h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A lot of the conversations here seem to have run out of steam a little so i thought i'd follow up on some of the point people have been talking about in the Introduction conversation here - in an expansion on the topics raised in Chapter Four.


It seems that the opening quote from Christian Lacroix, "It's terrible to say, very often the most exiting outfits are from the poorest people" - seems to me little more than the old maxim "Necessity is the mother of invention". And yet Christian seems to be surprised at this; that those who are poor, whose lives are the drabbest, and whose existence goes unrecognised, are going to do the most to bring colour, difference and inventive vigour into their drive to been seen and identified as individuals. Perhaps he's too high up in the rag trade to realise that a great deal of the money made in the fashion industry comes from those who can least afford it, both identity and class mobility having been marketed as signified by designer label chic.

It is perhaps a symbol of this phenomenon that the 1980's boom of designer label clothing in the UK - which had at it's heart the notion of turning ones self into a walking bill board, the prominent labels symbolising not the quality, but the expense of your clothing, and by proxy your ability to afford them and your status within your social group - originated with "the casuals", unemployed Merseyside lads thieving expensive togs while on holiday to prove the "have nots" could wear what the "haves" had priced out of their reach. Taking it back by taking it, as it were.

We never called them casuals in my town, or townies or trendies as they became elsewhere, the were The Dressers. Great name. They lived to dress, that's what defined them. A branding dream.

And I largely agree with that too. But haven't 'they' always said you have to suffer to produce great art of any kind? '20th century relative affluety (is that a word?) is killing the human race, discuss.'

'Affluence' would be the word I wanted. Though peobably not how I wanted to spell it.

Affluence = Effluence

That's a pretty polite version of what's wrong with corporate society.

*sniggers*

Yes but re the Dressers, hasn't a lot of history been about the same thing? I mean using clothes as a way to assert your exclusion from the have nots, and to move up the social food chain. All those splendid outfits of the 16th century and what have you clearly did not serve any other purpose.

Yeah, but what you were looking at there (ie with the Dressers, was the working class denying their roots, and dividing themselves off from those who were not joining their fashion statement. It was class distinction by branding if you like. The brand group identity changed nothing about their social or cultural status other than their self identification with that group - they got nothing from that branding experience other than division and perhaps a sense of community with each other.

Of course this fitted in with the spirit of Thatcherism and it's success is probibly down to the destruction community values in an attempt to promose the greed is good culture that Thatcherism encouraged.

Hope you two don't mind me changing the subject here, but although I haven't finished the book quite yet (still 3 chapters to go), a couple of questions keep cropping up in my head.

First of all is, at the moment people are protesting in a variety of different ways against the exploitation of the workers of the third world. The third world though has been exploited for hundreds of years by Western capitalist companies, who have influenced military campaigns and been responsible for millions of deaths. The worry I have is that as the marketers themselves have begun to notice, it is now 'cool' to be anti-capitalist, anti-globalisation, etc. So what will happen when it isn't 'cool' anymore. We are a disposable culture, and what is fashionable is just as disposable as the thousands of commodities we throw away each year. So, as I was kind of saying, what is the next move? Everyone is shocked about where their trainers are made, street protests campaign against the pitiful conditions these people live in, and then in a few years it is all forgotten about. Everyone knows their clothes are made by sweatshop labourers but feel powerless to do anything about it. What use is all this protest if there is no direction and no aim in sight? The brands can be trashed, Nike might fall, but there will be another corporation around the corner ready to take its place.

My own belief is that the only way out of this situation is for a socialist revolution, which is not likely to happen for a while yet. But I'm willing to listen to alternatives, but I can't hear any. As long as there is a system in place where making money is the objective, the exploitation of these workers will continue in one way or another. Out of sight, or in full view of the world, they will find a way as that is what the system depends on, and it has succeeded for many years before me, and will most likely do so after I die.

For many it is in the last chapters that the book falters when it has to decide what should be done about the excesses of business and its disbelief in acting for the common good.

The real work, it seems to me, will be done not in arguing for the end of capitalism with no alternatives offered. Instead we will need to win the argument that profits/value is increased when people are allowed to come first.

Take as an example the following quote:

"I cannot think of a time when business over all has been held in less repute."
-HENRY M. PAULSON JR., chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs.

Reputation is essential to business because it is essential to the trust and the confidence that allows trading parties to cooperate.

So here humane principles and profitable business are in harmony.

Unshrink, a new book, that I have been able to preview, takes this argument on and examines the myths that have led some to believe that 'greed' is synonymous with 'capitalism'. Greed is BAD for capitalism. The book "illustrates this brilliantly", that's Covey's opinion (which I share!).

Take a look at the manifesto on www.unshrinkthepeople.com

We are not resources. We are people.

I have _got_ to get back to this conversation Lettuce: you finnished the book yet? I don't want to spoil it for you, but I wanted to comment on something about what you've said, which is towards the books.

And I have _got_ to get back to your comments too, Researcher 196476, but now time right now! Thanks for reactivating this conversation, though...

And welcome to h2g2 If you activate your page, people can come and talk to you there, too...

Solnushka -

Yes. I have finished the book now - thanks.
Took me long enough though. The last few chapters didn't uncover much more in the way of alternatives to the current system. I felt that perhaps Klein may be in favour of a more regulated and 'watered-down' version of global capitalism. Where the state may have greater control of the corporations?

This does not appeal to me personally, but it might just be my own political beliefs clouding my judgement.

Anyways, I must but I will be about again next week. As I am very interested in continuing this discussion.

Later then? I shall marshal my arguements