A Materialistic Society?

[Paullw]

Originally Posted by rhiannonmars

I meet girls online who buy all these purses, none of them really matching in style, all just the "hot" thing. It doesn't make sence to me that someone can fully realize the styles of what they buy. So you are a boho, baby doll, goth, punk rock, elegant person? I see they want the purse not because it fits with their style, but it fits with everyone elses views of what is style in magazines. Comming from so many points of views, it turns into this ugly conglomeration of clothes that just don't go, but they are so "have to have", they buy them anyways, and sometimes don't even use them! That is where I think consumerism has gone wrong. I'd rather that money go to a starving child, a drug abuse program, etc.

Don't you think its a bit much to say that people can spend their money on clothes if they use them to put together a set style? What if they want to look uncoordinated, maybe they like that. If anything, the going for one 'set' style is more influenced by magazines and society. I don't think you can say that some people can buy clothes but others would be better giving money to the poor because they buy the 'wrong' clothes.

Materialism and consumerism runs through all parts of society. We now even have cosumerism where people pretend that they aren't materialistic, because they are anti-label or whatever. Someone here buying Ann Dem or CCP is just as bad as those people mocked in the Nouveau Riche thread for buying LV monograms in crazy colours. The friends of either of these people will approve and compliment them. The buyers will feel good, in both the compliments, and that they like the way they dress.

There's even some argument (I'm not saying its a good one though...) that if someone buys a fake LV its better than buying CCP. At least they aren't putting such a huge amount of money into something so materialistic, and generally the vendor is going to be a poor market salesman, and its going to be made in a poorer Asian economy (where the people, do actually welcome even sweatshop labour, its better than nothing after all!), so it benefits the poor. Whereas buying the CCP/Ann Dem benefits a big department store thats already hugely rich, and the rest of the money goes to some Belgian who's poofing around all day making up new words to describe just how pretentious he is.

Along with that, I have to admit that I am, obviously, just as consumerist as everyone else here is. Whilst I'm sure many people aspire to being better people, they also aspire to get in just a few more clothes, and that tends to come first. It is human nature, its present in all animals, its survival instinct, but we get as much of everything that makes our lives nicer/easier as we can, we no longer need to stockpile food just to survive, so we get other things instead.

[AlexN]

Originally Posted by Paullw

Materialism and consumerism runs through all parts of society. We now even have cosumerism where people pretend that they aren't materialistic, because they are anti-label or whatever. Someone here buying Ann Dem or CCP is just as bad as those people mocked in the Nouveau Riche thread for buying LV monograms in crazy colours. The friends of either of these people will approve and compliment them. The buyers will feel good, in both the compliments, and that they like the way they dress.

There's an enormous difference between buying for beauty and buying for obvious logo display, which is the point of the Nouveau Riche thread. But if you totally disregard all of that, then sure...you're right. It's the exact same thing.

[travolta]

Someone here buying Ann Dem or CCP is just as bad as those people mocked in the Nouveau Riche thread for buying LV monograms in crazy colours. The friends of either of these people will approve and compliment them. The buyers will feel good, in both the compliments, and that they like the way they dress

i agree w/ this.

[meme527]

i know that the san francisco bay area is not typical, but i think that fair trade has a lot of support there, and not just among the wealthy and middle-class. the idea is gaining more and more momentum, mostly around food and organic gardening, but also extending into clothing and toys and furniture and musical instruments....

rogan's past quality issues aside, i would happily give edun a try. because once i became conscious of this issue i felt kind of trapped. there didn't seem to be many alternatives, unless i wanted to wear guatemalan textiles or something else similarly inappropriate for me. i think it would be a great relief to buy clothing that i KNOW wasn't made in sweatshops, that is organic and processed without toxins, that's cruelty-free - and that looks good on me, that expresses what i want to express, that feels good on the body. that would be worth much more money to me than a designer label.

this is why i want, more and more, to make my own clothing and jewelry, when i can. because i don't really want to depend on the industry so much; i'll be my own little knock-off artist!

and for yet another website: Global Exchange is a great resource for information on fair trade -
http://www.globalexchange.org/

mama meme

[AlexN]

Originally Posted by rhiannonmars

It sounds nice, but my husband had a pair of Rogan jeans. They fell apart in a day.

As much as I hate Rogan, could you put this in more detail? What exactly do you mean by "fell apart in a day"? That makes it sound like they literally began to disintegrate as soon as he put them on, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen.

[rhiannonmars]

The jeans inner waistband lining (it had a fabric lining) came un sewn in after about 2-3 wears. Then he wore them for 6 months and there is a huge cheek to cheek hole in the bum, bottom is all ravled, and big hole in the knee. We sewed the bumm up a few times, but the jean is so thin, it wouldn't take!

[Lena]

Originally Posted by AlexN

There's an enormous difference between buying for beauty and buying for obvious logo display, which is the point of the Nouveau Riche thread. But if you totally disregard all of that, then sure...you're right. It's the exact same thing.

exactly

[Paullw]

Originally Posted by travolta

anyways, those who are interested in some clever anti-corporate fashion ( when you buy i believe you become a share holder) , check this out

http://adbusters.org/metas/corpo/bla...x.html#hitting

Sorry to keep bashing stuff but that interview is a bit odd. They can't find any union factories in Asia, so they seem to be giving up and investing in the US, where there are already lots of union factories. Surely the US, with good working conditions doesn't need the money, whereas Asia does. Agree to invest in Asia, but demand that they improve over a certain period.

