Active resistance to consumerism may go beyond carefully managing your spending habits.

Resistance may involve refusal to support any system, contribute to any society, stimulate any economy, or be a productive member of any civilization that functions on consumerism.

Resitance may further involve pranks, tricks, and revenge against large oppressive entities.

Resistance may yet further involve outright terrorism/ecoterrorism upon any society that would allow desperation on an individual while encouraging the pursuit of frivilous material gain.

Resistance may yet further involve outright terrorism/ecoterrorism upon any society that would allow desperation on an individual while encouraging the pursuit of frivilous material gain.
How about just becoming rich, and spending what money you can on the poor?

How about become rich and using the money to eradicate consumerism?


Here's some statistics.
The weathiest 20% of the population consume:
45% of all meat/fish.
58% of total energy
74% of all telephone lines
84% of all paper
87% of the world's vehicles

Yeah, cause your never going to get rich if people aren't buying your stuff.

The problem isn't that people are consuming things, but that others aren't, (and also the toxic waste products of production). If everyone ate well, used clean energy, recycled sustainable resources, and drove non-polluting vehicles, what's the problem?

Pursuit of mateial gain does not support the pursuit of a better world.

rich people don't give money to the poor. They don't even like paying taxes.

rich people suck, therefore communism rules.

rich people suck, therefore communism rules.

If you were rich, would you suck? Rich is in the eye of the beholder

If you were rich, would you suck? Rich is in the eye of the beholder
I think maybe sucking is in the eye of the beholder.

Everything is in the eye of the beholder. Example: 60% of everyone on this forum thinks I suck, but I think I'm the greatest person ever.

Everything is in the eye of the beholder. Example: 60% of everyone on this forum thinks I suck, but I think I'm the greatest person ever.
Heh. Well besides the fact that the private poll suggests your numbers are "off", you couldn't possibly be the greatest person ever simply because: I am.

:D

you couldn't possibly be the greatest person ever simply because: I am.
Can I buy that from you? /grins

rich people suck, therefore communism rules.
Nah, communism is only better than capitalism as an ideal - in reality, people get in the way.

Vslayer probably hasn't lived in the USSR.

Consumerism is in a way needful, we humans need to consume to stay alive, but a little less consumption of useless things and a bit more consumer goods for poorer countries would surely not hurt.
Anyway, being rich and living a live full of boundless consume seems a bit empty to me, but if someone likes that... (yes, I am only saying that because I am not rich)

rich people don't give money to the poor. They don't even like paying taxes.

HA. I get money from rich people sometimes by providing a service for them. I'm poor too, but not AS poor when they cough it up.

I also get money from poor people. What a bastard I am for charging for my services.

Don't fight against the system. That's idiotic, there's thousands trying it already and it will never work. Just a form of degeneration, decay.

Make a better system. That way if you fail, you won't be left with your cock in hand.

Which definition? "The movement seeking to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards." Definitely good.

"The theory that a progressively greater consumption of goods is economically beneficial." Not something that can be good or bad; its just a cold, hard fact. It has long since been proven correct.

"Attachment to materialistic values or possessions." Still good. Material goods make life more comfortable for those who want comfort and more efficient for those who want effectiveness. Goods make things easier to either die a fat and happy man, a worn out genius working for the betterment of mankind, or anything in between. It is up to human character to pick.

Pursuit of material gain versus pursuit of betterment of mankind.


Here's a scenario:
Take 100 people and 100 dollar bills.
The top 20 people share $85.
The bottom 20 people share $1.

That's the world economy.

Pursuit of material gain versus pursuit of betterment of mankind.


Here's a scenario:
Take 100 people and 100 dollar bills.
The top 20 people share $85.
The bottom 20 people share $1.

That's the world economy.

You think money grows on trees, buddy?

What do you think money is?

I think that if the USA or UK had just four years of communism, then reverted back to the normal political parties, there would be a great change. For better.

Politician
The politician strives for more power.
The politician craves the capacity to control the lives of large numbers of people.
The politician wishes to have people believe that they are committed to the welfare of the individual or betterment of the world.
The politician is not interested in justice.


Activist
The activist strives for more justice.
The activist holds a deep contempt for injustice.
The activist wishes to proliferate the truth for the


Rules of Oppression
(Why do people follow orders to commit unjust actions? Why do people choose injustice over justics?)

