Joy and Consumerism

[Shol'Va]

I say trying to be clear to the reader :

I saw a documentary on the 60's counterculture some time ago. One of the speakers talked about the meaning of Joy saying that joy is not something you reach for, it is not an objective. Not a car, not a job, not a girlfriend. When we chase after something thinking that it is joy, or will bring joy w are merely following some kind of consumerist script, further the beleif that something can bring joy is the very definition of consumerism. Joy instead is an internal state, a fundemental optimism about one's ability to live a good life, a lack of existential anxiety.

We see the script he describes laid out before us every day. Society likes to beleive (permit the generalisations, I think you'll get the point) that buying a new car gives us the joyfull experiance of autonomy, beer is love and through religion we can attain a place in heaven. It forces out to look outward, to bring things into our possesion in order to find our peace with the universe. Joy on the other hand is independant of our environment relying instead on our inner faith in ourselves and in our values we hold. One can chase all the ideas of consumerism and be absolutly joyless, one can have nothing and yet be joyful.

In a sense this fundemental choice between joylessness and joy is first and second hand existences. one between free will and evasion, the cornerstone of Objectivist psychology. The choice between them is so fundemental, so overreaching the first and second hand men reside in totally different mental spaces, one leading into this fundemental joy, the other to dispair. The first hander posessing Joy does not need to look outward, instead he looks within - the anticonsumerist. The second hander is obsessed with image, with status, with the trappings and signs of wealth and is therefore a slave to outside consumerism posessing no inner joy.

Thoughts?

[DragonMaci]

Firstly, let me ask you this: if you were imprisoned when you had done nothing wrong (say you were a civillian POW), would you ignore your environment (the prison) and still be joyous? I don't see that you would. I know I wouldn't.

Secodly, faith is belief without proof. No rational emotion can be based on it, therefore, no rational man will base joy on faith in himslef and his belief. He will base it on them, but faith will not be involved.

Thirdly, joy attached to items or people is not always consumerism. It is right to feel joy about items or people one values, such as a lover. When that happens it is the value, not the item or person that caused the joy. Joy involving items or people that one values is not second-handing. It is if one doesn't value the person or item, but not if one does value the item or person.

Edited April 11, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Prometheus98876]

I say trying to be clear to the reader :

I saw a documentary on the 60's counterculture some time ago. One of the speakers talked about the meaning of Joy saying that joy is not something you reach for, it is not an objective. Not a car, not a job, not a girlfriend. When we chase after something thinking that it is joy, or will bring joy w are merely following some kind of consumerist script, further the beleif that something can bring joy is the very definition of consumerism. Joy instead is an internal state, a fundemental optimism about one's ability to live a good life, a lack of existential anxiety.

We see the script he describes laid out before us every day. Society likes to beleive (permit the generalisations, I think you'll get the point) that buying a new car gives us the joyfull experiance of autonomy, beer is love and through religion we can attain a place in heaven. It forces out to look outward, to bring things into our possesion in order to find our peace with the universe. Joy on the other hand is independant of our environment relying instead on our inner faith in ourselves and in our values we hold. One can chase all the ideas of consumerism and be absolutly joyless, one can have nothing and yet be joyful.

In a sense this fundemental choice between joylessness and joy is first and second hand existences. one between free will and evasion, the cornerstone of Objectivist psychology. The choice between them is so fundemental, so overreaching the first and second hand men reside in totally different mental spaces, one leading into this fundemental joy, the other to dispair. The first hander posessing Joy does not need to look outward, instead he looks within - the anticonsumerist. The second hander is obsessed with image, with status, with the trappings and signs of wealth and is therefore a slave to outside consumerism posessing no inner joy.

Thoughts?

Sounds to me like this person is trying to divorce "joy" from reality. Joy/happiness etc is the response to reality, some event, or some person or such. It is an emontional response to something. It is not just an internal state, a lack of anxeity, it has to be in response to something , it must have a cause , some connection to reality, to a thing or things (even if the emotion is an improper one).

He wants us to beleive that nothing real that we choose to pursue can bring us happiness, joy. Therefore relying in some sort of faith in something, a baseless, emotion that we should not associate with that around us, but with any emotion or thought that we might hold.

