Comment by sssilver
1 day ago
Because when you're the sole owner and provider of goods, advertisement loses all meaning.
I grew up in the Soviet Union. There was one type of milk on the shelf, it was called "Milk", and I don't remember the label saying anything else.
Compare with "HORIZON ORGANIC DHA Omega-3 Supports the Brain Health organic Whole Milk" dressed in bright red and contrasting yellow, with typography that begs "please look at me, I'm the better option".
> There was one type of milk on the shelf, it was called "Milk"
I love this. And for me - as a 40 year old western european - it's so unthinkable, so unreal. I usually don't look at the milk packaging at home, but I remember reading on the packaging all kinds of stupid sh!te like names of the farmers where the cow grazes (which might be true, but I guess it's b0ll0cks) with some feel-good illustrations, all kinds of childish texts on the packaging as well. It's just 'milk', I don't need a fake story around how good your milk selling company is.
Maybe your soviet milk was unhealthy or not tasteful, I don't know. Maybe it's just the same kind of milk we have here. My milk is pretty good, but jeezz... that marketing on the packaging over here.
Milk was alright. Many other products, not so much.
Yeah but dropping advertising (or regulating it) does not necessarily imply a monopoly in terms of who provides what.
That what I wanted to understand. I understand the other way around, that a socialist panned economy with monopolies in terms of who produces what is shit. And leads to advertising not being necessary. But the other way round is what still trips me off and what I am still not able to wrap my head around.
How do you regulate advertising without severely restricting freedom of speech?
Communism seems like the only reasonable way — at least then you’re only restricting your own speech as the entity who produces these things.