Habit: Habit is the main reason people do not question the actions their "superiors" expect of them. Habitual obedience is embedded in all cultures. Culture itself stems from the common habitual behavior of each individual in a group/society.

Fear of Sanctions: It is the fear of sanctions rather than the sanctions themselves that is most effective in enforcing obedience.

Moral Obligation: This is the product of cultural programming and deliberate indoctrination by the state, church, and media.

Self interest: The potential for financial gain and enhanced prestige can entice people to obey.

Psychological Identification: People may feel an emotional tie with the leader or the system, experiencing its victories and defeats as their own. The most common manifestations of this are patriotism and nationalism.

Indifference: People often obey commands without consciously questioning their legitimacy.

Inadequacy: Some people prefer to hand control of their lives over to the ruling class. They may feel inadequate to make their own decisions.

cool skill is a naive fanatic idealist.
I think he needs to calm down.

Why so?
If it isn’t ideal, it isn’t real.
Objectivity is subjectivity of the ideal.
The ideal is real. The ideal is practical.
If you pursue the ideal, you obtain the ideal.
If you pursue fallacy, you will obtain fallacy.
Fallicy is anything other than the ideal.


What would you propose be the solution, Avatar?
One has the choice between pursuing the objectives embedded by the world one lives in, and support the leaders of the world one lives in.
Or one can resist the objectives that have been embedded into them by the leaders for the leaders.
Which one is the naive?

Communists also strived towards an ideal, they got fallacy,
because they didn't do their homework on human nature.

As for solution on consumerism.. enjoy that you don't live in Africa and live as you think is right, don't be a slave of commercials,
but to fight against human nature is futile, as history has showed countless of times.
Yes, it might not be your or my nature, but it's common to most others. So what.. the show goes on, enjoy your privileges, why care about some black people in a land far away? They don't care for you.

Why so?
If it isn’t ideal, it isn’t real.

What? There are plenty of 'ideal' things that aren't real. For example, the 'ideal' human history might be one without war and injustice. The ideal human life is one without death. There are many 'ideals', and nearly all of them aren't real.

In fact, the word usually implies separation from reality. Although not always.


Objectivity is subjectivity of the ideal.

What does that mean? It doesn't make any sense to me.


The ideal is real. The ideal is practical.
If you pursue the ideal, you obtain the ideal.

Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes it is physically impossible to obtain the ideal. Depending on the ideal, and whether or not it can be real.

If one is not pursuing justice, one is not pursuing anything.
It is not practical to pursue anything other than justice.
Pursuing face-value objectives is not really pursuing anything.


Whether I care about a person in Africa or not holds no relevance.
It does not mean that what is happening to the person is not wrong.
Turning a blind eye to injustice does not do anything to prevent it.
Ignorance is not the lack of knowledge. It is the lack of desire for knowledge.

The fakists usually say things like: “There is nothing I can do about it.”
Therefore, do not pursue justice.

Whether or not you ‘can do’ something about it does not make the pursuit of justice unimportant.
Regardless, there is nothing to pursue if not justice.

My list about oppression shows why one would choose not pursue justice.
The belief that it is futile is exemplified in the list.
“Inadequacy: Some people prefer to hand control of their lives over to the ruling class. They may feel inadequate to make their own decisions.”

Certain psychology tests attempt to describe your personal nature by your belief about human nature.
Certain employment screening exams would ask a question like: “Do most people believe it is acceptable to take a pen home that belongs to the office?” Or something of that sort.

It is not in human nature to do so.
It is not in human nature to pursue anything but justice.

One might not choose to pursue injustice, and instead pursue whatever it is that their oppressors have embedded in their society.
One might appreciate and enjoy the fact that following their oppressors instead of fighting them allows them to have more ‘freedom’ than those that resist or those in another country that are oppressed to a more severe degree.
Any that would not pursue justice out of the belief that it is futile is naive and docile.


Your case of history does not apply to any history I am familiar with.
History has shown any form of evolution to be telescopic.
That means when something evolves, the rate of evolution accelerates.
In the case of biology:
Evolution to bacteria took long.
It took life less time to evolve from bacteria to plant.
It took life less time to evolve from plant to animal.
It took life less time to evolve from animal to human.
The evolution of life is telescopic.

