84 replies to this topic

[8143FF763271]

When else in history have individuals been so free to pursue their own happiness and make meaning out of their own lives while contributing to the general wellbeing of society, y'all?

[Sweeney]

Consumerism is not a "stage of civilisation".

/thread

[8143FF763271]

How is consumerism not a stage of civilization? I think every successful civilization is destined towards consumerism.

[Sweeney]

con·sum·er·ism/kənˈso͞oməˌrizəm/
Noun:
The protection or promotion of the interests of consumers.
The preoccupation of society with the acquisition of consumer goods.

Since you're so fond of dictionary definitions, I'll let one do the explaining for me.

[8143FF763271]

con·sum·er·ism/kənˈso͞oməˌrizəm/
Noun:
The protection or promotion of the interests of consumers.
The preoccupation of society with the acquisition of consumer goods.

Since you're so fond of dictionary definitions, I'll let one do the explaining for me.

I'm referring to consumerist society as a structural term. I.E. the consumer society, a highly developed and competitive market economy with high rates of mobility centered around the free choice of consumers.

[Sweeney]

That's still not a stage of civilisation.
At most, it's a phase of societal development.

And in future, if you want to use non-standard terminology, define it in your opening post.

[8143FF763271]

That's still not a stage of civilisation.
At most, it's a phase of societal development.

And in future, if you want to use non-standard terminology, define it in your opening post.

I don't think this is non-standard. If I introduce the phrase consumerism as a stage of civilization then it is obvious I am speaking of consumerism at a structural level (i.e. Veblen's consumer society or Jameson's late capitalism).

I refer to any sedentary society after the creation of the state as a civilization. I don't see why I can't call consumerism a stage of it!

[Sweeney]

I don't think this is non-standard. If I introduce the phrase consumerism as a stage of civilization then it is obvious I am speaking of consumerism at a structural level (i.e. Veblen's consumer society or Jameson's late capitalism).

I refer to any sedentary society after the creation of the state as a civilization. I don't see why I can't call consumerism a stage of it!

I think it's pretty clear by now that "what kami12 thinks" is not a reliable indicator of accuracy.

[8143FF763271]

I think it's pretty clear by now that "what kami12 thinks" is not a reliable indicator of accuracy.

Well, I am obviously dealing with people that aren't as well acquainted with sociological texts as I am so what I personally deem as obvious and connoted might not be so for those with a weaker background on the subject. My bad. I apologize for my lack of tact and will surely keep in mind to offer explanations for the concepts I use next time.

[Sweeney]

Well, I am obviously dealing with people that aren't as well acquainted with sociological texts as I am so what I personally deem as obvious and connoted might not be so for those with a weaker background on the subject. My bad. I apologize for my lack of tact and will surely keep in mind to offer explanations for the concepts I use next time.

It's clear that your aim is to patronise and belittle, not engage in fruitful discourse.
I am not well read on sociology, it is true, but even in my ignorance, I can see that you are posturing and preening over a superficial understanding of the topic.

If you'd care to debate me over a zoological, or pedagogical, issue, I would happily bring the full force of my formidable intellect to bear.

[8143FF763271]

It's clear that your aim is to patronise and belittle, not engage in fruitful discourse.
I am not well read on sociology, it is true, but even in my ignorance, I can see that you are posturing and preening over a superficial understanding of the topic.

If you'd care to debate me over a zoological, or pedagogical, issue, I would happily bring the full force of my formidable intellect to bear.

There didn't seem to be much room for fruitful discourse in trying to make a big deal about what you perceive as the ill use of a word.

If you honestly need to become familiarized with the subject, consumerism or, more understandably, the consumer society critique is the widely held notion that contemporary capitalism is materialistic, shallow, repressive, and undesirable. It's a wildly popular cultural notion that is often explored in film (Matrix, Fight Club, American Beauty) and tends to resonate with a lot of people. I thought I'd make a discussion by portraying consumer society, something often singled out to be maligned, as something that is generally desirable... but no one seemed to catch on on it.

Edited by kami12, 14 August 2012 - 07:35 PM.

[WharfRat]

So I long gave up the Debate section of codex as it is riddled with useless garbage. However, I saw a topic titled "Consumerism" and though "Oh my! Perhaps there is some intelligent discussion on the role of consumerism in modern western society." Then I read through this thread and remembered why I stay out of the debate forum...

