanging money for all those cute, cheap commodities, but are (through it) actively participating in the exploitation of laborers (just think of all those Asian-made goods which are more often than not made in gulag-like conditions - there is a reason why they are so cheap). And no, giving some of it back to the poor doesn't clean up your karma.

>>4264795
B-but I recycle and donate clothes and money to charity!

I don't think it differs from people on /lit/ who buy and have dozens of books they do not read.

Sure, the scope and scale is different, but the idea is the same.

>>4264804
Depends on how conspicuous that consumption is. If you have them at home it's hardly the same as appearing in designer clothes in social settings.

>>4264743
This might be of interest to you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

>When Debord says that “All that was once directly lived has become mere representation,” he is referring to the central importance of the image in contemporary society. Images, Debord says, have supplanted genuine human interaction.

Or, to adapt that to your example:
>This kid's videos, I say, have supplanted genuine man-shoe interaction.

On the other hand:
Since we can only buy a limited amount of shoes, we are bound to always be disappointed (to a degree) with what we've got. By watching this kid, we immerse ourselves into the fantasy world in which all the shoes are at our disposal. It's like porn - the real deal leaves a lot to be desired when compared to the fantasy; so in comes the unlimited collection of images that is Internet to fill in the void. We more and more shift from the stressful role of the real deal towards the fantasy-gone-wild spectator role, which, by the way, holds absolutely no consequences for us). In the end we are left with a society in which the only people who act are the ones who are paid to do so so that everyone else can voyeuristiclly enjoy.

>>4264483
>What's the difference between this guy buying 200+ pairs of shoes a year and someone else buying 100+ books a year?

>>4264829
Hell, I forgot the most obvious example - reality tv. Why act when you can sit back and watch others act (often average Joes as well). Such an act is passive and requires no commitment, which I believe is the key part of it.

>>4264829
And then when you obtain them all, or perhaps all of the ones you want, you realize that like all desires and fantasies, the result is rather empty and you move on due to having achieved your desire. The reocres and availability in America of all things is rather dangerous. People are annually engaging in these wild fantasies.

One of the things that horrifies me most that I stumbled upon not to long ago was a fetish called feederism. In short women and men alike just eat, and eat with their goal being to reach a certain weight. They even acquire boyfriends or "feeders" who get them food and help them as they become closer and closer to immobility. A lot of them are at least 300 lbs and many more are 400-500. When I had seen this. I just lost hope, lost all faith in humanity that people do this to themselves. A lot of them are basically porn stars. I became mildly obsessed with finding out more about the fetish because of its train wreck of a central idea and discovered images like this where these women literally double or even triple their weight in just a few years.