I've been trying to find an entry point into Baudrillard's work after bouncing of both S&S & SE&D. I've finally landed on this book. So far I usually understand what he's talking about. Looking forward to watching your video to get a deeper understanding.
Listening to this over Christmas Break 2020, not sure if you're still producing these, if you are - GREAT! If not, you should be, these are ageless wonders.
So people are working more hours for more objects. People are trying to say it is raising the standard of living, but things don't give you true happiness and although people get more things they have to work more hours, go to college so companies can have people to produce more sophisticated things/business models/ads. There are less relationships with more work and giving attention to more things, so standard of living is actually going down. Also, capitalism creates the need for things somehow? Is what I'm getting from the first 13 minutes of this video incorrect?
@@TheoryPhilosophy Hey I know this might be kind of a long shot, but I would really like to see a video about Deleuze, if it's at all interpretable to you. I had an interesting conversation with my professor the other day, who wrote her PhD dissertation on Deleuze, and told me she still couldn't explain him, so you'd do well to make some sense of him. I only understand the rhizome, so far.
@@libbyt6312 I have a couple of Deleuze/Guattari vids on here so far that might be of use. However I do intend to do some more on them--Anti-Oedipus for instance. As for Deleuze on his own, I actually haven't read anything yet lulz (save an essay or two) so I won't be able to get to him solo for a little while yet but I definitely will :)
Baudrillard takes the West in isolation. If we take the global system of capitalism in totality, things are pretty much the same as they've always been. There's a tendency for lapsed Western Marxists to miss the bigger picture, the global picture. Capitalism isn't just Japan and the West, its Guatemala, South Africa, the Philippines, Egypt etc etc. The real victims of capitalism are not now to be found in Paris and London, but Soweto and Manila. But the persistent myth of the autonomous, independent nation state, obfuscates the truth of contemporary capitalism. We are inside a world system, yet only perceive part of it, given it's an international system spread over many quasi independent 'nations. In fact, with its prejudices, limits on movement, blatantly uneven justice and overt privileges for the richer more powerful states, capitalism has brought us full circle back to feudalism. A kind of global feudalism that hides behind a sheen of modernity.
I am sorry if I am getting anything wrong here(still relatively new to theory) but what I can think about this is - unless there is abundance of objects throughout the class structure in all the developing and under-developed nations, the people there will continue to long for these objects, effectively maintaining the "consumer society". The more the West "grows" or "develops" the wider the gap will be between the West and the rest of the world. Ultimately what's happening in the poorer capitalistic nations is a direct result of the influence of the West. So aren't these arguments true for the rest of the capitalistic world too? Instead of viewing the world as individual nations, I find it better to view the entire capitalist system as a singular global entity since almost all capitalist economies have been effectively globalised. The objects of consumption might be different but the the system is the same for all. kindly give your views as well @theory and philosophy
@@rishabtibrewal2068 Baudrillard's critiques of Marxism only ring true for the First World, given revolutionary momentum is over,. whereas the Third World still has revolutionary potential, that is if the West didn't violently suppress it, or suppress it by means of financial blackmail. But maybe he was right, maybe the seduction of mass consumption is now negating revolution in the developing world. But that's impossible to discern while political and financial violence is brutally applied. But it's my guess, if not for neo imperialism, half the world would turn red. And then the opiate of mass consumption in the first world would seriously decline, as first world consumption is built on dirt cheap third world raw materials. Baudrillard is correct though in a Western context. Revolutionary energy is all but a spent force, negated by media, mass consumption, and general materialism. But Baudrillard failed to see, that the West, Marxists like hinself included, was slowly but surely being co-opted into a global bourgeois, or perhaps even a global aristocracy - hence our superficiality, falsity, hollowness - and our obsession with simulations of history. Aristocracies always preferring to surround themselves in simulacra - mock Tudor, Neo Classical, Neo - Gothic etc. a way to obscure the brutal realities further a field/ Basically the globe has become a single entity, wherein the social structures once contained within the nation state are now writ large across the globe. A new planetary dimension of capitalism, we naturally struggle to comprehend, or else don't want to comprehend.