What he calls "joy" is the false warmth of escaping reality and justifiying ones emotions...this can only lead to misery and perhaps the thin illusion of happiness...

[DragonMaci]

Sounds to me like this person is trying to divorce "joy" from reality. Joy/happiness etc is the response to reality, some event, or some person or such. It is an emontional response to something. It is not just an internal state, a lack of anxeity, it has to be in response to something , it must have a cause , some connection to reality, to a thing or things (even if the emotion is an improper one).

He wants us to beleive that nothing real that we choose to pursue can bring us happiness, joy. Therefore relying in some sort of faith in something, a baseless, emotion that we should not associate with that around us, but with any emotion or thought that we might hold.

What he calls "joy" is the false warmth of escaping reality and justifiying ones emotions...this can only lead to misery and perhaps the thin illusion of happiness...

That is a much better way of saying what I was trying to say.

[Inspector]

"Consumerism" is an anti-concept. A kind of massive straw man. Who exactly these days is a strict Materialist, other than Marxist throwbacks?

[Korthor]

I'm of mixed opinion about whether "consumerism" is an anti-concept. If someone paid me enough to define it, I would say "viewing material goods as ends in themselves rather than as a means to achieving goals and values."

I'm willing to be convinced consumerism is an anti-concept, so pick away at my definition please!

[Inspector]

I'm of mixed opinion about whether "consumerism" is an anti-concept. If someone paid me enough to define it, I would say "viewing material goods as ends in themselves rather than as a means to achieving goals and values."

I'm willing to be convinced consumerism is an anti-concept, so pick away at my definition please!

Well, let's start with what an anti-concept is:

An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept.

And:

To put over an "anti-concept," one needs a straw man (or scarecrow or scapegoat) to serve as an example of its alleged meaning.

And:

An anti-concept is an artificial, unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The term "duty" obliterates more than single concepts; it is a metaphysical and psychological killer: it negates all the essentials of a rational view of life and makes them inapplicable to man's actions.

The legitimate concept nearest in meaning to the word "duty" is "obligation." The two are often used interchangeably, but there is a profound difference between them which people sense, yet seldom identify.

And:

Observe that in the issue of humor versus thrillers, modern intellectuals are using the term "humor" as an anti-concept, that is, as a "package-deal" of two meanings, with the proper meaning serving to cover and to smuggle the improper one into people's minds. The purpose is to obliterate the distinction between "humor" and "mockery," particularly self-mockery—and thus bring men to defile their own values and self-esteem, for fear of being accused of lacking "a sense of humor."

See the pattern? An anti-concept takes a straw man, a positive value, (humor, volitional obligation) and package-deals it with a evil idea or vice (self-mockery, unchosen and irrational duty), and thus attempts to legitimize the evil or vice. Here is another example of the same usage, with "equality:"

The rise of capitalism swept away all castes, including the institutions of aristocracy and of slavery or serfdom.

But this is not the meaning that the altruists ascribe to the word "equality."

They turn the word into an anti-concept: they use it to mean, not political, but metaphysical equality—the equality of personal attributes and virtues, regardless of natural endowment or individual choice, performance and character. It is not man-made institutions, but nature, i.e., reality, that they propose to fight—by means of man-made institutions.

I.e. taking the legitimate concept of equal rights and fusing it with the reality defying idea of equal results for everyone regardless of whether they are producers or parasites. Thus, they use the idea of rights to call for the trampling of rights.

But it can work in reverse, as well. An example is the anti-concept of "extremism:"

The intended technique was: first, to ignore the existence of any serious, reputable, intellectual advocacy of capitalism and the growing body of literature on that subject, past and present—by literally pretending that it did not and does not exist; then, to publicize the John Birch Society as the only representative of the "right"; then to smear all "rightists" by equating them with the John Birch Society.

This way, the straw man is the evil or vice, which they use to smear a positive value.

"Consumerism" does the same thing. First, it ignores any legitimate use or pursuit of material prosperity as a life-affirming activity. Then it constructs a straw-man of "viewing material goods as ends in themselves rather than as a means to achieving goals and values" which is an ideology that does not exist and never existed. The closest thing in history would be the Dialectical Materialism of Marx, who thought that economic circumstances determine one's character, but even that is a stretch.