A) Opening post was terrible. That's no way to start a debate about the subject you want to discuss. I'd personally love to discuss consumerism as it is an interesting topic but I have no real outlet as the originating post had no guidance nor direction.

B) Most responses to genuine topics in the debate forum are garbage. A vast majority of posts are full of logical fallacies and generally two people get suckered into arguing about the premise of the debate. (Which in this case, admittedly, was incredibly vague.)

C) I'm pretty sure you are being facetious in your original statement regarding how wonderful it is that citizens can now give meaning to their lives through physical possessions. If you are not, refer to point D.

D) Most people who actually respond in debate threads fit into one of a few categories. 1) Those that start threads/leave opinions and have no real understanding of the topic they are talking about. 2) Those who intentionally attempt to make an argument, knowing that they are fully incorrect, and try to twist it so that they can bait someone into an argument. (Example:iArgue) 3) Those that feel the need to let the people who are either in category 1 or category 2 know to stfu.

With that said... perhaps you could rephrase your original post to make it a little more clear to specifiy what you'd like to discuss. If you truly want to talk about how great and evolutionary this "stage of civilization" is for mankind, please count me out. I've not the time for trolls.

Thanks.
Cody

[Sweeney]

There didn't seem to be much room for fruitful discourse in trying to make a big deal about what you perceive as the ill use of a word.

If you honestly need to become familiarized with the subject, consumerism or, more understandably, the consumer society critique is the widely held notion that contemporary capitalism is materialistic, shallow, repressive, and undesirable. It's a wildly popular cultural notion that is often explored in film (Matrix, Fight Club, American Beauty) and tends to resonate with a lot of people. I thought I'd make a discussion by portraying consumer society, something often singled out to be maligned, as something that is generally desirable... but no one seemed to catch on on it.

I said I was not well read in sociology, not that I am unfamiliar with consumerism as a concept.

I'm not going to be replying to any more of your deliberate misinterpretations.

[8143FF763271]

So I long gave up the Debate section of codex as it is riddled with useless garbage. However, I saw a topic titled "Consumerism" and though "Oh my! Perhaps there is some intelligent discussion on the role of consumerism in modern western society." Then I read through this thread and remembered why I stay out of the debate forum...

A) Opening post was terrible. That's no way to start a debate about the subject you want to discuss. I'd personally love to discuss consumerism as it is an interesting topic but I have no real outlet as the originating post had no guidance or direction.

B) Most responses to genuine topics in the debate forum are garbage. A vast majority of posts are full of logical fallacies and generally two people get suckered into arguing about the premise of the debate. (Which in this case, admittedly, was incredibly vague.)

C) I'm pretty sure you are being facetious in your original statement regarding how wonderful it is that citizens can now give meaning to their lives through physical possessions. If you are not, refer to point D.

D) Most people who actually respond in debate threads fit into one of a few categories. 1) Those that start threads/leave opinions and have no real understanding of the topic they are talking about. 2) Those who intentionally attempt to make an argument, knowing that they are fully incorrect, and try to twist it so that they can bait someone into an argument. (Example:iArgue) 3) Those that feel the need to let the people know who are either in category 1 or category 2 to stfu.

With that said... perhaps you could rephrase your original post to make it a little more clear to specifically what you'd like to discuss. If you truly want to talk about how great and evolutionary this "stage of civilization" is for mankind, please count me out. I've not the time for trolls.

Thanks.
Cody

See what I mean? This is a person that submit to the popular critique of consumerism I mentioned. Most people submit to this dogmatically, which is why I thought the topic would spark discussion. Alas, people seem to submit to it with such unquestionable deference that they no longer "bother" when people have a different idea about it. He assumes I am being facetious just because I don't submit to the so called immaterialism of the anti-consumerism discourse.

No, I am not being facetious. I think that consumer society is born once society reaches an important (and desirable) level of development. When people stop serving their nations, their church, or any governing institution then the individual becomes the focal point of society. Everyone is freed to pursue their own happiness and make meaning of their own lives as they see fit. Consumerism is this individualism in practice within a structured market economy that allows us to pursue our happiness in so far as we can lend society a service equal to the one it is offering us. If that's not what every civilization should strive for, a system that facilitates the happiness of every man, then I don't know what criterion for a good society you have.

Edited by kami12, 14 August 2012 - 08:18 PM.