@@JAMAICADOCK If half of the "developing" world turns red without letting the productive forces of capitalism develop completely, then they'll still be somehow dependent on the west for objects that they cannot produce on their own. The only other alternative would be to forcefully make the people consume what the state considers necessary and in this way we come back to the USSR ways. This might lead to some disconnect with the West but then it'll simultaneously lead to the consumption trend by the imperialists of the red nations and will seep down to the masses as the nation gets richer(assuming it does) If we consider this situation for a single nation, it basically translates to the working class of a nation depending on the capital owners to consistently feed them with access to newer tech(which the working class themselves produced) until the working class itself is able to take control of the means of production after realising how its being exploited. So, in my sense, mass consumption is the imperialist's way to keep the ball rolling and engaging the masses in the false sense of a good life even when they're being exploited on every level. To realise the exploitation, the masses have to go through the mass consumption phase to then be able to negate it and look for better answers to life?
@@rishabtibrewal2068 There's a trade off between consumption and basic living standards. Unless capital can supply healthcare, housing, pensions, clean water, sanitation, education to the people of the poorer countries, the power of tech and consumption to hypnotize the masses will always have its limitations. And yes the Soviet Union comes back into view, as many of the world's people it's a no brainer, What we might see as moribund and redundant, the people of the developing world might see as a workers' paradise. E.g if you're some peasant eking out an existence in India, you might have a very different view of the so called failures of USSR. So as always in these questions, class interests play the key role. And in Russia itself, the communist party is gaining in support, particularly among the young,. as capitalism in Russia struggles to mirror Western Europe But sure the Second World countries in Eastern Europe rejected communism. for Western consumerism, given they thought they would join the West, which some have, while others struggle. But the schism in Europe was always a false dichotomy, given Eastern Europe was always reactionary well before communism, was never a hotbed of radical politics The occupation of Eastern Europe was always a poisoned chalice for communism, occupied for strategic rather than ideological reasons. Communism if allowed would've had far greater success in Latin America, Southern Asia, Africa etc. As the West well knew, hence that's where most of the shooting wars took place in the Cold War. You also need to remember the fillip of the European Union membership has for the former Warsaw Pact countries. Which obviously excludes the Third World. On the contrary, Europe is pulling up the draw bridge to the Third World, which will mean a greater build up of revolutionary pressure, given migration to the First World is probably the West's best chance at soft power negation of Third World resistance. Moreover, at present, there's no real choice between mass consumerism and socialism in the West, as the Western countries are mixed economies. Likewise there's no choice between mass consumption and socialism in the developing world, as neither really exist. or are allowed to exist. Capitalism, as according to Marxist ideas on surplus value, cannot supply decent living standards to the entire world, as that would create a declining rate of profit, and a collapse of capitalism. That's why no country has joined the First World from the third World in the last 30 years. There are limitations to the wealth capitalism can create without threatening its means of existence. The growth of China creating massive hikes in prices, as a billion more consumers are added to the global market. Any further development of capitalism at this juncture is impossible, that is without a serious fall in wealth for the West, or for that matter, ecological disaster .
This is my second Baudrillard. Although I have read a few people not finding this work very original, per say but for a novice like me, I find it pretty interesting and intimidating as well. Why does he call these shopping centres ‘drugstores’, though ? :D
The commodities have become an inevitable part of our lives. These objects are no longer being exchanged on a mere value basis, but on a virtue basis. Antiques for example. Function wise, antiques are extremely obsolete. But we buy them for that very reason, they're old. They're collectibles.
@@vishalchidambaram1064 Thats not entirely true. Sometimes antiques (i'll use old game consoles as an example) may also be collected for means of escapism, authenticity and/or for legal use just to name a few reasons. It could also be collected for means of inspiration or some other creative purpose. Old records come to mind when thinking of artists like Leyland Kirby. That all being said, art like Kirby's does lead back into the concept of waste.
