From: ibshambat@gmail.com   
      
   A former friend of mine in California, who was a Marxist, told me that people   
   in capitalism were involved in the “ideology of mass consumption.” My   
   question is, Is this really an ideology?   
      
   Many people want wealth without it being ideological. Let's face it, wealth is   
   attractive. It is even attractive to people who have not had ideological   
   indoctrination into capitalism or anything of the sort. It was attractive for   
   example to Soviet    
   residents living under Communism. So is this really ideological, or are we   
   dealing with something that people simply want?   
      
   Certainly there are times when it is done in a coercive manner. People are   
   taught that they need to have lots of wealth or they are losers. When I wanted   
   money it was not for the sake of money itself but for the sake of credibility.   
   I was under the    
   impression that nobody would take my views seriously unless I had lots of   
   wealth. I have since found out that there are a number of ways to credibility,   
   money being only one of them, and others including such things as wisdom and   
   strength.   
      
   Is there an ideology of mass consumption going on? I think that there are a   
   number of things going on. One, once again, is that wealth is simply   
   attractive and will continue to attract people who want it whatever their   
   ideology. Another is that when we    
   have coercion toward wealth, we have negative results. Everyone wants to   
   become wealthy. Nobody wants to do tasks that do not generate much wealth for   
   themselves but have vast benefit. Scientists, teachers, military, police and   
   any number of others do    
   not make very much money, but their contributions are vast.   
      
   Are these people losers because they don't make very much money? No, they are   
   not. Without the scientist the businessman would have very little to sell.   
   Without the teacher the businessman would not have the knowledge that he needs   
   to do his job, and    
   most workers would be unemployable. Without the military and the police there   
   would be no protection for property rights. Some see such people as losers or   
   even irresponsible. They are neither. They need them.   
      
   If you have been lead to believe that you are a loser unless you have millions   
   of dollars, think again. Many of the most significant contributors did not   
   make very much money. Nikolai Tesla died in poverty. Thomas Jefferson died   
   deeply in debt. Karl Marx    
   was poor, yet for a long time two fifths of the world followed his ideas. Some   
   people who make significant contributions are rewarded monetarily in their   
   lifetimes, others are not. Once again, some would see such people as losers.   
   Yet they have made    
   bigger contributions than have the people who believe such a thing.   
      
   Most things that are good can be used for wrong. It does not damn the value;   
   it damns its misuse. With money, what we see is a good thing that can be used   
   for wrong. We see the same thing with such things as beauty and intelligence.   
   It is important to    
   separate the value from the misuses of the value.   
      
   So that while it may very well be undesirable for people to be under coercion   
   to make lots of money, it is however not an ideology. One again, wealth is   
   attractive. I expect that it will continue to be attractive. Some people may   
   very well make an    
   ideology of it and use it for wrongdoing. But I anticipate that many people   
   will want to be wealthy whatever their ideology.   
      
   https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)