[WharfRat]

No, I am not being facetious. I think that consumer society is born once society is reaches an important (and desirable) level of development. When people stop serving their nations, their church, or any governing institution then the individual becomes the focal point of society. Everyone is freed to pursue their own happiness and make meaning of their own lives as they see fit. Consumerism is this individualism in practice within a structured market economy that allows us to pursue our happiness in so far as we can lend society a service equal to the one it is offering us. If that's not what every civilization should strive for, a system that facilitates the happiness of every man, then I don't know what criterion for a good society you have.

I believe that when people stop serving their nations, their church, or any governing institution then yes, the individual does become the focal point. I do not disagree with your argument... I only see things from another angle. This system works out very well for the groups that are supposedly no longer being served. (Nations, Corporations, etc.) These groups actually benefit the most in the form of revenue.

My issue is not that this does not serve these groups, but rather it does not truly serve the individual. Consumerism has taken over peoples lives. I see consumerism like I see addiction (which I happen to know quite a bit about.) Consumerism/Materialism is the individual focus on the (pardon my use of the term here...) "profit" of oneself. I believe that this causes an identity crises of sorts in which individuals have become slaves to make purchases of items that they don't really need. The American economy practically exists solely due to consumerism at this point and thus the show must go on... But money is to materialists as alcohol is to alcoholics; One drink/dollar is too much. One million will never be enough.

It does create this same compulsive behavior that is found in addicts that we simply call "The Rat Race." Everyone is always trying to get ahead and think only about their own personal profit. The problem with this is not only that we are leading people into compulsive habits and behaviors, but we lose the value of things that cannot/should not be bought. Going fishing with your kids on the weekend. Spending the last moments of a loved ones life there at their side. Seeking nirvana through spiritual enlightenment. These things are lost when monetary gain is the sole driving force in a society.

It seems you may have posted this with something you actually wanted to discuss. I've already taken two of my prescription sleeping meds tonight (I hope this whole thing made sense) and won't be posting any more on it tonight. If it gets interesting, I'll likely post tomorrow.

Cheers.
Cody

[8143FF763271]

I believe that when people stop serving their nations, their church, or any governing institution then yes, the individual does become the focal point. I do not disagree with your argument... I only see things from another angle. This system works out very well for the groups that are supposedly no longer being served. (Nations, Corporations, etc.) These groups actually benefit the most in the form of revenue.

My issue is not that this does not serve these groups, but rather it does not truly serve the individual. Consumerism has taken over peoples lives. I see consumerism like I see addiction (which I happen to know quite a bit about.) Consumerism/Materialism is the individual focus on the (pardon my use of the term here...) "profit" of oneself. I believe that this causes an identity crises of sorts in which individuals have become slaves to make purchases of items that they don't really need. The American economy practically exists solely due to consumerism at this point and thus the show must go on... But money is to materialists as alcohol is to alcoholics; One drink/dollar is too much. One million will never be enough.

It does create this same compulsive behavior that is found in addicts that we simply call "The Rat Race." Everyone is always trying to get ahead and think only about their own personal profit. The problem with this is not only that we are leading people into compulsive habits and behaviors, but we lose the value of things that cannot/should not be bought. Going fishing with your kids on the weekend. Spending the last moments of a loved ones life there at their side. Seeking nirvana through spiritual enlightenment. These things are lost when monetary gain is the sole driving force in a society.

It seems you may have posted this with something you actually wanted to discuss. I've already taken two of my prescription sleeping meds tonight (I hope this whole thing made sense) and won't be posting any more on it tonight. If it gets interesting, I'll likely post tomorrow.

Cheers.
Cody

There's one thing wrong with addiction, and it is the fact that we're trading short term pleasure for a higher amount of long term pain. If drugs could offer us the happiness they do without their adverse effects, I would not be opposed to them. Why would I be? They bring people happiness at no strenuous cost. Likewise, if someone that is to die in three days decided to spend the remaning of his stay on earth on a coke binge, I would not blame him or judge him for his actions. If consumerism offers pleasure without offering substantial pain, how can you call it an addiction?

