Why do communists consider diversity of products and the advertising that comes with it a bad thing...

In communism there would only be one variety of beer and it would be the perfect beer and no would ever think of making beer any other way.

HARAM

Wouldn't tens of thousands of independently worker controlled beer breweries result in tens of thousands of varieties of beer? Wouldn't these breweries label their beers and "compete" for prestige points?

This tbh
Why beer ? even niet"god is dead"zsche hated beer

This. Resources are collectivized, so now anyone can be a brewmaster if they really wanted to. Under capitalism you need to (a) work for the industry giants or (b1) have enough accumulated capital to start your own homebrew business or (b2) put yourself in debt via bankloans to even start one up. Either way beer would still be produced as a commodity, so the craft beer revolution can not begin without a social revolution.

This is one of the reasons people are market socialists.

It isn't, and communists don't think that is a bad thing, just that there might be more pressing issues than the variety of beer in your life. Besides, we are already starting to see many larger craft brewers being acquired by the likes of AB-InBev,so while your choice in how the product is branded may not change you will find more and more your choices are all ultimately owned by the same people.

It's not.

Yes it does.

It doesn't and your assumptions are fucking stupid and come from nowhere and there is no substance to any of this.

So market socialists don't understand what socialism means?

because after fucking so many super models and college students I realized all pussy is the same. Logically I extended this to all consumer goods, now the only brand I buy is costco brand in bulksize.

What?

Wtf is this post

Yes, especially when it's grey propaganda.

Ed Bernays knew what he was doing.

youtu.be/F7HmFH-Wo1s

If that's one of the reasons people are market socialists, then market socialists don't know shit because that's not true, and a terrible reason because it's untrue.

All the beer variety is from small local breweries right? So that's easily compatible with a co-op system. That said, all the "variety" really is bullshit.

Go check the conection between psychoanalyses, marketing and propaganda. Protip, the were made in that exact order.

50 different brands of milk, non of them is pure and you don't have money to buy any of them.

GLORIUS CAPITALISM!

...

Fuck off.

Most of those products are objectively worse than another, artificially more expensive, or exactly the same as each other

also, see: market socialism

there can be no one perfect beer when there are so many different kinds of beer. Drink a lambic, then drink a quadrupel, and realize that those two very different beers come from the same country. If anything, communism would increase the number of craftsmen who make specialty products like fine ales and wines, not limit it.

But variety is literally impossible without markets, without markets we'll all be drinking flavourless 1% cans of assjuice because markets. Markets markets markets.

Can you give examples of wide varieties of products existing in planned socialist societies? If I remember glasnost caused masses of western products and luxuries to flood into the USSR.

Not an argument.

Different factories/workplaces could still make individual products, but it wouldnt be for profit. it would be because their product is valued and they like making it

I can't give examples of any products in existing socialist societies, at all.

There is absolutely no reason to believe you need markets to have variety.

Do you really need markets for that?

I wasnt supporting markets

Fucker, I knew you would pull that "xD socialism has never existed, ever" ancom bullshit.

Not a good detector of sarcasm

You would have to justify production of your product to a huge number of people, as you will be using resources they would dedicate to something else.

Oh I detected it. Sarcasm isn't an argument.

It didn't need to be an argument. It was a sarcastic comment in support of my post. You don't need an argument to say "I agree with you".

When you start doing that much instead of discussing positions it devolves into Holla Forums with everyone jerking each other off.

I do like product diversity though. So, lets have full mutualism.

I just don't know any products from a socialist society.
Lenin-brand toothpaste?

Why would I have to justify [x] type of beer over [y] type of beer? I can understand maybe needing to justify making any sort of beer at all because of scarcity or something but that's not what we're talking about.

One problem is extra products means extra effort or the laborers, so there's a conflict between them who have to work more and the society who wants more products.

It varied. Some products were really shit because they were made as cheap as possible and there was no competition for higher quality products, some were better because no planned obsolescence, but the people were wowed by the crazy western products that flooded in when the economy was freed up.

So they'll have to justify it to themselves? "I want to" seems enough in that case.

We're not talking about the soviets, right?

I work in advertising.

Yes.

advertising is based on psychological tricks.
For instance, "You are not a real man unless you drink coca cola™"
Or there was this instance in the past of cigarette companies associating womens liberation with smoking.

It is still done today, a while back there was a Budweiser commercial where Budweiser was served at a gay wedding, then after that a Budweiser commercial where amy shumer and seth rogan discuss the womans pay gap over…budwiser.

Corporations know how people tick,they also fuse social issues with consuming.

A liberal will now by a budweiser because it makes them feel like they are participating in a cause instead of just funding a giant corporation.

