Talk:Economic materialism

Sucky article

I agree that this article is currently sucky. Hippie bias in the article. Needs to be connected more with the other Materialism article. That "personal relationships" should be put above wealth/objects is an assertion Wikipedia is not entitled to make. But since when do anti-Materialists bother with any restriction on what they can say and pretend to be neutral. Colour me successfully offended. If this kind of thing isn't brought into check across the whole encyclopedia, someone else, not me, will create a right-wing fork of the whole damn thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.224.17 (talk • contribs) .

See Conservapedia... Richard001 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What 'owning something in spirit' means should be clarified in the article, or the sentence using the phrase should be re-worked.Threepenpals (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive gibberish added by troll

This diff url [1] shows that the following gibberish was added by the anonymous user 64.78.86.108. In case this gibberish does make sense, then you can add it back but rewrite in a comprehensible format.

Here is the gibberish:

Just as well, using transformative grammar to explain materialism in the language of cultural anthropology and political science, a sharp distinction between the philosophical definition and the 'scientific' defintion occurs. In the language paradigms of Cultural Materialism and political science, materialism corresponds with states of consciousness which arise from interaction with a society's physical environment. Cultural Materialists analyse cultures using what is known as the Universal Set.

The Universal set has three basic units, infrastructure, structure and superstructure. Every society has these three elements. The infrastructure of a community is the physical landscape. The structure is the economic systems used to manage the resources. Structure can be divided into at least two different types of economies, domestic economy and political economy. The former relates how family and kinship groups interact with their environments to meet their basic needs while the latter deals with trade and relations between family and kinship groups. As societies become more complex, the political economy becomes more complex. The global marketplace has made many societies' political economies interact. In the third and final paradigm is the superstructure. The superstructure consists of abstract ideals and philosophies imbodied in law, religion, culture, and art. Many theories exist as how these abstract ideas arise from a society's infrastructure. See Marvin Harris, Antonio Gramsci, Karl Marx, Max Weber or Bryan Haden.

After rereading this material 5 times, the words seem to make a kind of sense. However, given the anonymous edit, I am still suspicious of this content

WpZurp 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have just been reading the "philosophical" materialism page. If I understand the above gibberish, it is talking about a "philosophy", maybe Dialectical materialism or Historical materialism. But I've wasted enough time justifying myself already.

WpZurp 00:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translating from Jargon to English as an intellectual exercise:

Materialism may be equally well explained using the language of cultural anthropology and political science. When it is, a distinction is visible between the philosophical definition and the 'scientific' defintion. Materialism is an attitute towards the world we live in, which can be divided into three basic elements.

Those elements are: the environment; the economy, which can be futher partitioned into the domestic sphere and the wider economy; and the world of abstract ideals and philosophies such as in law, religion, culture, and art. See Karl Marx, Max Weber, two guys hardly anyone has heard of and one guy no-one has so much as written a page on.

And it stops there. Disappointing. I was hoping to learn something about what can be gained by looking at Materialism from those three POV. Oh well.

I still think the best definition of materialism is

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup? Delete?

Does this page add value? Should it be tagged for cleanup? Or for AfD? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deserves deletion

Could not this page on "Materialism" be subsumed under "Greed" or "Avarice"? Materialism is a philosophical view-point, not a human failing of some kind. I don't think many people used "material" in this mistaken sense before the release of Madonna's "Material Girl."

Agreed. This page is pure mashed potatoes. No one with any modicum of philosophical training recognizes the word "materialism" as used on this page as having any meaning. As the previous commentator suggests, "materialism" is the same thing as "greed," "avarice," "cupidity," etc., How does one recommend a page for deletion?Stealstrash (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, folks. Had decided, given what seems to be the Talk Page's consensus, to redirect this page to Greed. Apparently this was not "constructive." What I would like to read is a convincing case for keeping this page, which strikes me as as more of an echo-chamber for certain clichés than a sober, disinterested encyclopaedia entry.Stealstrash (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page deserves deletion, and I suggest that it be redirected to consumerism, which is the correct term, even according to the wikipedia page on consumerism. In case someone thinks there is anything worth saving here, it can be added to the consumerism page.Khaydock (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

french language mishmash

"raison d'être for human existence" actually means "reason for existence for human existence", maybe drop one "existence" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.22.137 (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]