What I'm looking for is education regarding the side-effects of capitalism (to continue the medical metaphor) rather than an excision. — Baden

Educate The People about the side effects of capitalism till the cows come home--it won't make any significant difference. Capitalism is a remorseless system, and it isn't going to play nice. What is it about providing an ever increasing flow of profit to shareholders don't you understand?

I think it would be worth the sacrifice of some economic and even some technological growth in order that human growth be focused on more. — Baden

Human growth will be the focused on more by capitalism as soon as it is commodified and becomes a profit center.

"Abandon hope all ye who enter here" the sign over hell and capitalist meliorism reads.

What should you do? “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx, Eleven Theses on Feuerbach. We have nothing to lose but our chains and a world to gain. So, workers of the world...

"But Hollywood is full of anti-corporate sentiment, and is now firmly seated on the green anti-consumerist bandwagon."
— jamalrob

You are mistaken. Progressivism is the new form of organisation of capitalism. In order to get people to work for the big and large corporations (which is becoming normalised, and a matter of prestige), they introduce all sorts of PR moves such as being green, such as levelling down hierarchies, and so forth. This is a way to get people to accept their chains. On top of this, Hollywood is reshaping morality in order to maximise the efficiency of capitalism. See my post here. — Agustino

Exactly!

Just curious if any of the folks who are against showering, deodorant, brushing their teeth, etc. have at least one romantic partner. — Terrapin Station

Yes. In fact I often rely on my romantic partner to know when to shower, if I haven't had one for several days. She has a more sensitive olfactory sense than me, so she can tell me if I need one.

Did you know that the main thing one is washing off when one showers, and which smells if left a long time, is dead skin cells? The build-up of those over a day or two is not enough to create a discernible odour.

Also, do you folks clean yourself including your hands after you go to the bathroom, or is that an evil plot against you in your view, too?

Now, now. Don't pretend that you don't understand the difference between the reasons for washing the hands after defecating, which are based on hygiene and are scientifically uncontroversial, and the reasons for daily showering, which are purely based on advertising and unexamined compliance with social norms.

Let's take the example of cheap flights, mentioned in the song. .... In Marx's time my forebears were poor uneducated rural labourers..... It's unlikely they ever set foot outside Britain and Ireland. But here I am now in sunny Spain, having been to several countries in several continents — jamalrob

This is a point in which I'm particularly interested. I wonder a great deal about whether people are generally happier now than they were say 150 years ago. Travel can be fun, but is happiness dependent on it? More importantly, to me, the perceived intensity (novelty value?) of the travel one does is a function of how different the culture one visits is from that in which one habitually lives. Might it be the case that someone hiking to the next county in 1867 rural England would experience more intense novelty - more genuine travel - than someone flying from London to Benidorm in 2017? Put another way, do we in 2017 really think we would be any happier if we could to Mars or Proxima Centauri?

What is the limit beyond which we should not have gone? — jamalrob

Indeed, that's the billion dollar question, and one that greatly interests the more thoughtful economists. Few would contest that developments that greatly improved public health like the discovery of immunisation have also improved net happiness. And few would contest that the 'invention' of the iPhone 8 makes no difference at all to net happiness. But there's an enormous no-mans-land between the two, somewhere within which lies a boundary. Unanimous agreement, or even a strong consensus, on where that boundary lies is impossible. But only the Trumps of the world would deny that there should be some boundary. Even the USA (for now, at least) places some limits on what limited liability corporations are allowed to do.

I have a hunch - based on nothing but anecdotal evidence and vague impressions - that most of the innovations that improved quality of life were not products of capitalism. Many of them arose in universities or other government-funded research institutions, or were discovered by individuals operating solo - rather than by people working for corporations.

In addition, capitalism wasn't really possible in the way we understand it today until the creation of an ability to form limited liability companies, which did not happen in the UK until 1855. Even companies with non-limited liability wasn't possible until around 1600, and they could only be created by royal charter until the passing of the 1844 Joint Stock Companies Act.

Most of the technological innovations that make a genuine improvement to net happiness arose before that. Many innovations since then improved happiness, but I think they were mostly political and social - things like emancipation, universal adult suffrage, labour laws and tolerance for minorities. Such innovations arise usually under opposition from capitalism rather than with its support.

That's fair enough. The points you raised do apply to many. It may be that I'm too keen not to be seen as a commie.

Educate The People about the side effects of capitalism till the cows come home--it won't make any significant difference. Capitalism is a remorseless system, and it isn't going to play nice. What is it about providing an ever increasing flow of profit to shareholders don't you understand? — Bitter Crank

By side-effects, I meant more specifics like information about how advertising works or the kind of stuff MU was posting. Don't underestimate the potential of education. Give me the boy, I'll give you the man and so on. But that's more for un's new discussion when I can get round to it.

I'm familiar with the story. I thought it a bit unfair that suicide victims were trapped in trees and scourged by winged demons with not even a stick of gum to relieve their stresses, whereas Satan himself, though immobilized in ice, at least got to chew on Judas.