Furthermore, you say that people have lost "appreciation" for things you deem as more valuable in life such as "seeking nirvana" or going out with the kids on the weekend. But why are these things more valuable? Maybe I don't believe in nirvana. Maybe my kids enjoy a weekend at Disney land (which costs money) more than they enjoy a weekend sitting on a boat. What makes your assortment of what is valuable and what isn't superior to theirs? People are rational beings. If we could exert constant and painless pleasure from things that don't cost us money, we wouldn't find it worthy to work our asses off for it. There's a reason people work, and it's that attaining happiness, for them, does have a monetary value and depends on consumer goods. If going fishing was the ultimate experience out there, no one would spend a thousand dollars on a TV.

Also, people will always want more than they need. Have you ever had a pet? Fill its bowl everyday and it will likely get fat. People don't just look for things to "survive". We don't find food, say that's all we need, and spend the next 100 years eating and sleeping. No, we want more. We obey an innate pleasure principle that compels us to seek pleasant experiences. Sometimes it's stuff we need, most of the time it's just stuff we want. It's this bottomless repertoire of wants that has brought us where we are.

Edited by kami12, 14 August 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[WharfRat]

There's one thing wrong with addiction, and it is the fact that we're trading short term pleasure for a higher amount of long term pain. If drugs could offer us the happiness they do without their adverse effects, I would not be opposed to them. Why would I be? They bring people happiness at no strenuous cost. Likewise, if someone that is to die in three days decided to spend the remaning of his stay on earth on a coke binge, I would not blame him or judge him for his actions. If consumerism offers pleasure without offering substantial pain, how can you call it an addiction?

Furthermore, you say that people have lost "appreciation" for things you deem as more valuable in life such as "seeking nirvana" or going out with the kids on the weekend. But why are these things more valuable? Maybe I don't believe in nirvana. Maybe my kids enjoy a weekend at Disney land (which costs money) more than they enjoy a weekend sitting on a boat. What makes your assortment of what is valuable and what isn't superior to theirs? People are rational beings. If we could exert constant and painless pleasure from things that don't cost us money, we wouldn't find it worthy to work our asses off for it. There's a reason people work, and it's that attaining happiness, for them, does have a monetary value and depends on consumer goods. If going fishing was the ultimate experience out there, no one would spend a thousand dollars on a TV.

Also, people will always want more than they need. Have you ever had a pet? Fill its bowl everyday and it will likely get fat. People don't just look for things to "survive". We don't find food, say that's all we need, and spend the next 100 years eating and sleeping. No, we want more. We obey an innate pleasure principles that compels us to seek pleasurable experiences. Sometimes it's stuff we need, most of the time it's just stuff we want. It's this bottomless repertoire of wants that has brought us where we are.

Right.... so you see my point then? Consumerism is bring people down as a whole as it promotes a culture in which monetary gain is the objective. My point with the fishing and the kids and the what have you was meant to demonstrate the basic principle of TINSTAAFL. (There is no such thing as a free lunch.) What I mean is that there is always an opportunity cost. We are taught that monetary gain is what is essential and that should be our motivation but we lose sight of the opportunities that it costs.

I'm not stating that what I value that doesn't cost money is more valuable than whatever it is that you value that does cost money. My point is that a culture that promotes materialism devalues non-material goods. Blahblahblah. Too sleepy to talk more. Doubt I'm even making sense any more.

[8143FF763271]

Right.... so you see my point then? Consumerism is bring people down as a whole as it promotes a culture in which monetary gain is the objective. My point with the fishing and the kids and the what have you was meant to demonstrate the basic principle of TINSTAAFL. (There is no such thing as a free lunch.) What I mean is that there is always an opportunity cost. We are taught that monetary gain is what is essential and that should be our motivation but we lose sight of the opportunities that it costs.

I'm not stating that what I value that doesn't cost money is more valuable than whatever it is that you value that does cost money. My point is that a culture that promotes materialism devalues non-material goods. Blahblahblah. Too sleepy to talk more. Doubt I'm even making sense any more.

I understand that completely and would be compelled to agree if we were actually taught that money is the objective, but I don't think we are. You're right that we shouldn't be compelled to value the material over the non-material. If we enjoy fishing more than paying for stuff, then we should have the freedom to go fishing instead of paying for stuff. I just don't believe that people are sincerely being taught that they must look for money. People look for money insofar as money can contribute to their happiness. There's a reason why consumerist nations have so many people with useless degrees: There's people that think that exercising a profession they enjoy will bring forth more happiness than having a shitload of money.