The origin, if I had to speculate, would be the American "sense of life" which implicitly recognized the value of prosperity but lacked the intellectual rigor to definitively draw the philosophical connection to man's life. The lack of this explicit connection was used by the left to make the bold and baseless claim that there existed no such connection, and that people were pursuing material prosperity "as an end in itself, rather than as a means to achieving life-affirming values."

And by means of this straw man, all of capitalism, and indeed anyone who seeks to attain life on earth, is smeared. Man is a creature of both mind and body; he requires material values to live and thrive. Life requires material goods, and a good, thriving life requires an abundance of material goods - the abundance that capitalism has been proven to produce. The left seeks to cut capitalism off at its roots by means of this anti-concept, which equates all prosperity with a nonexistent strawman.

That is why I said that "consumerism" is an anti-concept. The moral of the story, Shol'Va, is do not look to the hippies, who were man-hating nihilists, for philosophical ideas and values. Reject them completely and utterly, along with the poisonous garbage that was their ideas.

P.S., I also found this, which refers to a different variation on the word "consumerism:"

No "anti-concept" launched by the "liberals" goes so far so crudely as the tag "consumerism." It implies loudly and clearly that the status of "consumer" is separate from and superior to the status of "producer"; it suggests a social system dedicated to the service of a new aristocracy which is distinguished by the ability to "consume" and vested with a special claim on the caste of serfs marked by the ability to produce.

It's a different, older, usage of the term "consumerism," but it shows that the left has a history with creating anti-concepts with that term. Usually, if you hear some "new" term from a leftist, you can look back a few decades and find it's been done before (and is always, inevitably a vicious attack on capitalism)

Hey, they're not the most original people in the world.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Inspector

[blackdiamond]

Great stuff, Inspector.

[DragonMaci]

Great stuff, Inspector.

Indeed. I was quite impressed with it myself, but I didn't say anything as I don't like to do so on the forum unless I can add something to the conversation.

Edited April 11, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Inspector]

Indeed. I was quite impressed with it myself, But I didn't say anything as I don't like to do so on the forum unless I can add something to the conversation.

I appreciate it, anyway.

[DragonMaci]

I appreciate it, anyway.

I kind of figured that you did because there would of been no point in you saying it otherwise.

[Inspector]

I kind of figured that you did because there would of been no point in you saying it otherwise.

LOL, I meant I appreciate the compliments.

[Korthor]

You say that the phenomenon I described ("viewing material goods as an end in themselves rather than as a means to achieving other goals and values") never existed. I'd say it's pervasive. In advanced industrial societies, there are hundreds of millions of people with lots of things but no coherent value system. They're looking for something to value, but don't know what. Some turn to substance abuse, some to religion, some to co-dependent relationships, and some to "consumerism" (a concern with acquiring the most things without have a coherent way of reconciling such an acquisition with their value system).

I think the "package deal" issue is more problematic. To recast your point in my own language, you're saying that consumerism combines two concepts:

1. viewing material goods as an end in themselves rather than as a means to achieving other goals and values

2. viewing material goods as somthing desirable

I'm willing to concede that the predominant usage does indeed involve this pernicious package deal.

If I'm right that the concept I described is a legitimate one, then we're faced with two options

1. Come up with a new word for what I'm describing. Nothing immediately comes to mind, but I'd be happy to listen to nominations.

2. Work to reform the philosophical meaning of a anti-concept into a real concept. After all, the word "egoism" was an anti-concept until Rand reclaimed it.

I'm an agnostic about which path to choose, but we shouldn't ignore that material prosperity is no guarantee to happiness if you can't get your values right.

P.S. Part of our disagreement lies in the fact that you're critiquing the concept of consumerism as an "ideology," while I'm interested in discussing a psychological pathology. If anything, the pathology I'm describing is a product of a lack of ideology.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Korthor

[Inspector]

You say that the phenomenon I described ("viewing material goods as an end in themselves rather than as a means to achieving other goals and values") never existed. I'd say it's pervasive. In advanced industrial societies, there are hundreds of millions of people with lots of things but no coherent value system. They're looking for something to value, but don't know what. Some turn to substance abuse, some to religion, some to co-dependent relationships, and some to "consumerism" (a concern with acquiring the most things without have a coherent way of reconciling such an acquisition with their value system).