That's his quote where he says that the masculine is privileged in the agonistic relationship to the feminine as the "noble" side "par excellence" (this means "without equivalent" kind of)
Thank you for this comprehensive summary of the book. You mentioned the name of a female thinker when you were talking about Baudrillard's theorization of the body, body as a substitution for the soul. May I get her full name please? I wasn't able to find her just by the sound of the name. Thanks in advance!
At one point you say that there are other authors which treat the same subject as Baudrillard does in 'Consumer Society', but does it better. Which books specifically do you recommend?
Mansur Alimbayev ughh I know, right! I can't afford to have one though cause they charge quite a lot to store the content and I can't bring myself to start begging y'all for money :/
Mansur Alimbayev ya it will be free for a couple of hours of content and then they charge. so hypothetically, I could put up a couple for a couple of weeks, remove them, and then put up two more for free. but then peeps only get a short windows to download them. if you happen to discover any other ways, I would love to know!
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
This channel is a hidden gem
I've been trying to find an entry point into Baudrillard's work after bouncing of both S&S & SE&D. I've finally landed on this book. So far I usually understand what he's talking about. Looking forward to watching your video to get a deeper understanding.
If capitalism creates wants, then it's not an overstatement to say that primitive society had true affluence
you are not annoying:) very helpful thank u!
Listening to this over Christmas Break 2020, not sure if you're still producing these, if you are - GREAT! If not, you should be, these are ageless wonders.
Every week :)
Thank you for the work!
Hellow from Russia!🙂I remember Сonsumer Society in the USSR. Because i lived 1992-94 years and work in medical business. 🙂
I appreciate your side notes; thanks
19:17 water time
So people are working more hours for more objects. People are trying to say it is raising the standard of living, but things don't give you true happiness and although people get more things they have to work more hours, go to college so companies can have people to produce more sophisticated things/business models/ads. There are less relationships with more work and giving attention to more things, so standard of living is actually going down. Also, capitalism creates the need for things somehow? Is what I'm getting from the first 13 minutes of this video incorrect?
Sounds right to me!
Hi...my Google Pay is not working..please I would tô help modestly....do you have PayPal? Please..tks
thanks! this really helped with my college project
Glad to hear it :)
@@TheoryPhilosophy Hey I know this might be kind of a long shot, but I would really like to see a video about Deleuze, if it's at all interpretable to you. I had an interesting conversation with my professor the other day, who wrote her PhD dissertation on Deleuze, and told me she still couldn't explain him, so you'd do well to make some sense of him. I only understand the rhizome, so far.
@@libbyt6312 I have a couple of Deleuze/Guattari vids on here so far that might be of use. However I do intend to do some more on them--Anti-Oedipus for instance. As for Deleuze on his own, I actually haven't read anything yet lulz (save an essay or two) so I won't be able to get to him solo for a little while yet but I definitely will :)
@@libbyt6312 Oh and tbh, Deleuze is a monolith of complexity. I in no way feel like I actually understand him XD
@@TheoryPhilosophy thank you! sorry i didnt see you had so many other videos - im an idiot. thank you!
Baudrillard takes the West in isolation. If we take the global system of capitalism in totality, things are pretty much the same as they've always been.
There's a tendency for lapsed Western Marxists to miss the bigger picture, the global picture.
Capitalism isn't just Japan and the West, its Guatemala, South Africa, the Philippines, Egypt etc etc.
The real victims of capitalism are not now to be found in Paris and London, but Soweto and Manila.
But the persistent myth of the autonomous, independent nation state, obfuscates the truth of contemporary capitalism. We are inside a world system, yet only perceive part of it, given it's an international system spread over many quasi independent 'nations.
In fact, with its prejudices, limits on movement, blatantly uneven justice and overt privileges for the richer more powerful states, capitalism has brought us full circle back to feudalism. A kind of global feudalism that hides behind a sheen of modernity.
