Hipster: Representation of The End of Western Civilization?

Is hipster sub-culture representational of the end of western civilization? Highly doubtful. I recently read an article in Adbusters that attempted to support the claim that hipsterdom was "the end product of all prior counter-cultures....stripped of their subversion and originality." Though, I do agree that hipsterdom is vapid, vacuous, self-involved and hyper-consumptive in it's quest for "street cred" and "fame." I do not agree that it is a direct representation of the decline of western civilization, at least not any more than the consumptive yuppies, materialistic gangster rappers or the apathetic grungers of the early 90's. I would say that the aforementioned groups are all equal in their materialism, consumption and apoliticalness, but I do not for one second believe that anyone of these groups or a sub-culture alone is any indication of the decline of western culture or civilization. Our culture as a whole is reflective of our decline: profits over people, material over emotional substance, amorality over ethics. What's the difference between a hipster male that lusts over a pair of $300 Nike Dunks with the yuppie female that spends $300 on Prada sunglasses? Is the former justified by the fact that it's considered "counter-culture" and the latter isn't? Aren't they both equally as materialistic and consumptive? Considering the levels of poverty in the world, how does one justify wearing a pair of sunglasses or a pair of shoes whos price in this country could buy a family in need groceries for a month, or in another part of the world, could feed a family for months? What's the difference between the "counter-culture" skinhead that gets drunk and assaults people from that of a jock who acts the same? Is counter-culture then just limited to that which is obscure, or not the norm in a purely fashion sense? Does growing a mohawk, dyeing it green and putting a safety pin in your ear make you counter-culture even though your actions are in accord with the main culture? Does being "punk rock" and volunteering your self to poverty for the sake of poverty make you marginalized, poor? Of course it doesn't. Banksy said it best: Why act like revolutionaries, when we can just dress like them. In defense of the hipster sub-culture, some people have mentioned how the contempt held for hipsterdom is just that of an older generation looking down at the newer generation. This is true to an extent, seeing as how previous generations tend to think that their generation did everything the best way possible, and the newer generation is just running amok: Chuck Berry was loud, Janis Joplin was a druggie, The Rolling Stones were suggestive, punk was too weird, etc. My qualm with hipsters isn't their style, music, mode of transportation or apoliticalness, millions of people in this country are apolitical, it also isn't their materialism, millions more are obscenly materialistic. My problem with hipsterdom is the conflict of a group of people deluded into thinking that they are counter-culture when they are in fact blatantly mainstream in their materialism, excess and individualism. To an extent everyone values, has and needs material possesions, but as with everything in this world, there is a point where you run the risk of becoming excessive. What we have here is the marketing and consumption of "cool." Our counter-cultures have been subverted and most of us don't even know it.

Adbusters article on Hipsters

Books:
Lula and the Workers Party-Sue Branford
Understanding The Venezuelan Revolution-Marta Harnecker
Conversations With Durito-Subcomandante Marcos