And the libtards buy it every time

kek isn't that something a consolewar kiddie would say?

"I wanto to" go to a huge amount of effort for no huge extra benefit to myself?

Yes…

It is not a bad thing in itself, obviously, — all really existing socialist states wanted to give full assortment of products for their citizens (and advertised them). When you hear any critique of consumption or consumerism, this is mostly coming from western kids wanting to be edgy, so they could say as they did in the 70s: "you have the gulags, but we have the gulags of consumption". The problem is that exchange and consumption come into forefront in capitalist system while work and production go into background, — you are not fully aware of it — Capital harness society into producing commodities, and then more commodities and then more and this process is not controllable by society — nobody can say "Ok, we need 13.4 kinds of beer, for that we need X amount of resources and we need to work 1.5 hours every week". Instead you will be working 60 hours a week in a place where you can't control anything and will be making 200 kinds of beer.
No.

The sony™ corporation supports gay marriage and gay people and has many gay employees, now give us your money or you hate gay people

Making a different sort of beer from the other brewery over there is a huge amount of effort?
And pride in being the creator of a nice, unique drink, is no benefit?

Okay now I'm pulling this card you said I was.

It doesn't have to be beer. It could be an angle brace or a power tool or something that there might be a use for but would require a ton of extra engineering to make.

There are a lot of products made that nobody cares about or nobody's proud of. You need to make a lot of random crap to keep society running. Not everyone gets to design the Saturn V.

This really applies to most planned economies. In fact it's even worse in democratic socialism than the soviet system, where a boss would find a need and then just tell his underlings to build it.

Sure, okay, dildos. Is it really that much extra effort to make a different kind of dildo than the kind the other guys are making? Seems like it'd take more effort to ensure everyone is making the same dildo and there's no variety in dildos than the effort it'd take to design new dildos.

Because of the alienation in capitalism.

Why?

Yes. By definition the most effective advert is one that can convince everyone to buy something regardless of its actual utility.

There are thousands of scientific journal articles which all confirm that advertising can convince people to waste their money on unnecessary junk. Even worse than that, advertising can undermine democracy and convince people to vote against their own interests.

I would say that the effectiveness of advertising is one of the most corrosive effects on our society. It reinforces the tendency for the rich to passively get richer in an exponential fashion, while also guaranteeing that money is almost exactly equivalent to social, economic and political power.

There are many, many different things that take a huge effort to design and face a huge range of requirements: cars, planes, boats, computer chips, radios, manufacturing equipment, construction equipment, circuit boards, electrical equipment…

Is production centralized? Economies of scale are a huge issue.

Because of the alienation in capitalism.
Yeah fam, I'm just sure you'll get up every day excited to make toilet seats because COMMUNISM!

Why?
What are you, a primitivist?

Yes, which is why I'm not a leninist.

Why are markets necessary for making new versions of these things?

We don't need "a lot of random crap" to keep society running. We need the bare minimum of certain kinds of crap.

And I mean I'd probably make good toilet seats, that are comfortable when you need to sit and shit, and these would be serving the asses of my community, and my own ass, and I'd make those toilet seats with more pride than I would in a capitalist system.
Some people are really into toilets in a non-sexual way.

The "bare minimum" is an unimaginably large number of products.

Markets are essential here, why?

If I'm saying markets aren't needed to give us a variety of products, then I'm not going to say we need markets to give us even the bare minimum.

...

I just explained to you the problems.

Keep track of the discussion. You said everyone would work out of pride alone and then I said not everyone gets to work on cool shit like space programs and then you said >why not xD and then I explained to you a large number of non-glamorous products need to be produced. How much theory have you read? Are you aware of socially necessary labor time?

Sorry I'm back.

You mean
?

I said people would be different out of pride. They'd make a better dildo, or a dildo to a different taste out of pride, and non-glamorous isn't "random crap", I'd take "random crap" as random crap. A tv remote holder attached to the belt or such.

I've read enough theory to know you don't need markets for incentive or innovation.

Because it's not choice, it's an illusion of it. To actually bend to the demands of people on a large scale is unprofitable–instead, people are told what to want through psychology.

Hell yes it does.

The soda heaven you see in that picture doesnt exist outside of the shop of that one bloke, and the only reason that shop exists is because he explicitly makes it his mission not to sell advertised products, but unknown ones from small producers.

Without advertisements, you will get more diversity in products, because people will choose products based on their personal preferences and recommendations of friends, rather than what the TV tells them they should drink.

Where do you live? Even shitty corner store convenience stores have much more variety than that where I live.

Netherlands.

You have coca cola, pepsi cola or the local cancer inducing cheap brand.