Is fashion a bourgeois spook?

male fashion mostly ceased to exist in the bourgeois era. There was a brief resurgence in the 1970s but otherwise being fabulous became the domain of the dandies and armymen.

the class conscious lolis are cybergoths.

Modern fashion is much worse than that. It appropriates proletarian styles that were born out of necessity and suffering and mass markets them with a 10000% markup. It is often the most vulgar kind of cultural consumerism.

Butthurt vain consumer whore who thinks their snowflake expression is art. Art is nothing if it is not revolutionary, a bourgeois decoration, a symbol of status and wealth

It is, because those clothes are just valuable resources, wasted on vanity.
Fashion is Bourgeois as fuck.
Real class conscious people, dress in a simple and practical way, that is well suited for all occasions.
but if you steal nice clothes it's ok to wear them.

This!

Boots of working class people, at burgeois prices, it makes my blood boil in anger.

...

Besides feudal style look much better. Proletarians styles are ugly and proletarians themselves are ugly, which is why Marx envisioned a class-less society and not a proletarian society.

No such thing.

What?

are you fucking retarded?

Fashion itself can have multiple functions outside of a capitalistic context. It can be an art form or it can simply fulfill a basic social function by making you look better. However, I'd argue that contemporary fashion has one specific bourgeoisie aspect to a higher degree than the average product. Similar to cars and a variety of other products, methods like brand recognition are heavily used to elevate the price. They generate use value out of thin air through propaganda.

*bourgeois

the working class is the majority of the people.

you are truly stupid.

spending a shit ton of money on clothing is

I just wear comfy flannel shirts and jeans most of the time

Debatable.
There certainly was a proletkult movement idolizing dowdily dressed people in a cap as opposed to people in a tophat.

Look at all that ableism.

You are projecting a strictly class society & market phenomenon to a post-class, post-market society.

What definition of "art" are you using here? The same by which cooking can be considered one, I presume.

That's not a social function, that's social pressure to conform (to arbitrary ideas of "looking better"). You are missing the whole point of communism if you think that such practices can survive.

according to whom? there's the theory by picrelated, who however was not a marxian thinker but an early nazi.

according to me, just now

Fashion is coercion and you are a fool and/or a victim if you defend it.

If you are a Nazi I dont care about what you think of me.

The fashion industry is highly consumeristic and wasteful. I think and hope that fashion will be slower and more driven by communities than fashion corporations.

...

>Things come from communities
>This isn't communist
???????????
WHAT!?

last paragraph

That doesn't say anything about it.

Two things:
1. What the fuck does fashion, which is just culture, have to do with means of production
2. Why the hell isn't something that is decided democratically by the people communistic (as if things that arent economical can or can not be communist, nice delusions)

I can't teach you reading skills, you have to practice it for yourself.

Except it is coercion that can't survive an environment where coercion isn't possible.

Now read the whole pic. Communists aren't democrats.

Anyway, if you think that people could vote on fashion, you aren't just missing the point of communism, but missing the point of fashion too: it's there so you could feel exclusive, unique, and a democratic process would ruin exactly that. If one could speculate, people would most likely think the losing side is more fashionable.

Maybe the fact that you can't break away from the capitalist world when imagining post-capitalism should signal to you that you are still very much enjoying your ideology.

it isnt coercion, nobody is coercing you.

Well, me, no, because I don't follow fashion, but I am too bombarded by its consumerists excitations like everybody else in the first world. Without these (webm was very much related) publicity mechanisms, ad industry, market environment, etc. there would be no fashion at all, because outside this capitalist environment it can't have a function (making me feel purty or unique for dressing [buying] in a certain way).

B-but that implies that I'm a bamboozled idiot when I feel good when I follow fashion. :(

Fashion can be individualist self-espression which is not a bad thing. However much of the time it is simply worn ideology.

...

I don't think you get it, Einstein.

Dont listen to freud sigar, hes autistic.