The problem is that big TNCs need to encourage sustainability and good working conditions as much as they 'encourage' big profit margins. Many of these are more powerful than countries governments, the factories can't get better without getting more expensive, and when they get more expensive the contracts move on.

[AlexN]

Originally Posted by rhiannonmars

The jeans inner waistband lining (it had a fabric lining) came un sewn in after about 2-3 wears. Then he wore them for 6 months and there is a huge cheek to cheek hole in the bum, bottom is all ravled, and big hole in the knee. We sewed the bumm up a few times, but the jean is so thin, it wouldn't take!

Ah, thank you. That makes more sense.

[Paullw]

Originally Posted by AlexN

There's an enormous difference between buying for beauty and buying for obvious logo display, which is the point of the Nouveau Riche thread. But if you totally disregard all of that, then sure...you're right. It's the exact same thing.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe to them the LV is beautiful, and the CCP is ugly, worn out and pretentious.

You can't just decide for other people that they're wrong and anyone else is right. I'd rather own CCP than LV, but you've got to admit, I would be buying it for essentially the same reasons as anyone buys LV. I like it. For whatever reason, construction, design, material, because it will get compliments. If I go out now and buy a CCP jacket I can post a picture in Secret Shopaholics, and I'll get compliments. How is that any worse than someone buying LV to get it noticed?

I'm not saying its worse, I just think that we aren't any better than them. A lot of people do tend to defend themselves, or what they see as similar to themselves rather overzealously. Everyone has good and bad points, and overall we all come out pretty equal.

[meme527]

Originally Posted by Paullw

We now even have cosumerism where people pretend that they aren't materialistic, because they are anti-label or whatever. Someone here buying Ann Dem or CCP is just as bad as those people mocked in the Nouveau Riche thread for buying LV monograms in crazy colours. The friends of either of these people will approve and compliment them. The buyers will feel good, in both the compliments, and that they like the way they dress.

i don't see it this way.

i think that there are people who are drawn to certain designers because they like the design - something in the way tha person approaches clothing appeals to their senses. if it turns out that there is a group of like-minded people, be they friends or fashion elite, who also like thatt designer or tha aethetic, it doesn't necessarily mean the person is dressing to please anyone else or to gain the acceptance of a particular crowd. and it doesn't mean that they AREN'T dressing to please the crowd either.

but, because the staus of brands like chanel and dior and LV is so much higher, and people use conspicuous consumerism to impress others, it's more likely that they will use those status-symbols in this way, and follow slavishly to the demands of the market.

i look at it as dressing from the *outside in*, as opoosed to dressing from the *inside out*.

There's even some argument (I'm not saying its a good one though...) that if someone buys a fake LV its better than buying CCP. At least they aren't putting such a huge amount of money into something so materialistic, and generally the vendor is going to be a poor market salesman, and its going to be made in a poorer Asian economy (where the people, do actually welcome even sweatshop labour, its better than nothing after all!), so it benefits the poor. Whereas buying the CCP/Ann Dem benefits a big department store thats already hugely rich, and the rest of the money goes to some Belgian who's poofing around all day making up new words to describe just how pretentious he is.

i don't think this is a good argument either!

in the twenty-first century, it's barbaric to allow people to work in factories for 12 + hour days, with little access to necessities like food, water, bathrooms, sunshine and fresh air, hazardous conditions and no health benefits, not to mention lack of fair compensation, time off, maternity leave, freedom from sexual harassment....to say that slave labor is better than nothing is to say no more than that living is better than dying.

yours truly, big mama meme

[Lena]

i agree with meme, slave labour is good only for the western society.. they make so much money out of this, if there wasnt for the 'third world' and China, westerners would be living with much less.. imagine the cost of living if all goods were locally made (EU or USA) we probably wouldnt be able to afford much.. our economy is based on slavery products

[AlexN]

Paul, we seem to be speaking on a different wavelength here. There is nothing wrong with buying anything if you love it and think it's beautiful. If someone buys a ton of LV simply because they love it, that's great. But there are more people out there who would buy anything from LV for the logo, no matter how ugly it is. That is a fact. Why do you think there are items on the market like Gucci ice cube trays? Do you think people buy them because they're beautiful, and the ice cubes they produce brings tears of joy to their eyes? Sure there are probably some people who would buy CCP for the sole reason that it's expensive, but I assure you this is a very small number of people, especially since CCP is barely even available to begin with. If someone wants to show the world how much money they have in the most obvious way possible, are they going to buy a logo'd LV purse, or an old-looking, wrinkled coat from CCP that, to the non fashion-oriented eye, looks as if it could have been found in a dumpster?

[rhiannonmars]

^ prices of goods might not raise if we had local labor.Mmaybe in an ideal world, the higger ups would just not pay themselves as much! (I guess I can't kid myself, that would never happen)

[Lena]

its all in the wages .. prices of goods would not be able to be affordable, wages would need to go up, the economy would collapse