In the case of technology:
It took technology time to evolve to the use of tools.
It took technology less time to evolve from stone tools to agriculture.
It took technology less time to evolve from agriculture to industrial.
It took technology less time to evolve from industrial to information.
The evolution of technology is telescopic.

In the case of society:
The most primitive form of society abides by survival of the fittest.
The unfit serve the fit.
The most progressive form of society abides by responsibility of the fittest.
The fit serve the less fit.
As history progresses society moves closer and closer to fit the ‘responsibility of the fittest’ model.
The rate at which society moves towards the progressive model increases as well.
The evolution of society is telescopic.


Communists did not strive for the ideal. They believe in an economic system.
Communism and capitalism are economic systems that do not work.

My nature tells me that your post is too long for my precious time I can spend in some a lot more enjoyable way.
Either way, if you want to be Che Version II, please. Won't change my life a bit.

There is a list of definitions about what the psychology would be of somebody that would choose to pursue fallacy over reality.

You think money grows on trees, buddy?

What do you think money is?

Money is a representation of something that actually doesn't exist anymore.

Money does grow on trees and cotton plants. Then they transform it into special paper and print something on it that represents a value.

In my mind, money is simply a tool to keep those without, without.

As you said spurious, money is a representation of something that doesn't exist anymore, although I do think that power exists today (I don't mean physical, I mean social). And I understand you were not saying money represents power, but it does.

If every service and good on Earth were free, then nobody would make money; but that would be okay (of course), because it would be useless. This would also make everything available to everyone, and limit the power the rich man has over a poor man.

Human nature conflicts with this (obviously); the average person wants power of some sort, so an equal society would not work (or it would ultimately falter when people lose "enthusiasm" for helping others with no material reward).


If one is not pursuing justice, one is not pursuing anything.Thinks make no sense to me. One can pursue anything they choose. So this means anything one chooses is just. So everything is potentially justice, which is just bleh.

Maybe you mean "one is not pursuing anything [I]worthwhile," but then that depends on the person and their nature, and from what we've seen from the ideals of communism, that just wouldn't work.


It is not practical to pursue anything other than justice.But everything is just, right? So it is practical to pursue anything and everything?

Oh, and the pursuit of justice has little to do with consumerism imo.

What? There are plenty of 'ideal' things that aren't real. For example, the 'ideal' human history might be one without war and injustice. The ideal human life is one without death. There are many 'ideals', and nearly all of them aren't real.

In fact, the word usually implies separation from reality. Although not always.



What does that mean? It doesn't make any sense to me.



Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes it is physically impossible to obtain the ideal. Depending on the ideal, and whether or not it can be real.
Wrong.

Like a response from a god. A prophet of extreme coolskilness!!
"WRONG" says he, god allmighty, how right is he!!
The argumentation is flawless in its' divine design!

Wrong.
I guess that settles everything. (thanks for clearing that up cool skill).

There's another crushing defeat to be notched onto cool skill's belt. On a roll, I tell ya.

No. Pursuit of justice is pursuit of reality.
Pursuit of aything else is not real, and therefore not really pursuing anything.

No. Pursuit of justice is pursuit of reality.
Pursuit of aything else is not real, and therefore not really pursuing anything.

Translating 'cool skill writing' into 'what cool skill actually means' ... done.

"Pursuit of justice" = "Pursuit of anything cool skill supports, and is therefore just and right in his eyes"

"Pursuit of aything else" = "Pursuit of anything cool skill doesn't support and doesn't think should be supported, so therefore wrong in his eyes"

"not real" = "meaningless, because cool skill disagrees with it"
"not really pursuing anything" = "arguing a futile point, which is automatically incorrect because cool skill disagrees with it"


No. Unless you pursue what I say is right, you're just wrong. Doing anything else is automatically incorrect, because I'm always right. I'm always right because my penis does my thinking for me and my ego can't stand any disagreement, despite the fact that I started this thread and poll.

I really only started this thread not because I wanted to discuss, but because I wanted to feed my own ego.

It doesn't really take that long to analyze the minds of those who let their penises make their decisions for them, since such people don't have much of an excuse for a mind. :D

The sad/ironic thing is you can't argue using logic with someone who doesn't pose such a trait.

Wrong.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y63/mrobert0/_zombiepoke__by_mykel.gif

Go on and believe in nonsense.

Mark my words, your life will be wasted.