How many of those people, however, will actually state that that is the premise they are running on, as an explicit ideology? How many do so on principle, with the understanding that what they do is right? That will actually defend it when under attack? None. It isn't an ideology, it is a default; a vacuum of understanding why you do what you do. That's why they are always trying to fill it with things like religion. If you find one who isn't just a vacuum, who actually says "whoever dies with the most toys, wins" and means it, then by all means let me know.

But face it, this is a total straw man, and an almost cartoonish caricature of one, as well. I can just see the cynical parodies of the 1950's style education videos now: "Billy, don't you know that it's The American Way to work for a corporate machine and consume things?" It's a leftist parody; a fiction.

You want to find pure Materialists who divorce goods from life and values, who reverse cause and effect, seeking to attain the cause by chasing the effect? There are lots of them out there, most of them in prison; they're called thieves.

I think the "package deal" issue is more problematic. To recast your point in my own language, you're saying that consumerism combines two concepts:

1. viewing material goods as an end in themselves rather than as a means to achieving other goals and values

2. viewing material goods as somthing desirable

Yep, and this is a package deal with a purpose: to attack and wipe out values by means of anti-concept.

If I'm right that the concept I described is a legitimate one, then we're faced with two options

1. Come up with a new word for what I'm describing. Nothing immediately comes to mind, but I'd be happy to listen to nominations.

2. Work to reform the philosophical meaning of a anti-concept into a real concept. After all, the word "egoism" was an anti-concept until Rand reclaimed it.

"Egoism" was not invented as an anti-conceptual neologism, it was a legitimate word that attained negative connotations. You may be able to reform real words or even package deals, but I think it's a different ball game with anti-concepts; especially neologistical ones invented by the masters of linguistic manipulation.

I'm an agnostic about which path to choose, but we shouldn't ignore that material prosperity is no guarantee to happiness if you can't get your values right.

No, but material prosperity is good. That's what you have to remember. All other things being equal, it is better to have more material prosperity than less. The cure for a lack of understanding of values is to present an understanding of values, not to disparage or downplay the importance of the real, actual value that is material prosperity. Any discussion of this topic must begin and end with the fact that the hippies are wrong, wrong, wrong.

P.S. Part of our disagreement lies in the fact that you're critiquing the concept of consumerism as an "ideology," while I'm interested in discussing a psychological pathology. If anything, the pathology I'm describing is a product of a lack of ideology.

That's because it is an ideology. The word "consumerism" is a leftist concept. If you want a word for the pathology you describe, go find another one that isn't a loaded ideological term. Would you declare yourself a lover of children by saying you're a "pedophile?"

Now, as to what we should call it: doesn't Materialism cover what you mean? You can use Philosophical Materialism if you need to be very clear, or even describe the specific form you mean, such as Dialectical Materialism. But if you're just describing the default condition, and not an ideology, then it is more meaningful to describe the values that they lack, since that is the essential fact about them, rather than that they do still hold the value of material prosperity.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Inspector

[Korthor]

1. I'll insist that "consumerism" in its traditional leftist sense means a pathology at least as much as it does an ideology. In fact, I've never seen anyone explain the meaning of consumerism as an ideology (although I have come across the cypher "consumerist ideology"), while I have seen more-or-less coherent explanations of it as a cultural pathology. If you have some particular thinker or source in mind that dictates that we must think of it as an ideology as opposed to a product of a lack in ideology, then please give it up!

2. I do know people I would say are suffering from consumerism. And no, they're not thieves. They're just confused.

3. You ask, why not describe the lacking values rather the phenomenon that results from the lack of values? Why have words like alcoholism, co-depdency, or New Age mysticism? I think all of these are a result of a lack of coherent values, but they do correspond to things in reality.

4. I think we have some disagreement about anti-concepts. I don't think anything is inherently an anti-concept, it's just how you define it. And yes I do think that "egoism" pre-Rand involved a package deal, and thus WAS an anti-concept. She changed it from an anti-concept to a real concept. I was suggesting we do the same with "consumerism," unless the canon was closed after the death of St. Rand.