I am sorry if I am getting anything wrong here(still relatively new to theory) but what I can think about this is - unless there is abundance of objects throughout the class structure in all the developing and under-developed nations, the people there will continue to long for these objects, effectively maintaining the "consumer society". The more the West "grows" or "develops" the wider the gap will be between the West and the rest of the world. Ultimately what's happening in the poorer capitalistic nations is a direct result of the influence of the West. So aren't these arguments true for the rest of the capitalistic world too? Instead of viewing the world as individual nations, I find it better to view the entire capitalist system as a singular global entity since almost all capitalist economies have been effectively globalised. The objects of consumption might be different but the the system is the same for all.
kindly give your views as well @theory and philosophy
@@rishabtibrewal2068 Baudrillard's critiques of Marxism only ring true for the First World, given revolutionary momentum is over,. whereas the Third World still has revolutionary potential, that is if the West didn't violently suppress it, or suppress it by means of financial blackmail.
But maybe he was right, maybe the seduction of mass consumption is now negating revolution in the developing world. But that's impossible to discern while political and financial violence is brutally applied.
But it's my guess, if not for neo imperialism, half the world would turn red. And then the opiate of mass consumption in the first world would seriously decline, as first world consumption is built on dirt cheap third world raw materials.
Baudrillard is correct though in a Western context. Revolutionary energy is all but a spent force, negated by media, mass consumption, and general materialism. But Baudrillard failed to see, that the West, Marxists like hinself included, was slowly but surely being co-opted into a global bourgeois, or perhaps even a global aristocracy - hence our superficiality, falsity, hollowness - and our obsession with simulations of history. Aristocracies always preferring to surround themselves in simulacra - mock Tudor, Neo Classical, Neo - Gothic etc. a way to obscure the brutal realities further a field/
Basically the globe has become a single entity, wherein the social structures once contained within the nation state are now writ large across the globe.
A new planetary dimension of capitalism, we naturally struggle to comprehend, or else don't want to comprehend.
@@JAMAICADOCK If half of the "developing" world turns red without letting the productive forces of capitalism develop completely, then they'll still be somehow dependent on the west for objects that they cannot produce on their own. The only other alternative would be to forcefully make the people consume what the state considers necessary and in this way we come back to the USSR ways. This might lead to some disconnect with the West but then it'll simultaneously lead to the consumption trend by the imperialists of the red nations and will seep down to the masses as the nation gets richer(assuming it does)
If we consider this situation for a single nation, it basically translates to the working class of a nation depending on the capital owners to consistently feed them with access to newer tech(which the working class themselves produced) until the working class itself is able to take control of the means of production after realising how its being exploited.
So, in my sense, mass consumption is the imperialist's way to keep the ball rolling and engaging the masses in the false sense of a good life even when they're being exploited on every level. To realise the exploitation, the masses have to go through the mass consumption phase to then be able to negate it and look for better answers to life?
@@rishabtibrewal2068 There's a trade off between consumption and basic living standards. Unless capital can supply healthcare, housing, pensions, clean water, sanitation, education to the people of the poorer countries, the power of tech and consumption to hypnotize the masses will always have its limitations.
And yes the Soviet Union comes back into view, as many of the world's people it's a no brainer, What we might see as moribund and redundant, the people of the developing world might see as a workers' paradise. E.g if you're some peasant eking out an existence in India, you might have a very different view of the so called failures of USSR. So as always in these questions, class interests play the key role.
And in Russia itself, the communist party is gaining in support, particularly among the young,. as capitalism in Russia struggles to mirror Western Europe
But sure the Second World countries in Eastern Europe rejected communism. for Western consumerism, given they thought they would join the West, which some have, while others struggle. But the schism in Europe was always a false dichotomy, given Eastern Europe was always reactionary well before communism, was never a hotbed of radical politics
The occupation of Eastern Europe was always a poisoned chalice for communism, occupied for strategic rather than ideological reasons. Communism if allowed would've had far greater success in Latin America, Southern Asia, Africa etc. As the West well knew, hence that's where most of the shooting wars took place in the Cold War.
You also need to remember the fillip of the European Union membership has for the former Warsaw Pact countries. Which obviously excludes the Third World.
On the contrary, Europe is pulling up the draw bridge to the Third World, which will mean a greater build up of revolutionary pressure, given migration to the First World is probably the West's best chance at soft power negation of Third World resistance.