T-thanks I feel much better know. Gonna go to the mirror try up some clothes I got for Christmas.

Muh boipucci in Gucci, here I come! :)

...

recently read Bloom (and then got Ulysses to see if I can fully grasp it)

Young-Girl Theory is the first thing I'm reading in 2017…I love Tiqqun, thanks for the rec user

as to OP yes yes it is

You can be both.

fucking hobo ragged commies hate everything I enjoy in life

I often feel that the Left wastes the attack on Bourgeois culture on an immature "fuk da preppy kidzz" backlash instead of a critique of the elements of bourgeois culture that persist class struggle.

In other words, fashion is cool. It can exist in communism. is right.
What isn't cool is $5000 Gucci bags and $20 Wal-Mart bags being made out of the exact same materials. That's what we should be attacking.

B-but lynching niggers is fun, it's part of our way of life and it can go on under communism too!

m8

...

I think fashion and style are two different things. Fashion is more about a specific marketed looks that trend for the bourgeois to make money off of. Designer fashion is mainly for the bourgeois though. Occasionally a proletariat or lumpenrproletariat will buy expensive brand name or designer objects in small amounts to increase their social status without actually increasing their class as a coping method. Style is more about an individuals unique tastes and can involve cheap clothing from a co-op or self made clothing so it's not bourgeois by default at all.

yeah pretty much this

A relational concept. Style A without reference to style B is meaningless, but first, in clothing, without distinguishing itself from the ordinary, the useful. Style is pretty much a superfluous thing, when evoked in the current context 99,99% of the time by "good style" we mean good consumer choices. What motivation would we have under a system where petty individualism is meaningless attempt at distinguishing ourself from… from what? Other people's petty and superfluous individualism? Just why?

Fashion is literally a ruling class phenomenon, a useless luxury. It's like sayinh we'll have ferrari and yacht production (and demand) under communism.

It's funny that no one brought this up, but medieval peasant dressing culture pretty much sums up what one can expect of 'style' under communism. Each village (→ commune) had a distinguishing dress for holidays, signaling their origin and otherwise they wore practical work clothes and pajamas.

Why you people have to be such anti-fun faggots I'll never know. Go read The Soul of Man Under Socialism, ffs.

Unless you're a nudist you're a hypocrite.

...

This world is too cruel.

...

...

...

...

Well somebody has to be an ugly man, wearing garbage clothes and doing disgusting things.

Who else is actually going to be revolutionary?

I did read it. What are you referring to exactly?

No? (This is the same shit as >being commie >using iphones.)

This is why you don't take memes seriously.

Who are you quoting?
Who are you quoting?
Who are you quoting?
Who are you quoting?

What makes those clothes nice as opposed to other clothes that were considered nice 10 years before that?

Are you saying cute girls can't be revolutionary user

Yeah. Especially those that wear company logos on their clothing. It's like being a walking billboard.

You don't get fasion.

Fashion like vidya is a medium of art that has been commodified to high heaven and has been reduced to the most based and vulger consumerist trash possible. Fashion can legitimately be a way to express your yourself emotionally or as an individual unfortunately that isn't what fashion is NOW. in a post capitalist society fashion will become less of a mass market clusterfuck controlled by a few hacks and companies and more of a personal art form with a lot more creativity and talent tbh.

Clothing which is made for form over function is exploitative by nature.

chucks, docs, blundstones, timba, etc etc

this is true. Fashion can be art but right now it's just decadent bourgeois bullshit.
Honestly one of the main reasons I became a socialist is because of the effect it would have on the arts. Books, movies, video games, fashion. They're all ruined in all their popular forms by capitalism. A post-capitalist society would literally be a beautiful thing to behold.

How about you make a thread on it and see how the no fun allowed tankies react.