@Baden So I hear you on the freudian tit-for-tat. My point, though, is that, if any one us wants to see ourselves as not enchained to simplistic psychological profiling, then we have to also ditch the idea of ourselves as passive receptaclesof ads that inexorably hit their mark. (and I'd add that I'm more liberal than conservative - I'm just suspicious of the grand visions of both)

Freud may not be taught to marketers but he also isnt taught to psychiatrists (except for a few desultory historical notes; or occasionally one whole desultory unit; in rare cases maybe even one quixotic course) But that doesn't mean the DSM isn't deeply indebted to him (it is).

And that brings me to 'cool' - 'cool' is a very complex feeling. For one, the very idea of cool is often tied to not "selling out" so that , in placing a product in conjunction with someone cool, the cool person can be drained of his coolness, and so become incapable of associating the product with coolness.

But in any case 'cool' runs up against all sort of psychological defenses so you cant simply beam cool+pepsi to any one who sees the ad. Tho of course you'll hit some targets, I never claimed everyone is invulnerable to every campaign.

if any one us wants to see ourselves as not enchained to simplistic psychological profiling, then we have to also ditch the idea of ourselves as passive receptacles of ads that inexorably hit their mark. — csalisbury

More germane for me would be to ditch the idea that we are unified individuals and take the analysis from there. There is a part of us, at least, that is passive and receptive and that's what ads aim for.

(and I'd add that I'm more liberal than conservative - I'm just suspicious of the grand visions of both) — csalisbury

The term "righty" was meant generally. I've never thought of you as a conservative actually.

And that brings me to 'cool' - 'cool' is a very complex feeling. For one, the very idea of cool is often tied to not "selling out" so that , in placing a product in conjunction with someone cool, the cool person can be drained of his coolness, and so become incapable of associating the product with coolness. — csalisbury

To a point, as your example shows. I would still contend though that in most product/target market combos, at least, the cool celebrity association is not too hard to pull off.

But in any case 'cool' runs up against all sort of psychological defenses so you cant simply beam cool+pepsi to any one who sees the ad. Tho of course you'll hit some targets, I never claimed everyone is invulnerable to every campaign. — csalisbury

Sure, and I'm not claiming the opposite, that we're vulnerable to every campaign's aims. The campaign may even make us hate the product. But that's an intellectually driven orientation, which kicks in to override what, if we are lucky, is just a fleeting inner conflict. My issue is not so much that we actually do what the marketers want us to do but that they plug into a part of us that works in ways we are not fully aware of with consequences we don't fully understand.

I thought I'd just drop this in, in case anyone is sceptical about the centrality of psychology in the framing of advertising and business.

What can a Psychology Graduate do?
Though Psychology is an academic degree, the training and skills received put graduates in a good position to stand out when applying for jobs. In particular, their background in meticulous scientific research, coupled with their in-depth understanding of human thinking and behaviour, make them some of the most versatile graduates in the market.

Psychology graduates can offer research skills, and data and numerical skills, which are vital in sectors like Finance, Banking, Accountancy or Insurance. An ability to work with numbers, apply them in real world situations, and subject them to analysis is something employers in these fields look for—and something which Psychology graduates can offer.

On top of their research skills, Psychology graduates are able to understand peoples thought processes and behaviour. This knowledge and experience is important in fields like Advertising and PR, Retail, Management, Media and Human Resources. Psychology degrees are applicable to nearly any customer or client-focused industry.

https://www.graduate-jobs.com/degree/psychology

There's a little graphic that wouldn't upload below this quote showing 'retail' as the top destination for psych graduates.

Yeah, psychology majors are excellent in the art of manipulation of people. Perhaps, we need more people educated about their own inner workings as to prevent the exploitation of conditioned responses and insecurities. However, at some point, people do realize that their lives and happiness have been subterfuge'd to the whims and desires of... the invisible hand?

My issue is not so much that we actually do what the marketers want us to do but that they plug into a part of us that works in ways we are not fully aware of with consequences we don't fully understand.

I don't disagree with that, I just don't necessarily buy that Advertising's subconscious plugging-in has deeply amplified dissatisfaction. ( Because I think that to be human is be plugged into in ways we're not fully aware of with consequences we don't fully understand. Life is made of a million fleeting inner conflicts. In other words: I don't think that that distinguishes advertising from most things. So, for instance, we may take a class about advertising and not internalize the things the professor hopes we do, yet we'll still be plugged into etc etc )

On the limits of advertising...

Take the 15 years or so of Nazi propagandizing in Germany. Despite the full-court press of the Nazi propaganda machine (political advertising, essentially) the Nazi state backed up the propaganda with dense internal spy networks, Gestapo oversight of the citizenry, and so on. Advertising and education alone were not close to sufficient to turn Germans into complaint Nazi citizens. It took very violent force and the threat of force to keep loyal Germans in line. For instance, just expressing pessimism about the war's outcome could result in one's disappearance into a Gestapo prison.

Communist propaganda in China (prior to Deng Xiaoping's "wealth is glorious" era) was supplemented by punishment for non-cooperation on the one hand, and the "iron rice bowl" social contract on the other hand: Play your industrial part well, and you can be sure of food to eat. Soviet rule didn't work on the basis of propaganda alone either: There were social benefits for cooperators on the one hand, and Siberia for the unenthusiastic or somewhat defiant on the other.

Similar, if less severe, procedures are used in the US and elsewhere.