On the myth of “consumerism”.
One of the clearest proofs of the fact that the intellectuals of the last century, starting after the war, were perfect balls, is the ease with which they drank without a word the concept of "consumerism", as if it were really a phenomenon existing.
Modern industrial society is made up of a few actors. Those who produce, and those who consume. Those who produce pay for labor, which is then spent on buying the same products that are produced. Of course the worker of a car factory does not produce coca-cola, but the point is that if we see it in "horizontal" terms, the producers pay the workers to produce a good, the workers use that money to buy the same products (or services).
At a certain point the question was: but if this economic model combined disasters, social, political, economic or ecological, what would prevent people from getting angry with those who make money (ie producers) and behead them like in Paris?
The answer is simple: the masses will be convinced that the fault of the disasters of this system does not lie with those who produce the goods by getting too rich, but with those who buy them.
In short, "each family produces 50Kg of waste per month" has become a phrase, the daughter of the concept of consumerism, which seems rational to us. But let's face it: did you produce the plastic bottles, the empty cans, the blisters? Do you have what it takes to produce them at home? Do you make glass bottles?
No. This is perhaps the most striking example of how, thanks to this absurd concept, it is possible to take who produces the SUV and absolve him of the pollution and danger it creates, blaming those who instead drive it.
The concept of consumerism was artificially invented for the sole purpose of shifting the responsibility of producers to consumers.
We are in the 1950s / 60s. A meeting is being held on a luxurious boat. There are the major industrialists on the planet arguing.
- thanks to the forced pacification and the hegemony of the free market system, today we are free to produce excessively and when our employees get rich, then they will buy even more products, and we will enrich ourselves even more. Basically we don't pay them, we lend them money which they then give back by buying the things they did.
- but this cannot work, it will pollute a lot, it will produce political disasters at the source of raw materials, exploitation, unhappiness. They will come to take us with pitchforks.
- But go there. Just make them believe that it's all their fault, because they buy the products. Not ours getting rich. The fault lies with those who pay, not with those who get rich.
- But they will never believe it: we are the ones who get rich with this system!
- You're talking about idiots who go every Sunday to beat their breasts for the fault of a girl without a navel extracted from the dick bone (*) of a certain Adam.
- Yes, I understand, but it is clear that if I produce plastic bottles and sell them, then if they end up in the sea I have to stop producing them. We are the ones who have produced them, they would not exist without!
- Are you kidding me? On the contrary: if the bottles end up in water it is because the people who buy them do not dedicate enough time and money (through taxes) to their disposal. It is THEIR fault if they buy them. It is their craving for consumption that forces us to produce them.
- But we are the ones who advertise everywhere, telling them to buy them! And we made the other packages disappear by selling the polluting ones at a very low price. It makes no sense, they will never believe it! They don't drink it, I tell you.
- They weren't obliged to buy our products alone because we advertise them and give false information about their biodegradability. They could also use alternatives.
- But this pretext is even less credible: we are the largest industrialists on the planet, there are no alternatives to us, and if there are they cost too much. Small producers cannot compete with us on numbers, we have canceled the alternatives. It is an excuse that does not stand up, they will catch us!
- Are you talking about the same fools who will buy an SUV to go to work in the city, or the morons who will have plastic balls implanted under the skin of their chest to inflate their breasts? Are these, who should catch us?
- But there will always be the smartest ones, the rebels.
- Rebellion is a product that we make. London boutiques will soon be inventing Punk, and fools will buy it and be convinced they will make us sorry. They will rebel against those who buy the products other than the ones they buy, not against us.
- But it's impossible, how the hell are you going to hypnotize the entire population?
- Look at these slides: they are called "Consumerism".
- In my opinion they don't drink it, I tell you. We are the ones who earn, you understand? They SPEND for those products, it is we who CASH and we who ENRICH. How can you give responsibility to those who spend, rather than to those who earn? Even children now know the expression "cui prodest"?
- We will convince them that they are the greatest beneficiaries of this well-being. We will convince them that THEY want to live rich, and not us who are billionaires. It is they who have the desire to consume, not us who want to enrich: we satisfy them. Don't you see how we suffer?
