After the Revolution?

Cleaver

MyLastFiver wrote: »

Thank you so, so much Cleaver because I think you have just made my subsequent point, and I couldn't agree with you more.

What we are missing is not more money, or goods; we are missing a sense of fellowship, community and goodwill. That "amazing" feeling you get from being part of a community, I bet you just can't get that from something you'd buy in the shops.

I would hug you but this isn't the DFW board

Very true. There are some on here that think we're a vile society, obsessed with products (laminates and plasmas anyone?) which is true to some extent. But we haven't all suddenly turned in to monsters overnight. Humans are quick to adapt, learn and accept new situations very, very quickly and the new consumer society we find ourselves in is a good example of that. People do believe that a brand new 42" plasma makes them 'happy' and whilst they are fun and functional, they don't bring fulfillment. But people don't believe this because they are idiots, it's because everything in our society is now geared up towards this and we've come to accept it as normal.

For example, we're in a very, very weird modern world where people go to food markets in London on a day out, for fun. For the noise, the interaction, the sense of community, the chat, the banter, the products. The whole experience. Life should be like this. Supermakets suck, stupid big cineworld cinemas suck, most chain bars and restaurants suck, fast food restaurants suck. And none of them suck because they are really poor products or places, they suck because they are all the same. Clones. All identical. Mediocrity and uniformity is much, much worse than something that's poor, in a strange way.

I am ranting now, but strangely enjoying it. If you haven't already, have a read of 'Tescopoly' by Andrew Simms (I think, can't be bothered to Google).

Cleaver

Sorry, another story. I'm firmly on my soapbox now.

The road I lived on a couple of years ago was a typical terrace street and we were located about 8 doors down from a great, small 'corner' shop. It was owned by an indian family and, as I'm a bit of a foodie and love cooking, was great as it sold lots of more unnusual items (for a corner shop) such as garlic, chillies, loads of different spices, fresh herbs, veg etc. as well as the standard alcohol, fags, mags etc. A bit like a mini-food market in a newsagents. The family were lovely, and their stuff was so cheap (40p for a bunch of massive, fresh bunch of corriander or parsley for example).

I went in one evening to buy ingredients for a curry. I got in to a bit of small talk with the lady behind the counter about how I loved to make curry and, whilst it was nice, I never really felt as though I mastered cooking it and was never 100% happy with the end result. The next time I went in she told me to wait, went in to the back then came out with her elderly mother. She had told her mother about my cooking and her Mum had written out her recipe for curry that had been in her family for many years. She then proceeded to give me a bag with some ingredients in that their shop didn't even sell as she said I would need them to do the recipe in an authentic way. I was so moved. I've told this story to countless people and it still makes me smile thinking about it and, in a roundabout way, it's the sort of consumerism that works in terms of making you happy.

It was actually this one, small incident that started to make me think, "why am I going to Tesco for everything?". Sure, supermarkets have a place, but it really changed my outlook on which shops to use. I think you almost don't know what you've got until it's gone.

N.B. Of course, it goes without saying that if your locally owned shop is owned by a load of rude, rip off merchants then they deserve to go bust!

MyLastFiver

Cleaver wrote: »

Humans are quick to adapt, learn and accept new situations very, very quickly and the new consumer society we find ourselves in is a good example of that.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything in your above post, and couldn't have expressed it better.

On the above quote, I agree that it is the adaptability of homo sapiens has been the key to our success as a species. But it works both ways. The "elephant in the sitting room" principle (sorry my psychology isn't good enough to express it better than that) says that humans will not only take advantage of favourable circumstances but also learn to accept adverse circumstances. This makes us vulnerable to powerful, insidious influences. I believe that the set of paradigms which might be expressed as "anglo-saxon progressive, technological consumerism" are just such an insidious group of related influences.

These influences detach us from our own nature. They separate us from our own babies, as both parents go to work in order to keep up the payments on the executive home and the Renault Baiseur.

It is these influences which make us accept that, unless we are very rich indeed, we must live in some of the most appalling housing stock in the developed world. There was a property programme on telly the other night, in which a couple from London were buying a country cottage in Berkshire for a million quid. A million quid. In the 18th century, when that cottage was built, it would have housed a farm labourer's family. It would have been owned by the farm owner and leased to the worker for life. And now? You have to be a millionaire to get into it.

Oh, I'm ranting now too...

fc123

Cleaver wrote: »

If you haven't already, have a read of 'Tescopoly' by Andrew Simms (I think, can't be bothered to Google).

When I read that some time back, I could see all the effects in my own industry...and it is all coming true now.

'Shopped' by Joanna Blythman is a good one too....if you get time.

Nothing wrong with a rant now and again.

MyLastFiver

Cleaver wrote: »

N.B. Of course, it goes without saying that if your locally owned shop is owned by a load of rude, rip off merchants then they deserve to go bust!

Well isn't that what the market would decide?

Good story by the way, which just goes to illustrate that people's true nature is altruistic and communal. We've just forgotten it, as capitalism divorces us from our true nature. See my above rant.

Cleaver

fc123 wrote: »

When I read that some time back, I could see all the effects in my own industry...and it is all coming true now.

'Shopped' by Joanna Blythman is a good one too....if you get time.

Nothing wrong with a rant now and again.

I've recently re-read 'Tescopoly' and the some of the statistics in it are just jaw-droppingly worrying. And then you remember that the book was published in early 2006 and those same stats would be even worse now.

I will check out 'Shopped' (pun fully intended).

slopemaster

MyLastFiver wrote: »

Sorry Incher I'm having trouble keeping up with the replies. To answer your question about human needs, off the top of my head: Food, shelter, the society and fellowship of others, freedom of thought and expression (in all its forms). ...

and work.
The satisfaction of producing something (buildings, educated children, pots, computer code, poetry..) of real use
not just for money

Cleaver

MyLastFiver wrote: »

Well isn't that what the market would decide?

Good story by the way, which just goes to illustrate that people's true nature is altruistic and communal. We've just forgotten it, as capitalism divorces us from our true nature. See my above rant.

I guess so, but I think you can do both. If you asked that same family about money they will still work on a model that they want to make as much money as possible and be better than the other shops on the road. It's just not 'at any cost', and not at the expense of losing their integrity, pride and ethos.

MrFonzerelli

Cleaver wrote: »

If I look at that situation with no context then it just makes you angry, frustrated and confused where we are a society. But we are where we are: markets set a rate for roles, and if we live in a capitalist society then that's it. I have no idea of another system that works without breaking down.

I guess you're more talking about a less extreme example, perhaps someone working in middle ranking finance compared to a nurse? I know what you mean, I think there is a gap which is not particulary fair. And I agree with you, a lessoning of that gap would be 'desirable'. But I'd still be loathe to mess with the natural order of things: basically, let the market decide.

It's never quite as simple as letting markets decide on the natural order. There is always market intervention, whether it be through taxation, legality, regulation, protectionism or govt control (and others that i can't think of right now, as it's pretty late!).
I agree with the rest.

Cleaver

MrFonzerelli wrote: »

It's never quite as simple as letting markets decide on the natural order. There is always market intervention, whether it be through taxation, legality, regulation, protectionism or govt control (and others that i can't think of right now, as it's pretty late!).
I agree with the rest.

Very true. I guess I am referring to a free market rate within a standardised, agreed, general framework within which all employers can operate.

Blimey, that's a complicated statement for me after midnight. Think I should hit the hay.