Also, I don't think that consumerism is "intrinsically" materialist. We often pay for services, not just goods. Spending time with your kids is a valuable and free thing to you because you're their parent, but spending time with a lecturing professor will cost you time. I don't think society tells you to enjoy one over the other. One just happens to be relatively free to you while the other one has a price.

[iargue]

When else in history have individuals been so free to pursue their own happiness and make meaning out of their own lives while contributing to the general wellbeing of society, y'all?

Today's society is about the exploitation of the worker. Thus, I would consider it a lower stage of civilization.

Apple - Creating products from Chinese workers, paying them just dollars are day, and then turns around and sells them for 500% the price to consumers who have no need for the product but have been brainwashed into believing that they need the product.

Major Music Labels - Controls the method in which music is released and controlled to the public, forcing any aspiring artist to go through them to be carried in stores, while at the same time charging them outrageous interest rates on the loans needed to record an album, which is required to be recorded using their outrageously expensive equipment, and then providing them less then 30% of the profits (Or sometimes, withhold a significant amount of the profits, until the interest on their loans is high enough that the profit goes straight back to them) an entire industry literally built using other peoples talents.

MPAA/RIA - Uses the government as a weapon to take care of anything that threatens them, including legitimate companies and studios that offer what they do for cheaper/better.

Gasoline - Uses an entire nation built upon cheap oil, and a complete reliance upon gasoline to charge high amounts for gasoline while raking in 41 billion dollars in profits, all because its a necessity that they control.

And sadly, there are thousands and thousands more examples of how horribly screwed over our current economy is. This is probably the worst point in time to be a consumer, and the best time to be a rich fat cat.

[8143FF763271]

Today's society is about the exploitation of the worker. Thus, I would consider it a lower stage of civilization.

Apple - Creating products from Chinese workers, paying them just dollars are day, and then turns around and sells them for 500% the price to consumers who have no need for the product but have been brainwashed into believing that they need the product.

Major Music Labels - Controls the method in which music is released and controlled to the public, forcing any aspiring artist to go through them to be carried in stores, while at the same time charging them outrageous interest rates on the loans needed to record an album, which is required to be recorded using their outrageously expensive equipment, and then providing them less then 30% of the profits (Or sometimes, withhold a significant amount of the profits, until the interest on their loans is high enough that the profit goes straight back to them) an entire industry literally built using other peoples talents.

MPAA/RIA - Uses the government as a weapon to take care of anything that threatens them, including legitimate companies and studios that offer what they do for cheaper/better.

Gasoline - Uses an entire nation built upon cheap oil, and a complete reliance upon gasoline to charge high amounts for gasoline while raking in 41 billion dollars in profits, all because its a necessity that they control.

And sadly, there are thousands and thousands more examples of how horribly screwed over our current economy is. This is probably the worst point in time to be a consumer, and the best time to be a rich fat cat.

First, I will regard the examples that happen in consumer society. A recording label doesn't force an artist to do anything. A recording label offers an artist something, whether money or services or both, and takes something back in return, his work. If I am an artist and somebody tells me they're going to finance my career and provide quality production and advertisement for my music for a part of the profit, they're doing something for me I can't do for myself and, thus, providing a valuable service I might be inclined to accept. Otherwise, artists just wouldn't sign the deals.

The MPAA can't use government as a weapon... unless their opponents are doing something illegal. Like, you know, stealing copyrighted content.

The rest of your examples (chinese workers, monopolies [albeit there's no actual oil monopoly], etc.) don't really pertain to consumer societies. Consumer societies and capitalism aren't the same thing. Just like 'dog' and 'animal' aren't the same thing. Consumerism exists under capitalism but not all capitalists societies are consumerist. A consumerist society is focused on the consumer, so the government usually has a role in general welfare (healthcare, welfare, minimum wage) and the market tends to be highly competitive (providing the consumer a wide variety of reasonably priced options).

On another note, plenty of people may have it bad in the world but working for apple beats being a slave.

Edited by kami12, 15 August 2012 - 04:38 PM.

[iargue]

First, I will regard the examples that happen in consumer society. A recording label doesn't force an artist to do anything. A recording label offers an artist something, whether money or services or both, and takes something back in return, his work. If I am an artist and somebody tells me they're going to finance my career and provide quality production and advertisement for my music for a part of the profit, they're doing something for me I can't do for myself and, thus, providing a valuable service I might be inclined to accept. Otherwise, artists just wouldn't sign the deals.