5. I thought your suggestion of "materialism" was intriguing, but wouldn't it fall prey to the same problems? Let's say I said "Geeze, that guy lives a shallow materialist lifestyle" rather than "Geeze, that guy lives a shallow consumerist lifestyle." I think it would risk much of the same anti-capitalist baggage that "consumerism" does. In the end, almost all words with sociological, psychological, ethical, or political content are infected with bad thinking. Maybe we need to just invent an Objectivist version of Esperanto.... or maybe we can just try to be conscious of what we want our words to mean.

6. Is there a connection between the psychological pathology I'm describing ("consumerism" or "materialism") and philosophical materialism? If there was (as you seemed to imply), that would be a strong argument for that word choice. If you were able to make a convincing argument, I'd give you serious props just like DragonMaci did.

7. Did Rand (or anyone else) have a good word for the "lost feeling resulting from a lack of values" that I claim can sometimes lead to "consumerism"?

[DragonMaci]

LOL, I meant I appreciate the compliments.

I clearly misunderstood. Sorry.

Korthor the people you desribe are people with poorly defined values, not people lacking in values. What they really seek is for external sources to supply them a means to evade defining their values. They value evasion and escaping. Alcoholism, drug abuse, consumerism, thieves, etc, they are all trying to escape from the nature of themselves, of what they belive, of what they value. They don't want to face their true nature. They want to evade it. They don't seek values, they try to evade the ones they have.

Futhermore, I again agree with everything Inspector said.

4. I think we have some disagreement about anti-concepts. I don't think anything is inherently an anti-concept, it's just how you define it. And yes I do think that "egoism" pre-Rand involved a package deal, and thus WAS an anti-concept. She changed it from an anti-concept to a real concept.

Actually egoism originally meant what Rand defined it as, but the second-handers hijacked it just like they hijacked selfish. Rand simply changed the word back to its original meaning.

If there was (as you seemed to imply), that would be a strong argument for that word choice. If you were able to make a convincing argument, I'd give you serious props just like DragonMaci did.

You, know you can make it easier on yourself by calling me DM or Kane.

[Korthor]

I feel like I'm getting some level of agreeement that there is this phenomenon I've described with the lable "consumerism." Why not give it a name? What's wrong with using words or phrases that were invented by one's philosophical opponents. After all, Rand often said that each person was an end in themselves, and not to be used as an end by others. Know who came up with that brilliant notion? GASP GASP Immanuel Kant in his "Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals."

I'm willing to call it "materialism," although I think the word is not specific enough to a phenomena which has become more pervasive in late capitalism (the phrase "late capitalism" was invented by Marxist: should I say something else?). Actually, now that I think about it the word "phenomena" was given philosophical meaning by German Idealists and Continental phenomenologists. Should I avoid the word "phenomenon"? But isn't there a phenomenon "phenomenon"? But wait, the word "Being" was given the most extensive philosophical treatment by Heidegger, and I would not want to implicitly support his ontology by using the word "is." Damn, keeping my language pure is (damn it, I'm being Heideggerian again) hard. Now I know how Imus feels.

Edited April 11, 2007 by Korthor

[softwareNerd]

Dagny alludes to the error that was mentioned by the original post in this thread.

...she had wondered about the people who expected the lights and the flowers to make them brilliant.

On the other hand it's an error to disdain goodies. The villain, Tooheys says:

"Mother, I've got four suits. What do I need another one for?"

Very abstractly, values are neither intrinsic nor subjective. So, things, as such cannot give one joy; yet, nor can one merely will oneself into a state of joy.

I suppose Francisco's "Money" speech is the place to look:

But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality—the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

Edited April 12, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Inspector]

1. I'll insist that "consumerism" in its traditional leftist sense means a pathology at least as much as it does an ideology. In fact, I've never seen anyone explain the meaning of consumerism as an ideology (although I have come across the cypher "consumerist ideology"), while I have seen more-or-less coherent explanations of it as a cultural pathology. If you have some particular thinker or source in mind that dictates that we must think of it as an ideology as opposed to a product of a lack in ideology, then please give it up!

Well, that cipher should be your clue: the leftist anti-concept does in fact label it an ideology. The idea being that people pursue material goods as ends-in-themselves, rather then pursuing them in a vacuum without understanding why they are doing so.

