Brand Names and Sweatshops

Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
3,578
Imagine believing that by giving people tokens called “money” you could purchase the magical power to charm people by your appearance, through the means of displaying a certain “word of power” on your clothing. One would think such a belief very superstitious, something of a backward and primitive society from a jungle, not something which modern people would ever think of doing. But in fact this is exactly what we do, due to the fixation on the thing called “brand names”. People think that by displaying the word “Nike” or whatever they will be loved, appealing, attractive, have all the qualities they wish to display to the world.

Brand names are such a ubiquitous part of modern social life that a majority of people, or so it seems, are under their spell. I don’t doubt that there are people reading this who would actually find a person wearing them more interesting than a person who doesn’t. As if these clothes have some nobility about them, like something made in a sweatshop is actually a positive thing, suggesting the person porting it is of good character. Just a bunch of jumbled up words, assaulting our senses at all times, suggesting something while having no meaning at all.

Really, why on earth would a person buy Nike or other such brands? If you think about it clearly, those clothes are made in atrocious conditions. The people making them earn a meagre pittance, not even enough to sustain themselves despite living in countries with cheap basic commodities. They are forced to work long hours in hot factories with no fire exits, sewing away on their machines endlessly, repetitive meaningless labour. Exploited by corporations who have the resources to pay them equitably, but choose to let them starve for the sake of a few extra cents of profit. How could the beings who make them work in such hells, who do so for nothing more than their own paycheque, utterly without pity, possibly do such things to their fellow humans?

We call the system which permits and promotes this “Capitalism”. It uses the excuse that wealth will magically trickle down to poorer people to allow the unlimited accumulation of wealth by certain entities. These then use their financial might to avoid laws, demand tax breaks, and generally exploit their fellow humans and even countries to whatever extent they can pay for it, and in whatever way will ultimately lead to them becoming more profitable (and the cycle repeats, them ever ammasing illegitimate power).

It is essential that people consider before consuming these junk products which provide nothing more than an utterly meaningless momentary psychological high, whether it be in the form of personal sensations of happiness and conformity, or of the adoration of sycophants who can think of nothing better to admire than the fact that a person has branded themselves with the mark of psychological slavery. The slaves adore their masters, believing them benevolent, in the same way the slaves of consumerism adore a meaningless idol of words and logos which tyrannizes over them.

How primitive we really are! We struggle along, barely making enough money to live, and even in countries where minimum wage has a great deal of buying power, we still don’t have enough spare dinero to be blowing it on tshirts at £50 or more each. We could buy cheaper non-branded clothes and shoes, and look more unique and stylish to any person who isn’t brainwashed enough to be impressed by brand names. Of course some people do like to do this in the most self conscious and oddly conformist style, but it’s quite possible to do it sincerely.

Really we must just overthrow the tyranny of brand names. We must learn to appeal to people with our own personality and force of love, rather than through some other mysterious agency. It is like we are seeking the blessings of the saints – Saint “Nike”, Saint “Coca Cola”, Saint “Adidas”, like they will intervene before society’s judgement, which we fear. We must be ourselves, our most authentic personality, and this will naturally make us quite well-liked, because we are all unique and beautiful beings. Every bit of inauthenticity, especially when it promotes slavery and exploitation, is something which will detract from a happy and meaningful life.
Reading this, I'm reminded of what one of my professor's said when someone asked why people buy brand name clothing. His answer was, "...because they don't want to be alone". Such a succinct and poignant statement, I always thought. If you're interested, this documentary featuring Naomi Klein expounds on that notion further and what you've also stated:

No Logo: Brands, Globalization, Resistance (Featuring Naomi Klein)
 

Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
3,803
..when US politicians aided and abetted moving US manufacturing to China, manufacturing capability and knowledge was lost....This was an intentional act by traitor politicians who were bought off by foreign interests...

Who were the traitor politicians, are they still in office, or did the public vote them out?
My point is that people vote politicians into power, so if the politicians then do stuff we don't like, the voters must take some blame.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
I was going to comment on the OP to say I agreed, with the exception of shifting the blame from capitalism to socialism (as stated, the Chinese Communist Party has a solid market share in slave labor). However, I would much rather concur with your post, and proceed to pile on the CCP.

Checking labels to make sure we purchase nothing ‘Made in China’ is practically the only recourse we have against global financial takeover. The CCP’s insidious infiltration of Western markets has one aim: control the market, in order to destroy the market—after creating their own market, that is—because Communists hate the freedom that Capitalism provides people for self-determination.