The MPAA can't use government as a weapon... unless their opponents are doing something illegal. Like, you know, stealing copyrighted content.

The rest of your examples (chinese workers, monopolies [albeit there's no actual oil monopoly], etc.) don't really pertain to consumer societies. Consumer societies and capitalism aren't the same thing. Just like 'dog' and 'animal' aren't the same thing. Consumerism exists under capitalism but not all capitalists societies are consumerist. A consumerist society is focused on the consumer, so the government usually has a role in general welfare (healthcare, welfare, minimum wage) and the market tends to be highly competitive (providing the consumer a wide variety of reasonably priced options).

On another note, plenty of people may have it bad in the world but working for apple beats being a slave.

You know nothing about the Major Music Labels. They do force it. If you want to sell your record in any except the smallest of stores in the US, then you have to sign a deal with them. Or the store will refuse to carry it, thanks to a contract that they signed for reduced prices. They also force you to use their over price recording studio (Like 500,000 to record an album) instead of using your own, or anyone else's. Its not about providing a service to them. ITs about taking everything because they have no other option (Just like college)

MPAA/RIAA: You are so so so soooooo wrong

We are not a consumer based society. My example of apple directly shows how the consumer is screwed over (Your paying a gigantic increase for the same exact product). Not to mention how shitty wireless plans are, or cable/internet plans. How shitty oil is (A GIGANTIC CONSUMER INDUSTRY). all examples of screwing the consumer over, not making things targetted to them.

[8143FF763271]

You know nothing about the Major Music Labels. They do force it. If you want to sell your record in any except the smallest of stores in the US, then you have to sign a deal with them. Or the store will refuse to carry it, thanks to a contract that they signed for reduced prices. They also force you to use their over price recording studio (Like 500,000 to record an album) instead of using your own, or anyone else's. Its not about providing a service to them. ITs about taking everything because they have no other option (Just like college)

MPAA/RIAA: You are so so so soooooo wrong

We are not a consumer based society. My example of apple directly shows how the consumer is screwed over (Your paying a gigantic increase for the same exact product). Not to mention how shitty wireless plans are, or cable/internet plans. How shitty oil is (A GIGANTIC CONSUMER INDUSTRY). all examples of screwing the consumer over, not making things targetted to them.

Artists are rational people. If someone offers them a contract where they're going to lose more money from it than they are to make accepting it... they simply wouldn't accept it. Record labels stay in business for a reason. They're offering a service. Whether that service is being able to sell your record or advertise your music is irrelevant to me, joining the record label is the artist's choice. If they have "no other option", then record labels are obviously doing something good for them. What's your alternative? Subsidizing every shitty wanna-be rockstar in the US so that they don't depend on the big bad record labels? Every artist a record label gives a contract to is an investment. A record label thinks they're going to make money off him, they risk that happening or not happening. His records will make a profit or they won't. Quite frankly, I'm perfectly fine with record labels taking that risk. No, I don't want to pay for Lady Gaga's career with my taxes. She doesn't have the money to pay for it herself? Then someone else should do it. Like a record label.

Skimmed over that article, and it is silly. Every software maker has the right to give you access limitations. When you get a free trail for an anti-virus, why should they give you access to the full version? They don't have to do that and you'd be breaking the law if you circumvented that access. If apple wants to limit its interface to only allow you to get apple apps, it has a right to do it and it has a right to sue you for breaking its access limitations. You also have the fundamental right of not buying an iphone... which answers your other concern. People can buy non-apple based products if they want to.

[NapisaurusRex]

Artists are rational people. If someone offers them a contract where they're going to lose more money from it than they are to make accepting it... they simply wouldn't accept it.

Not necessarily. Some people accept things because they think it makes them more of who they want to be... even if it costs.

[8143FF763271]

Not necessarily. Some people accept things because they think it makes them more of who they want to be... even if it costs.

That's the benefit they're paying for, then.

[Mishelle]

Record labels own the radio airwaves and large record stores. When was the last time you turned on the radio and hear a new artist that wasn't signed on to a major label? If you want to become a mainstream artist you have to sign with a major label. Record labels make their money through record sales because artists usually only get 30 cents per record sold and the label gets the rest that's why they've put so much money behind stopping downloading music. It makes it harder for them to fuck over artists who get most of their money through touring and promotional contracts.