- I mean we're sitting in human cunt leather armchairs, while they take their lives overtime to pay off a mortgage, and THEY believe they are the biggest beneficiaries of this system? Come on, they're not fools!
- Of course they will believe it. Just call it "middle class", or "widespread well-being", if not "economic boom". They are fools, I tell you.
- Do not even mention it. They will catch us in an instant! There are intellectuals, they will catch us!
- Today's leading intellectual is busy writing that history is over. His fellow eaters are trying to invent postmodernism, whatever that means. In Italy the best is a fool who talks about weak thinking. Do you understand who we are talking about? A pile of overrated idiots. They don't even understand their own asshole.
- But no, I don't believe it. Can not run. They don't drink it, I tell you.
Needless to say, you bought it. Do you really believe that the phenomenon is consumerism. Do you believe that there is a phenomenon called "consumerism". You believe you are living in a "consumerist" society. And not "producer".
When you see an SUV consume ten hectares of wood just to start the turbo, you really believe that the problem is the driver's ego, and not the wallet of those who sold him that useless bolt for a sum with which your father could buy a house. .
Do you really believe that families produce garbage per capita, and not the factories that have, materially and effectively, produced that stuff.
Do you really think it was your CIVIC DUTY to spend time and resources to dispose of the bottles of Coca Cola, on which Coca Cola made money. So you will spend money to buy the bottle, and then money to dispose of it, and then your taxes will go to the municipality for recycling, and to Coca Cola the responsibility for having produced the bottle will cost ZERO, plus they will earn from selling it.
And this is because you believed in the concept of "consumerism", that is, you believed that in a system made up of producers and consumers, the final destiny of the product is the responsibility and fault of the party that does NOT gain, that is, the consumer.
Explaining the obvious is difficult. So let's go to the days of American slavery. And instead of calling it "slavery" let's call it "passivism". Let's just say that this system of slavery helped negroes with no initiative to be taken to the USA for free, they got a job, they gave them a home, and all they had to do was pick cotton by singing jazz, which was an improvement. compared to their original condition.
It will seem absurd to you because it is obvious that the slaves were the victims of that system, while the slaveholders earned it, but you have never applied the same principle when they convinced you to kill yourself (sometimes literally) overtime for two lire of promotion, while at the top of the pyramid it rained money, pussy and champagne. Who was the victim and who profits from it?
Talking about consumerism and accusing practically everyone else, rather than talking about producism and understanding who was at the top of the pyramid. It is as if among the negroes on the plantations, the smart ones have started blaming themselves and others for singing the blues in the fields while harvesting cotton.
And you felt intelligent, to say "consumerism" instead of "producism". By saying that it was a mania to consume the problem, instead of saying that it was a mania for gain in producing, you felt intelligent. You felt smart. Intellectuals.
You didn't fucking understand.
The myth of consumerism is built at the table, with the mere aim of convincing the inhabitants of an unsustainable system, that the faults of this system go to the consumer, and never to the producer.
If there is pollution, it is clearly the fault of consumerism. It is the consumers who "vote" when they go to the supermarket. As if they had alternatives.
If the industrial system exploits slaves for cobalt, it is the fault of the consumers who buy the batteries for the telephone. Not someone sitting on a stack of money selling batteries.
And the wrong decisions to use polluting materials or devastating methods to produce are not of the industrialists, no: it is the consumers who "vote when they are at the supermarket" who voted badly. Obvious.
I would like you to do a mental exercise. I would like you to start thinking that no family has ever "produced" waste, but some industries have, that MATERIALLY produced bottles, plastic chassis, blister packs and all that.
I would like you to try to think that if there is a useless SUV on the street, it is because someone produced it, and then paid great advertising to explain that it was cool to use it: they could invest money to produce less polluting cars, and instead they invested them in the design of those monsters. And if all the marketing in the world says the SUV is cool, there will always be someone who buys it. Too many.
I would like you to start thinking that when you buy a coke you don't want the aluminum can, and that someone else put it there, leaving you no alternative. And so the fault lies with those who chose to sell canned coke "because HE made more money". You didn't make any money out of that can. Coca Cola yes.