I hate how I have to buy clothes every couple years because even the expensive ones are manifuctared so poorly that they break down after some time of use. Meanwhile my grandmother still uses the coffee machine she got like 40 to 50 years ago in the DDR

sorry GDR/East Germany

Ayy you got me in my Sovietaboo/warsaw pact nostalgia.

Capitalists and their programmed obsolescence, man this whole thing it's designed to drain us over and over again.
Porky knows no limits.

>arts[books;movies;video games;fashion]

Self-expression is only associated with the bourgeoisie because under caplitalism they're the only people who can afford it. An equitable society would allow everyone the freedom to express themselves through all sorts of avenues, including their clothes. That said, cultural trends are largely defined by the economic conditions and contemporary fashion is bourg as all fuck.

I feel like some of you people think people will be fine wearing utilitarian work uniforms in communism.

What is your point.

Category error. It's like saying that canvasses are a form of art instead of painting. It's especially silly in the case of books, since a lot of genres recorded in the medium of books are non-artistic (theory, science, etc).

It's entertainment, not art. Would you say that board games are art, or were gladiator fights?

Read the friggin' thread.

Work overalls, are for me the most aesthetic clothing.

I couldn't imagine how the people on this board dress

Art theorists are pure late stage gulagbait.

There is no non-spooky distinction between entertainment and art.
not the one you're replying to.

Unreadable paranoiac ramblings.

People are already fine wearing utilitarian work uniforms, and they thank you for your deep concerns. From its approx. 200,000 years of existence homo sapiens spent ~150,000 without fashion of any sorts, wearing clothing on utilitarian principles.

If you take into account the fact that fashion is a class phenomenon and that the vast majority of the populace in any historical period couldn't have been considered to be constitutive of the ruling class you can safely say that fashion as we know it (overarching class boundaries thanks to the capitalist market mechanisms) entered the picture in the last 0,01% of human existence.

Miraculously, people were able to enjoy the company of others and distinguish Joe from Bill without them having to dress differently!

Mind blowing, isn't it?

I guess from Socrates onward that means pretty much all major thinkers. Oh well! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And people call us postmodernists?

You can recognize leftists by their dress.

Are they all bourgeoisie?

Entertainment's purpose is to distract and pacify. Art's purpose is to express and explore. They're fundamentally different. That doesn't mean they can't use the same methods or even overlap in the same work. They're not mutually exclusive categories, but they are distinct concepts. Pic related, they differ at the most basic level. Other distinctions if any are a consequence of that.

From the comrades I know: plainly, always comfortably and practically, trying not to look conspicuous as well as not to advertise anything.

A typical commie who already applied violence against himself has the prevailing ideological modes of enjoyment behind him and feels no pressure or anxiety when dressing up in the morning.

I think they are right on that one.

But this is speculative and subjective. Tying the term 'art' to some overarching purpose is idealist. Most art before the modern era usually wasn't really expressive or explorative, but contract work with a fixed motive within a rigid genre framework.

pure autism

Oh, do go on.

Dude, everything, is like, totally subjective, man!

I don't particularly like stirnerites and can't stand postmodernists. Does recognising that their focus on subjectivity works quite well in regard to aesthetic theory make me a postmodernist?

No shit. "Intent" is probably a better term to be fair.

Yes it is, but art is inherently idealist in the sense that it exists to communicate ideas. I wouldn't restrict art to the purposes I gave necessarily but I would use it to distinguish between entertainment and art that is not entertainment or has more to it than entertainment. Entertainment sort of falls within art as a category but its intent is to be a tool to control people, which makes it also a tool. It might be more accurate to relate art and entertainment by putting propaganda as a subset of art and entertainment as a subset of propaganda.

Should we judge all leninists according to muke?

Are we supposed to be shocked that under the postmodern condition systems of thought not recognizing the individual's "reign" over his own secluded island as the be-all and end-all of possible conceptualizations are considered to be unconvincing, totalitarian even?

You are yet to make your case though.

Some already tried and it was a pretty weak attempt and one of the lower points in the ongoing "letypol anarcho-leninist wars."