Moreover, at present, there's no real choice between mass consumerism and socialism in the West, as the Western countries are mixed economies. Likewise there's no choice between mass consumption and socialism in the developing world, as neither really exist. or are allowed to exist.
Capitalism, as according to Marxist ideas on surplus value, cannot supply decent living standards to the entire world, as that would create a declining rate of profit, and a collapse of capitalism. That's why no country has joined the First World from the third World in the last 30 years. There are limitations to the wealth capitalism can create without threatening its means of existence.
The growth of China creating massive hikes in prices, as a billion more consumers are added to the global market. Any further development of capitalism at this juncture is impossible, that is without a serious fall in wealth for the West, or for that matter, ecological disaster .
In an extraction economy, outliers and those in the extraction zone are by necessity, de-emphasized or kept hidden from the 1st World core.
This is my second Baudrillard. Although I have read a few people not finding this work very original, per say but for a novice like me, I find it pretty interesting and intimidating as well.
Why does he call these shopping centres ‘drugstores’, though ? :D
The commodities have become an inevitable part of our lives. These objects are no longer being exchanged on a mere value basis, but on a virtue basis. Antiques for example. Function wise, antiques are extremely obsolete. But we buy them for that very reason, they're old. They're collectibles.
@@vishalchidambaram1064 Thats not entirely true. Sometimes antiques (i'll use old game consoles as an example) may also be collected for means of escapism, authenticity and/or for legal use just to name a few reasons. It could also be collected for means of inspiration or some other creative purpose. Old records come to mind when thinking of artists like Leyland Kirby.
That all being said, art like Kirby's does lead back into the concept of waste.
What word do you say at 27:23? Describing Baudrillard’s conception of the masculin in the system of objects
That's his quote where he says that the masculine is privileged in the agonistic relationship to the feminine as the "noble" side "par excellence" (this means "without equivalent" kind of)
Theory & Philosophy ah! Par excellence. But of course. Merci beaucoup for your reply!
Thank you for this comprehensive summary of the book. You mentioned the name of a female thinker when you were talking about Baudrillard's theorization of the body, body as a substitution for the soul. May I get her full name please? I wasn't able to find her just by the sound of the name. Thanks in advance!
Can you give me the time stamp where I said it??
@@TheoryPhilosophy around 34:20
Simone Weil. I was referencing her work Needs of the Soul (or something like that haha)
@@TheoryPhilosophy Thanks a lot! I think you meant The Need for Roots :) Good day~
Bro I think you need more ads on this video. Every 5 minutes isn’t quite enough 😂
At one point you say that there are other authors which treat the same subject as Baudrillard does in 'Consumer Society', but does it better. Which books specifically do you recommend?
I guess at this point I can't remember exactly, but I imagine I meant the work of Herbert Marcuse.
I enjoy your work, however I would suggest you to try to be published in podcast genre, It would seem to be more convenient for you audience imho
Mansur Alimbayev ughh I know, right! I can't afford to have one though cause they charge quite a lot to store the content and I can't bring myself to start begging y'all for money :/
@@TheoryPhilosophy didn't know that, even in Google podcasts and other free platforms?
Mansur Alimbayev ya it will be free for a couple of hours of content and then they charge. so hypothetically, I could put up a couple for a couple of weeks, remove them, and then put up two more for free. but then peeps only get a short windows to download them. if you happen to discover any other ways, I would love to know!
@@TheoryPhilosophy you could try Patreon
@@tylermanning2848 ughh I know I'm just reticent to start asking people for money lol
water time!
And the meningite? Any meningite? Personal meningite, not just what we do to help the World? Any suggested tipo? Almost in the Loonies again...tks
cool intro
Lol I'm happy to hear that! I've gotten mixed reviews and as such, I'm thinking of writing something a little more tranquil to replace it.
Сonsumer society в СССР.
25.01.22.
obrigada, vc me salvou da prova
Hope you do well on it!
A little Dorian Gray ending.
I am not a consumir, I am a human being😃 How can they predict my behavour if I am a free individual
Ok, 'sumer....
a human being? OK Plato