Certainly and that's often what people are buying. Often this is how things work, in politics, morality, religion and such.

Let us start of by saying that there is a factual perception, there is a real force which exerts its influence and at least part of this force is being consciously activated by the producers of the ad. From the perspective of the producer, there is a strong motivation to find a correlation between the effects of the ad and the success of the ad however this might best be determined. How are the effects of the ad known? I suspect a few methods, firstly by listening to people who have watched the ad describe the effect it had on them, secondly through understanding likely psychological and emotional reactions to possible components of the ad, thirdly through trial and error and the list goes on.

We can assume that the selection pressure on ads based on performance is very high as it is a very competitive field with huge sums of money behind it. To create a better ad than competitors - both for your job within the company and compared to competitors outside, you can not simply imitate, you need to understand why what works works and enhance it in your own production. Competition means you don't care about what you think about your production, which is just a means to an end, what you care about is having success.

The production team is targeting a clear demographic, they know who buys the advertised products and they aim to have the best possible understanding of why. In the perfume example, they have little time and a few goals, first to capture our attention, then to communicate the purpose of the product, what makes it unique and the general explanation. — Judaka

Likely, your description can be easily transformed into the abstract diagram
of primary ad’s industry determinants, working strategies and tactics, all competitive
factors and presuppositions, processes of production, adaptation, modification, verification,
etc. If the production team’s members won’t follow the set of formalized or intuitively
accepted directions, they will fail. Regardless of distinct personal experiences, a complex interaction of pre-individual, functional subjectivities plays the decisive role, similar to what StreetlightX proposed. I tried to outline a less functional, diagrammatic scheme; the arrangement means an assemblage of heterogeneous factors, composing the working machine. Definitely, the system won’t work without conscious individual engagements.

Each member of the production team of the successful perfume ad may explain their success differently, we could create categories for explanations given by those who wanted to buy the perfume as a result of the ad. A certain percentage said X, a lesser said Z and so on. — Judaka

Different individuals would present various personal accounts and stories. Yet, despite the variety of unique private experiences, the system would not function differently after replacing a few individuals.

Why can't a race be a subjectivity? Why not a gender? A disability? Isn't this just streetlightx's method of legitimising his bigotry? This concept is at best to only be used in very specific circumstances, it is more of a potentially useful creative endeavour than a fair and practical way to describe the world. What subjectivity could we create which would be anything but a construction which could be disputed on every level? — Judaka

One interesting feature of this discussion is that we know almost nothing about each other. I can't consider your age, gender, experience, culture, social life, education, occupation, worldviews, objectives or much of anything really and the same for you with me. To conceptualise this "capitalistic subjectivity" would have ramifications, which we'd care about as thinkers, across a whole range of topics. I would formulate my ideas using my range of nature/nurture/personal factors and you yours. So if I create a "capitalistic subjectivity" which supports or is a natural component of my worldview should we be surprised? If I create a "capitalistic subjectivity" which is impacted by my biases, circumstances, preferences and such, should we be surprised? — Judaka

You make the crucial point here. From my perspective, "capitalistic subjectivities" work beside "age, gender, experience, culture, social life, education, occupation, worldviews, objectives etc.” The fact that we are still able to maintain a dialogue can be used as the evidence of the existence of 'primary subjectifies.' ( Haw are they related to ‘thinker’s subjectivity’?) The process of deconstruction of "capitalistic subjectivities" necessarily involves transforming or eliminating our conventional identities as secondary derivatives and effects of capitalistic arrangements. It is a kind of 'philosophical experimentation.' I tried to make this point in one of my posts in the thread of white privilege: "One of the latest achievements of gender politics (which is also identity politics!) is the appearance of individuals that have not to have a particular gender. In some countries, 'no gender' becomes an institutionalized right. Paradoxically, due to identity politics' latest twist, we are necessarily obliged to have one of the two prescribed races. Does one have a right not to have a race?"

seeing yourself as a consumer, which you can be because you have money, which allows you to partake in hobbies and self-improvement, which are sold to you by the advertisement. Much of our existence is orientated around the acquiring and spending of money, this process is promoted as the path of the responsible, successful adult. The capitalistic arrangements can be really simply described as various "besides truths" around acquiring and spending money. Our culture embodies these "besides truths" seamlessly and we live resigned to them equally seamlessly and effortlessly. Do you think this is an adequate alternative explanation of what you were saying? — Judaka