Stirnerites and [the current form of] bourgeois individualism on the other hand? A low hanging fruit.

I agree with this.

In his defence, I don't think he's being anti-fun. Just like the State fades away, so do other aspects of Capitalism. You can't extricate fashion from bourgeois culture. You can make judgements about what "style" will look like by looking at a relatively analogous society, and the bourgeois style we subordinate our interest is generally absent in favour of practical clothing subordinated to the need of the individual within the community.

That's pretty brave, considering I had some purely speculative points (not so much) hidden in there: the whole "look at feudal European peasantry" (or primitive communism, for that matter) and deduce from that the communist society… I'm not saying that I BS'd, but that I went with my hunch (supported by some tangential theoretical knowledge).

I am. "Fun" is basically another word for historically contingent expressions of ideological enjoyment. Lynching niggers in the deep South 60 years ago was considered fun… Playing vidya is fun nowadays, just like other techno-monadic modes of enjoyment.

fugg

How totalitarian of you.

mea fucking culpa

Obsessive compulsive, more like

I am – no denying that – but what makes you bring that up in that post?

It's a fucking scam is what it is. The clothing nowadays is overpriced garbage. The stitching will be decent but then the designs and fabrics are atrocious.

Fuck microfiber too and probably polyester in general.

theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfibers-plastic-pollution-oceans-patagonia-synthetic-clothes-microbeads

Video games won't go away under communism, unless you're supposing that computers will as well. It's akin to saying board games will disappear.

I agree because "fashion" is part of the superstructure.

Bump
This needs to be discussed even more I hate flashy fashionable "leftists"

LEFTISM IS /fa/ AS FUCK.

you probably dress like those people that pretend to be homeless to make big bucks begging.

...

There has been fashion since humanity invented society, and there will be until we go extinct; but it has been an art form tied up closely to the dominant class. The developement of fashion as an art form under a communist society will be nothing like today.

When talking about art and class struggle there is a very important thing to understand: art is a tool, a means to an end. Just like the state is a tool of opression under the ruling class, art funnels and propagates the ideology of the ruling class in multiple forms: from the most obvious propaganda or commercial ads, always full of consumerist ideology; to the more subtle or even unconcious messages of modern art. Dont let PoMo pseudointellectuals lie to you, art "for the sake of art" is a lie, that doesnt exists. In the worst case, the artist becomes unconcious of the message he/she is sending.

Factually incorrect.

Factually incorrect.

I think I spotted the special snowflake.

In our societies, it is almost entirely about females status signaling, since they control and spend most of the wealth.

I don't know if and how men contribute to it.

i see you are very red pilled

Gay men such as yourself contribute to fashion and are avid consumers of it.

Oh man you posted.
Tonetta

HE is a fucking genius.

There is nothing wrong with fashion just as there is nothing wrong with art, they are commodified to a fault but there is nonetheless material, even populist leaning material in it.

It's just to the "sophisticated" loner, the isolated individual who thinks he's complex, he's grown up from bashing Twilight for being a dumb book to bashing postmodernism for similar reasons. Like it will ever amount to anything productive in both their time.

Anyways none of you understand shit and you're all liberals and worse you're all artless liberals who pretend to be Marxist.

But then again, you're all white so the political cultural/creative/emotional conclusion you've ended up with yourself blindly, is hardly a surprise to anyone else on the planet. Worse yet, you're really all you criticize about the feminine Other you're sure exists from childhood onward.

Do you honestly believe anyone that disagrees with you is a white male.

wew you are so full of shit.

No, anyone with actual taste probably isn't white.

...

Easy on the reverse racism, leftypol

Am I a hypocrite if I am a communist who enjoys high fashion?

Not really. There's no reason any artform would go obsolete in Communism. The interest might wane with money, but fashion as an art is niche enough and established enough in culture that it would hardly die.

There's use for it in things like designing uniforms.