Despite their disdain for self-determination, Marxists will use any means necessary, including capitalism, to further their altruistic cause of saving the world… much like Scientology. However, despite sounding as unscientific as Marxism, Scientology doesn’t contain as many lies as Marxism, Lol.

I wonder who would win in a bullshit contest: L. Ron Hubbard vs. Karl Marx?
I completely disagree that socialism is responsible for such things. In a real socialist society nobody would be living off of mere subsistence (or less than subsistence) wages. China is Communist, not Socialist, and its economy has a lot of capitalist characteristics. The "brand name" corporations are capitalist enterprises, part of the neo-liberal project. Neo-liberalism, the US extreme form of capitalism, the most inhuman of all. Furthermore, these corporations are not only producing in China, there are other countries (Bangladesh, Indonesia) where they either manage to blackmail the governments with their financial might or lax regulation allows them to run sweatshops.

Marx had many problems with his doctrines, but the basic thing about the ownership of the means of production being in the hands of bosses rather than workers is a correct analysis. The means of production should belong to those who work them, truly, and not through some "dictatorship of the proliteriat" (one of Marx's very bad ideas). If this were the case, sweatshops would and could not exist.

Reading this, I'm reminded of what one of my professor's said when someone asked why people buy brand name clothing. His answer was, "...because they don't want to be alone". Such a succinct and poignant statement, I always thought. If you're interested, this documentary featuring Naomi Klein expounds on that notion further and what you've also stated:

No Logo: Brands, Globalization, Resistance (Featuring Naomi Klein)
Yeah Naomi Klein is awesome, I read No Logo years back. Generally she is pretty spot on with her stuff, an honest intellectual like Chomsky.
 
Last edited:

irrationalNinja

Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
609
I completely disagree that socialism is responsible for such things. In a real socialist society nobody would be living off of mere subsistence (or less than subsistence) wages. China is Communist, not Socialist, and its economy has a lot of capitalist characteristics.
Evidence the Chinese Communist Party operates a real socialist society:

Since 1949, according to leaked internal documents, the CCP has operated under the “socialist concept of rule of law” in its attempt to demolish the memory of the constitution of the Republic of China.

In order to work (it doesn’t), socialism requires the replacement of the rule of law with the rule of man.

The official party line—referred to as ‘The Instructions’—states, “If there is a law, follow the law; if there is no law, follow the policies; if there is neither a law nor a policy, follow the socialist legal ideology.”

In other words, laws are enforced according to the opinion of CCP members and decided upon in committee meetings.

The following article details the socialist takeover of the legal system in China after radical leftists overthrew the Republic of China and installed Mao Zedong as communist dictator. I found the mention of Mao’s “Anti-Rightist Movement” of 1957 eerily similar to events unfolding in the USA today, and show an example of the result of socialist rule of law.
 

The Agrarian

Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
527
Really we must just overthrow the tyranny of brand names. We must learn to appeal to people with our own personality and force of love, rather than through some other mysterious agency. It is like we are seeking the blessings of the saints – Saint “Nike”, Saint “Coca Cola”, Saint “Adidas”, like they will intervene before society’s judgement, which we fear. We must be ourselves, our most authentic personality, and this will naturally make us quite well-liked, because we are all unique and beautiful beings. Every bit of inauthenticity, especially when it promotes slavery and exploitation, is something which will detract from a happy and meaningful life.
Careful now. Those corporations went Woke™️ and are now single-handedly fighting for a better world

... or so they would have us believe.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
Evidence the Chinese Communist Party operates a real socialist society:

Since 1949, according to leaked internal documents, the CCP has operated under the “socialist concept of rule of law” in its attempt to demolish the memory of the constitution of the Republic of China.

In order to work (it doesn’t), socialism requires the replacement of the rule of law with the rule of man.

The official party line—referred to as ‘The Instructions’—states, “If there is a law, follow the law; if there is no law, follow the policies; if there is neither a law nor a policy, follow the socialist legal ideology.”

In other words, laws are enforced according to the opinion of CCP members and decided upon in committee meetings.

The following article details the socialist takeover of the legal system in China after radical leftists overthrew the Republic of China and installed Mao Zedong as communist dictator. I found the mention of Mao’s “Anti-Rightist Movement” of 1957 eerily similar to events unfolding in the USA today, and show an example of the result of socialist rule of law.
They would have us believe that they are socialist. Basically they are, but in the Marxist sense of the word. There are other possible forms of socialism which would have means of production in the hands of the workers (directly, rather than through a "dictatorship of the proliteriat") while also having democratic elements. Such as "libertarian socialism", and anarchism.

