And turn it into an “oooooh liking stuff is bad” bullshit.
It’s actually just the way that markets divorce items from their use values. Like buying a house you never intend to live in so you can sell it to someone else, or wheat futures you aren’t going to use to sell them on.
Ok so you have fairly egalitarian hunting/gathering type societies, you’ll notice that in these societies makeup is used equally by pretty much all men and women or sometimes to denote specific roles (like religious official or similar) or particular activities (you paint your face a specific way at this particular festivity)
Then you have monarchies, peasants and lower class people no longer wear makeup, makeup is worn by all members of the aristocracy regardless of gender. Merchant class people may or may not wear some makeup. Ancient Egypt was an exception of course as at least eyeliner was used by nearly everyone (though Egypt being uniquely fertile and uniquely predictable allowed more luxuries for common people than elsewhere, and eye kohl both prevented infection and offered protection from sunlight). I am having trouble confirming the cosmetics practices of working people in ancient Japan, but I can say for certain aristocratic men and women did wear makeup, as there are accounts of Samurai rouging their cheeks before battle, as well as of the cosmetic practices of aristocratic women. I know that in ancient China aristocratic women did wear makeup, and we have little evidence on the cosmetics practices of working people and I am having trouble finding sources on what aristocratic men did or did not do. In ancient India cosmetics were used by men and women, but I’m having trouble finding sources on how this related to class.
After bourgeois revolutions you see makeup and adornment being shunned in line with bourgeois values (the victorian era for example, makeup being banned under Cromwell, the French revolution, and actually considering the ultimately state capitalist character of many supposedly leftist revolutions, those too etc) but gradually coming back into favor but only or primarily for women. Proletarian women wear more of it, lumpen prole men also may wear some at various points.
In Ancient Rome and Greece which were closer to bourgeois democracies you seem the same pattern of “generally frowned upon”, and “acceptable if used lightly” by women.
Obviously I’m extrapolating based on data points I have and will need to look for more examples and counterexamples world wide, but it is interesting.
Sources:
http://www.history.com/news/did-lead-makeup-poison-samurai-kids-topple-japans-shogunate
Still academics, but like better than that liberal nonsense
Be nice to each other, guys. We don’t know who’s right yet (at least that’s what I think, they may both work in different situations, maybe actually some other non-capitalist thing works, maybe one works all the time, testing has been inadequate to prove anything.)
Also I feel like most of the Anarchists and Marxists I know disagree fundamentally on what the definition of a state is… so like that’s a weird thing to have be your actual fundamental difference “We can’t agree on what the word ‘state’ means, let’s form rival tendencies” ugh stop.
You can always discuss the glories of Marxism with me
Partially because it would be funny and partially because it would be for the greater glory of communism
and I’m like “…you’re just telling me to add you to the list of people to put on trial after the revolution”
Sub: Do whatever you want with me! I live to please you, Mistress! What I want doesn’t matter, I am but a lowly worm.
Me: Welp, I guess we’re going to spend an hour discussing Marxist economic theory then.
So the labor theory of value actually just explained to me why a Ralph Lauren t-shirt costs twice as much as a plain one. The labor of branding is accepted as socially necessary labor, so although the cost of producing the material of the t-shirt remains the same, the cost of producing the image associated with the brand of the t-shirt is added into the cost, I think… maybe.
Cause the amount of labor power involved in creating the idea of Ralph Lauren is immense, yeah?
You are the fancy ass minimalist trend. Have you ever experienced material deprivation? The desire for parties and beautiful things and frivolity is a response to the dourness of our lives, you fucking egg.
Trying to make a virtue of deprivation is the bougiest shit.
Like “Oh look at me I’m so virtuous and tasteful, I’ve eaten 5 organic almonds today and that’s all, my house is a white room, I don’t own things because I’m tasteful and not a horrible proponent of the worst kind of consumerism the way poor people are”
It’s easy to love minimalism and your 5 fucking almonds when you’ve never had to worry about where your next meal is coming from.
Get out of leftism and take your smug cultural protestant shit with you, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Thoughts From The Peacock Angel 