2. I do know people I would say are suffering from consumerism. And no, they're not thieves. They're just confused.

Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure? Someone who is pursuing material goods because they bring comfort and momentary pleasure is not, repeat not a "consumerist" in the leftist sense. Physical comfort, escapism, second-handed "status," and hedonistic pleasure are all ends that material goods are the means to. In none of those circumstances are material goods actual ends in themselves. This is what separates it as an anti-concept: by lumping all of those things under the inessential qualifier of "pursuit of material goods," it makes it impossible to actually identify what is really going on.

3. You ask, why not describe the lacking values rather the phenomenon that results from the lack of values? Why have words like alcoholism, co-depdency, or New Age mysticism? I think all of these are a result of a lack of coherent values, but they do correspond to things in reality.

You misunderstand. I am saying that "consumerism" is actually Category Error, which I mean in the sense of "having stated or defined a problem so poorly that it becomes impossible to solve that problem.” See above.

4. I think we have some disagreement about anti-concepts. I don't think anything is inherently an anti-concept, it's just how you define it.

Anti-concepts are distinguished from mere package deals in my original post. They are similar but there is an essential difference in intent.

I was suggesting we do the same with "consumerism," unless the canon was closed after the death of St. Rand.

It's not that. Egoism, as I said, was a real word before it became packaged by altruism. "Consumerism" was never a real word - it was, from the very beginning, a leftist neologism designed to be an anti-concept to attack capitalism.

5. I thought your suggestion of "materialism" was intriguing, but wouldn't it fall prey to the same problems? Let's say I said "Geeze, that guy lives a shallow materialist lifestyle" rather than "Geeze, that guy lives a shallow consumerist lifestyle."

First, note that I capitalized the "M." Second, note that you can always say "Philosophic Materialism." Third, note that Materialism was a real word and didn't start as a package deal.

6. Is there a connection between the psychological pathology I'm describing ("consumerism" or "materialism") and philosophical materialism? If there was (as you seemed to imply), that would be a strong argument for that word choice. If you were able to make a convincing argument, I'd give you serious props just like DragonMaci did.

It depends on which of the not-necessarily-essentially-the-same ideas that you're referring to. Hedonism is a form of Materialism, but second-handed status seeking is a form of Idealism - primacy-of-consciousness, social variety. Seeking physical comfort is not Materialism, either, as it is an objective value.

7. Did Rand (or anyone else) have a good word for the "lost feeling resulting from a lack of values" that I claim can sometimes lead to "consumerism"?

I believe she used the terms "intellectual bankruptcy" or "(cultural) value deprivation."

[Korthor]

We've been going around in circles and getting into tangents, so I'll ask you two simple questions.

1. Is there a phenomenon in which people seek material possessions as ends in themselves, without connecting it to a larger value system?

2. If so, what should we call it? I don't think "Philosophical Materialism" does the trick because I'm decribing a psychological pathology, while PM is a philosophical perspective on the nature of the reality. One might have something to do with the other, but I hardly think you can use the term PM to adequately describe what I'm talking about in my first question.

P.S. I'm not conceding your argument that anti-concepts can't be reclaimed. I made my most extensive argument my last post (maybe you missed it). But I think this is more of a side issue and so if you want to debate me on that point, maybe we should start a new thread.

[Inspector]

1. Is there a phenomenon in which people seek material possessions as ends in themselves, without connecting it to a larger value system?

If there is a phenomenon in which people seek material possessions as a Kantian categorical imperative (not as a means to hedonism or social status, etc), then I don't know of it. As I said, there is not a single pathology of "seeking material goods without 'spiritual' value connection" ("spiritual" in the sense Rand used it), but rather a number of different such pathologies which are not essentially similar. Many, but not all, of which are a species of philosophical Materialism.

The closest I've ever heard is the Mooninites from ATHF,

"Frylock - Life is not about winning material goods.

Ignignokt - No, it's about taking material goods when others aren't looking."

But that's only his explicit statement, where in fact they were clearly acting out of hedonism and/or nihilism.

In all seriousness, however, even Marxist Dialectical Materialists pursued material values as a means of furthering man's life, even if they had a really screwed up idea of what that meant and thus could only ever achieve a devastating shortage of said values.