Are you from the US by any chance? Because there is a lot of propaganda against socialism there, due to all the corporate interests and the republican party which basically represents the corporations. Of course the US has staged many a coup against democratically elected socialists, afraid that they might create a "third way", neither neo-liberal capitalist nor authoritarian communist.
 

juniper

Rookie
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
58
Who were the traitor politicians, are they still in office, or did the public vote them out?
My point is that people vote politicians into power, so if the politicians then do stuff we don't like, the voters must take some blame.
Nominees for parties, RNC and DNC in US, are controlled by an elite group. That gate alone keeps the people's choices limited to those controlled by them. They also control the machines in the US. People are voting but the end results are rigged. That is the sad truth we've been denying for years.
 

Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
3,803
Trump and Biden are as different as chalk and cheese, Trump wanted to make America great but the Democrats tried to block him every step of the way.
I still can't believe half of America went nuts and voted for Biden, the election must have been rigged or something.
 

Maldarker

Star
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
2,064
They would have us believe that they are socialist. Basically they are, but in the Marxist sense of the word. There are other possible forms of socialism which would have means of production in the hands of the workers (directly, rather than through a "dictatorship of the proliteriat") while also having democratic elements. Such as "libertarian socialism", and anarchism.

Are you from the US by any chance? Because there is a lot of propaganda against socialism there, due to all the corporate interests and the republican party which basically represents the corporations. Of course the US has staged many a coup against democratically elected socialists, afraid that they might create a "third way", neither neo-liberal capitalist nor authoritarian communist.
The one thing wrong is politics is money on both sides. Lobbyists. Once this is removed & they can't make millions on special interest groups maybe just maybe people with no interest in money will get into power & things will get better for low & middle class people till then its the haves bleeding the have nots because they can't get a say.

OH WAIT!!! This just in: The god of this world is mammon so yeah.....power corrupts & money = power so.....
 

Maldarker

Star
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
2,064
They would have us believe that they are socialist. Basically they are, but in the Marxist sense of the word. There are other possible forms of socialism which would have means of production in the hands of the workers (directly, rather than through a "dictatorship of the proliteriat") while also having democratic elements. Such as "libertarian socialism", and anarchism.

Are you from the US by any chance? Because there is a lot of propaganda against socialism there, due to all the corporate interests and the republican party which basically represents the corporations. Of course the US has staged many a coup against democratically elected socialists, afraid that they might create a "third way", neither neo-liberal capitalist nor authoritarian communist.
The one thing wrong is politics is money on both sides. Lobbyists. Once this is removed & they can't make millions on special interest groups maybe just maybe people with no interest in money will get into power & things will get better for low & middle class people till then its the haves bleeding the have nots because they can't get a say.

OH WAIT!!! This just in: The god of this world is mammon so yeah.....power corrupts & money = power so.....
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
Am I missing something, it seems to me this site promotes the idea that power structures of all kinds,social, economic, political, etc.. are controlled fronts for the elite who are satanic. Socialism this, Marxism that, whatever...it makes no difference if the above statement is true.
Well that may be why none of the candidates which ever get into power are actually socialist in the true sense of the word. They fear that such a leader would arise, because they would take away their privilege and not be subject to their control. Hence the CIA-sponsored coups in Latin America and the attempt to convince the Americans that (Democratic/Libertarian) Socialism = Authoritarian Communism.

Actually though I don't put it all down to the elites. There is some control over what information, views, theories, people are exposed to. However there is also a "conspiracy of ignorance", people so closed minded and intellectually myopic that they can't understand any other idea or way of living. Unfortunately this is often a negative side effect of religion, people thinking they've found "the truth" and giving up on actually reflecting or trying to understand things. Like, people who only read the Bible and discount all secular literature which would challenge their viewpoint because the author isn't a "true Christian" or whatever.
 

irrationalNinja

Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
609
They would have us believe that they are socialist. Basically they are, but in the Marxist sense of the word. There are other possible forms of socialism which would have means of production in the hands of the workers (directly, rather than through a "dictatorship of the proliteriat") while also having democratic elements. Such as "libertarian socialism", and anarchism.

Are you from the US by any chance? Because there is a lot of propaganda against socialism there, due to all the corporate interests and the republican party which basically represents the corporations. Of course the US has staged many a coup against democratically elected socialists, afraid that they might create a "third way", neither neo-liberal capitalist nor authoritarian communist.
In the USA, it is not propaganda that stands in the way of socialism, it is the Constitution of the United States of America.

Socialism equals no private property. Private property is what the United States of America is founded on. Socialism will be accepted in the USA, when the Constitution ceases to exist, which means the USA has ceased to exist.