I would like you to start thinking that when you enter a supermarket you are not "voting", because EVERYTHING has been done starting from the idea that, however evil it is, it will always be your fault that you bought it.
I would like you to wonder whose fault it was if VW cars polluted: was it the fault of the factory that sold them, or of your consumerism that you bought them and lit them? Who's that cool with golf?
Yet… there you got there. Nice Shot. Here: now apply the same principle to everything, and you will understand …
that does NOT exist and NEVER has existed any widespread phenomenon called "consumerism". There was a phenomenon called "producism", in which a class got too rich by selling unhealthy, polluting and dangerous products to the population, only to blame the population for the consequences of this business.
We do not live in a "consumerist" society, but in a producer society. The company is not animated by the mass desire to consume or to possess, BUT BY THE DESIRE OF A FEW TO PRODUCE IN ORDER TO ENRICH TO DISMASTER by a small elite.
Why was it so important that you believe it? Shall we give some examples?
- because if we hadn't believed it, we would have forced Coca Cola to collect its bottles and cans. All. We would have forced Evian to handle her plastic bottles.
- if we had not believed that families produce tons of waste, we would have made those who produce plastic bottles and blisters and aluminum cans pay taxes on waste.
- if we hadn't believed that SUVs are sold for the ego of the people, and not for the profit of the industrialists, we might have forced the industrialists to make them less polluting.
- if we had not believed that the smog of cities derives from OUR consumption, rather than from the profit of oil companies, perhaps we would have forced them to make cars with other fuels.
Instead we decided to be US consumers the guilty, guilty of "consumerism", absolving the producers . Oh, poor producers: they hadn't wanted to produce, mind you, if those damned consumers hadn't created demand. What bastards: all these billionaires forced to build factories of polluting stuff, because of us consumerist bastards who buy them. What bastards are we, huh? People forced to become billionaires by our eagerness to consume. It's funny, but you believed it.
instead of calling them to answer for their products, we acquitted the producer, saying that it was our consumerism's fault if those things were produced and sold, throwing all the blame on the consumer, self-flagellating us every time we opened a can of tuna, instead of understanding that it had to be the producer who made a different product, without a can, and perhaps without plundering the sea. It's called research and tuna can be farmed.
Then, I would drop a pitiful veil over the population. We are talking about people who buy tattered clothes by paying them more, we are talking about women who buy uncomfortable shoes and find them more precious, we are talking about men who all wear the same dress and pay for it different amounts depending on the "signature", we are talking about balls they have sacrificed his life to work to the point of destroying his family and becoming strangers to his children. But they had a career spurt. Wow.
But the intellectuals had to notice this scam. They had to start saying that consumerism does not exist, that it is a ghost, an idea created in the laboratory with the express purpose of making it seem that the fault never lies with the producer.
It was the intellectuals who had to explain that if you are the "middle class" who crashes at 70 hours of work a week to have a career spurt of a few thousand euros, you are not the "beneficiary of the economic boom", and of the "widespread well-being": they are your employers, who live in very different conditions of well-being, and the economic boom has it all in the bank.
And tell me, gentlemen "intellectuals" of my balls, today that the middle class no longer exists, today that all the money is in the hands of a few, today that not even beating 70 hours a week you manage to improve the living conditions while the very rich live an exclusive dream, today that the whole sea where you go is polluted but not the exclusive bays of the very rich,
the suspicion has not yet crossed your mind, I say the suspicion, that in the end the consumer is the victim, and the producer is the culprit, and there has never been any consumerism, but a gigantic, greedy, eager "producism"?
So, I'm asking for a friend.
Or stop babbling about "consumerism". What do you make us look better.
Or do you want to keep throwing this shit up on the masses?
(*) The biblical term used to indicate Adam's "rib" was not "rib", but meant the "baculum", the cock bone that some mammals have, but not man. And it also had to justify its lack in our species. Poor Eve: exegesis in the hand is not an adam's rib, it's a piece of the fuck. Indeed, the Jews have this thing of cutting pieces of shit for random reasons.