Thank you for your patience.” Much of our existence is orientated around the acquiring and spending of money, this process is promoted as the path of the responsible, successful adult. The capitalistic arrangements can be really simply described as various "besides truths" around acquiring and spending money”. I do not think it would be correct. Deleuze and Guattari distinguish between two kinds of money: ‘money of the wage earner’, money of payment, and “money of the enterprise and banks”, money of financing. Likely, you refer to the first kind. Yet, not just much of our existence, but all our existence cannot endure today without financial flows and/or their digital equivalents. For example, on this site we discuss ideas and issues that are far away from money and capitalism. Yet, the digital platforms and the Internet networks, maintaining this site, are impossible without the flows of signs and impulses, convertible into the financial flows. (money of the second kind). We can call them the flows of money; but they are entirely different from money that we earn or spend.
“In the one case, there are impotent money signs of exchange value, a flow of means of payment relative to consumer goods and use values, and a one-to-one relation between money and an imposed range of products ("which I have a right to, which are my due, so they're mine"); in the other case, signs of the power of capital, flows of financing, a system of differential quotients of production that bear witness to a prospective force or to a long-term evaluation, not realizable hic et nunc, and functioning as an axiomatic of abstract quantities” (Deleuze and Guattari, ‘Anti-Oedipus’). When we post on this forum, we unintentionally animate the system of machinic flows. We are trained to think that the total digitalization (and implied financialization) of our lives brings just benefits and conveniences. But it also brings a variety of complications (not necessarily negative) that deeply impact us.

A shame you didn’t get a considered response. You cut through the fog very clearly here.

It's not a PF thread without some stupid one-liner from Banno.

I do not think it would be correct. Deleuze and Guattari distinguish between two kinds of money: ‘money of the wage earner’, money of payment, and “money of the enterprise and banks”, money of financing. Likely, you refer to the first kind. — Number2018

When I say "capitalistic" I am using the term similar to how Lacan used the term, to refer to the culture of capitalism. The "capitalistic arrangement" is a set of truths, various narratives, characterisations, emphasising various points which are invoked by one talking as if this indescribable arrangement were true or valid. So it likely does not emphasise the poverty rates in America, for example, yeah it's real but that's hardly part of the narrative of the culture created around capitalism. The capitalistic arrangements say "yeah, there's wealth inequality but you can be rich if you work smart and hard" and of course, that's something that many people live and breathe, that mentality. Of course, this is highly debatable, a Marxist would emphasise totally different points about capitalism and have a very different narrative, thus, the arrangement is not only contentious but also an incomplete picture. Thus, I mean that the culture of capitalism is very focused on your ability to earn money and "succeed" as well as spend money and "live good". So I don't disagree with what you've said but I don't believe it is relevant.

Likely, your description can be easily transformed into the abstract diagram — Number2018

The example of the industry of ad production is less contentious because it is a formalised structure and we can evidence our claims. Pretty much with this concept of subjectivities, I did not hear an argument for why this conceptualization is useful I heard, "subjectivities are and we should consider them in our thinking". I feel I can adequately explain the same thing in my own language, without trying to describe some arrangement as a fact. I think I agree with what you are saying, had you said it differently, so if you want to continue to debate the usefulness of the concept of subjectivities then we can but I don't see the point. The description of its utility could make the concept less contentious for me, however, just talking about "subjectivities are" is silly to me and that's mostly what I read in the linked thread.

Secondly, the pressure exerted on the workers can be referred to externally, meanwhile, for the capitalistic subjectivity, we are talking about something far more intellectually interactive.

By the way, you (or anybody else) can easily challenge and refute the model I have proposed. It underlines the inhumane, machinic aspects of the ad production and consumption. — Number2018

All arrangements are constructed in ways that enable them to be easily challenged, it's more of a question of who wants to challenge it and why. There are just different fields and different realities for proving a conclusion true beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know what this has to do with the ad production. From my perspective, we could be talking about politics, morality, culture, worldviews and probably most topics and it would be perfectly fine to be able to talk about the truth besides the truth there. The ad producer only uses the way we think to their advantage. You see the same thing in politics, MAGA right? What does it mean? Who knows but that's not important, it's about how the slogan is processed and activates patriotism. There isn't much sophistication to the slogan but we could be discussing it for a long time and not unravel all of its effects, in many ways, the ad is simpler.

If I thought your model was useful and constructive then I would accept and use it and no matter how many people challenged your arrangement, unless it proved the utility I saw in it is flawed, I wouldn't be interested in hearing about it. However, if that's the difference between your model being something I consider useful and something I reject then what I consider useful is clearly of critical importance to my judgement. Don't get me wrong, I'm stating the obvious, clearly, you consider your model useful or you wouldn't be using it. However, my consideration is clearly biased, it can't be unbiased, honestly, it would be easy for me to convince myself that I see things clearly but I have never thought that someone else could see so clearly, I clearly see their biases. Therefore, even when I can't always spot it, I assume I am just as biased and I know logically this is true. My age, my gender, my personality, upbringing, circumstances, they play a role in my thinking and this can't be avoided. I will not engage in the fantasy that I can remove or transform these effects, even for the purpose of philosophical experimentation.

I think where there's no trial-and-error approach available, we should have very low expectations for our accuracy. What allows great competence and brilliance is failing repetitively and tediously correcting any errors or flaws. You are very smart but this is not how intelligence works, we can not just sit here and imagine how things work and rely on our mutual agreement. What I think you are proposing to do with the capitalistic subjectivity is too complex and there are too many unknowns, I reject it is possible to do a good job and so I don't see the point.