Socialism does not offer the freedom that capitalism provides.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
In the USA, it is not propaganda that stands in the way of socialism, it is the Constitution of the United States of America.

Socialism equals no private property. Private property is what the United States of America is founded on. Socialism will be accepted in the USA, when the Constitution ceases to exist, which means the USA has ceased to exist.

Socialism does not offer the freedom that capitalism provides.
But yes, it does accept personal property. Your house is your personal property, belongings you acquire through work are personal property. Socialism is not trying to take that away. What is being taken away is the false and absurd "right" to own means of production. That is to say, under socialism factories belong to the workers, land belongs to those who want to farm. Not to some capitalist who inherited it, or acquired it through collaboration with unethical enterprises. Do you understand the difference?
 

irrationalNinja

Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
609
But yes, it does accept personal property. Your house is your personal property, belongings you acquire through work are personal property. Socialism is not trying to take that away. What is being taken away is the false and absurd "right" to own means of production. That is to say, under socialism factories belong to the workers, land belongs to those who want to farm. Not to some capitalist who inherited it, or acquired it through collaboration with unethical enterprises. Do you understand the difference?
Socialism is a fantastical notion, tried many times but always doomed to failure. For example, the European Union is fracturing. Nations who adopted socialist policies—years ago—are now beginning to fully understand how socialism is just the replacement of freedom (under capitalism) with slavery (under socialism), and are attempting to throw off those chains before their children are at the mercy of tyrannical socialist policies from which there is no escape.

Socialism doesn’t work. It has been tried and found lacking. The history of socialism through the ages shows clearly how futile it is to make it work.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
I'm moving this discussion from the "Garden of Eden" thread, as it's more relevant here.

I will agree on your last sentence. So question is do you think people are inherently good or bad by nature? Good example that sticks out is this....child (age 3) takes caramel roll off counter parent see this child hides the roll jumps off chair runs to parent. Parent ask did you eat a caramel roll? Child says NO! I didn't! to the parent no hesitation on the childs part with the evidence smeared on the childs face. At age 3 a child will lie... not influenced by society at that point i would say, but yet hmm a lie from a little 3 yr old. So good or bad are people in essence i would say bad.
I think that people are definitely potentially better than they are under the current system. Encouraging jealousy and competition is destructive towards the better tendencies of human beings. We definitely all have a dark side to our nature, but we also have the possibility to cultivate the good, and a proper social structure would encourage that rather than stifle it. Redistribution of wealth is a start, but it also has to go beyond that, creating institutions which are human-centred, rather than bureaucratic nightmares. I call this thing "socialism" because it is inspired by basic principles like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", but what it actually is, is not a theory, it is something developed by efforts to live in community and harmony with our fellow human beings.

Socialism is a fantastical notion, tried many times but always doomed to failure. For example, the European Union is fracturing. Nations who adopted socialist policies—years ago—are now beginning to fully understand how socialism is just the replacement of freedom (under capitalism) with slavery (under socialism), and are attempting to throw off those chains before their children are at the mercy of tyrannical socialist policies from which there is no escape.

Socialism doesn’t work. It has been tried and found lacking. The history of socialism through the ages shows clearly how futile it is to make it work.
There were a number of socialist experiments, like Allende's government in Chile, which were aborted by US intervention, in that case a military coup bringing Pinochet to power. The US has done everything it can to stifle any possibility that an alternative social and economic model could develop. In the same way, anarchist communities are often persecuted by the police.

The European countries have somewhat socialistic tendencies, and things work a lot better in Europe than in the USA. Things like free healthcare, which we simply take for granted, good welfare programs, that kind of stuff. Of course we are far from being genuinely free societies, there's still a lot of propaganda and fear, but it does suggest that some redistribution of wealth is desirable. The problem perhaps is that it is done by the state, when in fact means of production should really be owned directly by the workers. The anarchist project to dismantle hierarchy could be a useful foundation in creating a purer and more human form of socialism, in fact we should take inspiration from every theory which contests capitalism, which destroys both human lives and the natural world in it's insane and perplexing quest for endlessly increasing profit.
 

irrationalNinja

Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
609
we should take inspiration from every theory which contests capitalism, which destroys both human lives and the natural world in it's insane and perplexing quest for endlessly increasing profit.
Worded like a Party member.

I’m interested to hear your comment on the visceral reaction against socialist policies happening in Cuba right now. You conveniently leave out that Europe is imploding as people realize entrenched socialism has been sucking their labor out of them as it slowly destroys all means of production and their lives, which, in the coming years, will leave their children destitute and at the mercy of, potentially, anarchist warlords on the level of Raz Simone from Seattle’s CHAZ. Frightening.

Do not forget about the Chinese Communist Party, which has the Chinese people at the mercy of its authoritarian socialist government, and hides behind a veneer of capitalist practices it uses to subvert nations economically and ideologically.

Socialism has set China back decades behind the rest of the world, which is essentially what socialists and anarchists want: regression of society back to a less civilized and less agreeable state of order where innovation is stifled and anti-intellectual thought is popularized—socialism’s legacy.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
Worded like a Party member.

I’m interested to hear your comment on the visceral reaction against socialist policies happening in Cuba right now. You conveniently leave out that Europe is imploding as people realize entrenched socialism has been sucking their labor out of them as it slowly destroys all means of production and their lives, which, in the coming years, will leave their children destitute and at the mercy of, potentially, anarchist warlords on the level of Raz Simone from Seattle’s CHAZ. Frightening.

Do not forget about the Chinese Communist Party, which has the Chinese people at the mercy of its authoritarian socialist government, and hides behind a veneer of capitalist practices it uses to subvert nations economically and ideologically.

Socialism has set China back decades behind the rest of the world, which is essentially what socialists and anarchists want: regression of society back to a less civilized and less agreeable state of order where innovation is stifled and anti-intellectual thought is popularized—socialism’s legacy.
Well I'm certainly not a Marxist, I agree with what he said about ownership of the means of production, beyond that I'm skeptical. I think that Europe is functioning a lot better than the USA in many respects, I'm happy to live in a country with free at the point of service healthcare and good welfare programs. In the USA workers don't even have protection against unfair dismissal from their jobs, labour rights there are extremely rudimentary and favourable to large corporations. I can't speak for all anarchists or socialists, but I think a lot of them are very sincere people who absolutely don't want anything like Cuba or China.
 

Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,910
What do the problems Cuba is facing have to do with Communism? I see a lot of bold statements being made, but literally nothing to back it up. In other words, there's a trend here. Anytime there is a problem in a socialist country, all the capitalist shills come out to point at stuff. That's all they are doing, though. Just pointing and being like, see, we told you so!

If America imported 70% of its food supply, we would have shortages too. That's called a logistical reality, no matter what type of government runs it. What about the Cubans not having internet? Again I don't see how that has anything to do with socialism. I read that the "Dollar Store" moved into Cuba, and they only accept dollars. That makes sense; it must be another communist ploy <sarcasm off>

Yes, let's try out capitalism on little ass Cuba. I'm sure a small country that produces nothing literally will do great under the fixed-ass markets these shills pretend is free.
 

Maldarker

Star
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
2,064
I'm moving this discussion from the "Garden of Eden" thread, as it's more relevant here.



I think that people are definitely potentially better than they are under the current system. Encouraging jealousy and competition is destructive towards the better tendencies of human beings. We definitely all have a dark side to our nature, but we also have the possibility to cultivate the good, and a proper social structure would encourage that rather than stifle it. Redistribution of wealth is a start, but it also has to go beyond that, creating institutions which are human-centred, rather than bureaucratic nightmares. I call this thing "socialism" because it is inspired by basic principles like "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need", but what it actually is, is not a theory, it is something developed by efforts to live in community and harmony with our fellow human beings.



There were a number of socialist experiments, like Allende's government in Chile, which were aborted by US intervention, in that case a military coup bringing Pinochet to power. The US has done everything it can to stifle any possibility that an alternative social and economic model could develop. In the same way, anarchist communities are often persecuted by the police.

The European countries have somewhat socialistic tendencies, and things work a lot better in Europe than in the USA. Things like free healthcare, which we simply take for granted, good welfare programs, that kind of stuff. Of course we are far from being genuinely free societies, there's still a lot of propaganda and fear, but it does suggest that some redistribution of wealth is desirable. The problem perhaps is that it is done by the state, when in fact means of production should really be owned directly by the workers. The anarchist project to dismantle hierarchy could be a useful foundation in creating a purer and more human form of socialism, in fact we should take inspiration from every theory which contests capitalism, which destroys both human lives and the natural world in it's insane and perplexing quest for endlessly increasing profit.
You didn't answer the question. Are people inherently good or bad from birth. That's the question. The rest of your statement doesn't matter till that is answered.
 

B_JMNN

Established
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
260
You didn't answer the question. Are people inherently good or bad from birth. That's the question. The rest of your statement doesn't matter till that is answered.
You won't get a definitive answer on this question. As the differences within the many Societies will show some will answer yes and some will answer no.
 
Top