Buy Nothing Day

DadaKopf

From www.buynothingday.co.uk
Buy Nothing Day (November 24th UK), is a simple idea, which challenges consumer culture by asking us to switch off from shopping for a day.
Consumer culture is absurd, we buy out of comfort, to feel good and to impress each other. BND is a global stand off from such desires - celebrated as a holiday by some, a street party by others - anyone can take part provided they spend a day without spending!

Buy Nothing Day also exposes the environmental and ethical consequences of consumerism. The rich western countries - only 20% of the world population are consuming over 80% of the earth's natural resources, causing a disproportionate level of environmental damage and unfair distribution of wealth.

As consumers we need to question the products we buy and challenge the companies who produce them. What are the true risks to the environment and developing countries? The argument is infinite - while it continues we should be looking for simple solutions - Buy Nothing Day is a good place to start.

Buy Nothing Day isn't about changing your lifestyle for just one day - it's a lasting relationship - maybe a life changing experience! We want you to make a commitment to consuming less, recycling more and challenging corporations to clean up and be fair. Modern consumerism might offer great choice, but this shouldn't be at the cost of the environment or developing countries.

Basically it's a great way for people to realise how much consumerism has become an inescapable part of everyday life, through trying to avoid it, we become more aware fo how it affects us - and it's only for a day!

Anyone here willing to take part on the 24th November?

SantaHoe

For me - every day is buy nothing day!
Being broke is cool, really.

azezil

No I don't agree with that at all! ... by buying stuff we increase demand, which in turn makes jobs, which employ people, who earn money, who pay taxes, which benifits the economy n thus the general population.

So no way man, keep ur hippy, touchy feely stuff to yourself, I'm a capitalist n proud of it!

JustHalf

I'm helping to organise one in Maynooth.

Puck

I buy things either because I want to or because I need to.

I will buy things for whatever reason I want. Right now I don't buy too many things just to make myself feel good because I'm broke, but if I want to then I will and there's nothing wrong with that.

It may also surprise you to know that I don't get food for free and I'm not going hungry for any little project.

TwoShedsJackson

You goddam heathen communists

we buy out of comfort, to feel good and to impress each other

What's actually wrong with that? OK the impressing each other bit may be a bit sad, but I see nothing wrong with buying things to make my life more comfortable or enjoyable?

Shiminay

I dunno, all these Anti-Capitalism things that have been going on in recent months - it annoys me greatly.

I go out and work hard and get paid. It's MY fluckin' money and I'll do what I want with it!

The ideas behind BND are a good one, but in all honesty, it's a little far fetched! Asking people to help support this by deliberatly causing shops and business to have a bad day's sales is too much - what did the shop owners ever do to deserve that? They're only trying to make a living like the rest of us and at least they're doing it honestly (*ahem* I'm sure most of them are).

However, as a mark of my support, I shall watch what I buy and keep it to bare essentials because I do think we spend a little too much (I know I do).

Shinji

Excellent, less of the great unwashed (literally) in queues on November 24th. I shall set it aside for Christmas shopping, I think!

Bucon

Almost as good an idea as the Internet Blackout thingy :rolleyes:

Blitzkrieger

rofl - nice one Shinji

I haven't bought a game in almost a year so hopefully Civ3 will be out on the 24th Excellent op for Xmas shoping too

Somehow I don't think many people will take a blind bit of notice tho :shrug: (yes I know it's not a smiley)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Although no one is probably going to give two shakes of a mongoose's tail, ideas like this are the brainchilds of idiots imho. I'd go as far as to say it's a noble, but dangerous idea, with no grasp of the practical economic realities we live in. Consumption isn't just the basis for a market economy, but in a sense for *all* economies. Less consumer spending potentially results in a downward confidence spiral, generally a bad day out, even for those strange "anarchists" organizing themselves into groups to support it :P

On an ideological level, I agree with CT- what is wrong with the availability of consumer goods? Price dictated by the free market allows for choice, competition and availability of everything from basic essentials, to luxury goods, which is I assume, where this protest is directed. The hilarity of the situation is, I could do my shopping on the previous day, spending like the greedy capitalist pig I am, and yet still adhere to the no-shopping day.

Now, on to the assertion that 20% of the global population consume 80% of global resources- to put things in perspective, human beings comprise less than a thousandth of the nitrogen cycle, and play a part in roughly a millionth (5 millionths if you count global warming) of oxygen and dioxide byproduct cycling. Now that isn't a lot- the world bovine population contributes more. Not to say that we shouldn't take the environment into consideration, this is where NGOs put pressure on governments to find a balance between productivity and sustainability of scarce natural resources. These "greedy 20%", while consuming a great part of global resources, are actually the only governments even considering the use of alternative sources of energy. Millions of dollars of R&D and actual investment goes into these technologies every year in California alone.

As for the idea that globalization and MNCs affect the developing world, well, that's where market protection, and sensible trading cooperation comes in. If developing countries' governments want to "sell their souls" to prosperity and consumerism to the detriment of their own people, then it is they who must reform, and they who need to look inward- not the MNCs or governments selling to them. This is a basic principle of free-market economics- if the product isn't harmful, and people purchase it, don't blame the guy who's selling it.

If I were to buy products that I knew would cause long-term destruction of the social fabric in my nation, I certainly wouldn't protest to the guy selling said products. I would merely refuse to buy them. However, the idea that I should stop spending merely because other nations' governments haven't a clue how economic development proceeds within the boundaries of a sensible international trade partnership, is a preposterous one. A well-defined multilateral trading arrangement that protects fledgling industries in a developing economy is the responsibility of those nations' governments, not of the free market agents making a quick buck on the back of corruption reaching to the highest levels of 3rd world government.

The developed world, on its part, must also make concessions- the renouncement of third world debt is one, the dismantling of ineffective conditional loans from the IMF and World Bank is another, aid should ideally be untied. It must be said, that the develped world has made far greater progress along these paths than the developing world has along its corresponding goals- which include the elimination of corruption, and the stabilization of international trade arrangements. Their power structures are simply to ridden with corruption, devoid of transparency, and void of public conscience to make the right decisions (for the most part).

The idea that the West is to blame for all these evils is a popular one in several decolonized nations, some of them have a case. But most are simply providing an excuse for "their own way of doing things" which is often to the public detriment in their societies. Blaming the corporate world for political ills is an ultra-simplified view of the so-called "evil" of globalization. The same globalization that brought about international law, the United Nations, GATT/WTO and the same globalization that allows NGOs to operate on an international scale with the freedom to express their views. If the message of anti-consumerism includes anti-globalism in its policy line, I reject it utterly, and without reservation.

Occy

Hobbes

If you do go ahead with this buy nothing day then some poor kids working in a sweat shop are going to get paid! :eek:

mike65

Originally posted by Hobbes
If you do go ahead with this buy nothing day then some poor kids working in a sweat shop are going to get paid! :eek:

hang on, don't you mean "are not going to get paid" ?

Anyway as for the original notion its good to see people
reacting against this sort of anti-globalisation touchy-feely claptrap, which is mainly a bunch of rich western kids playing politics, ha! they'll learn...

Mike.

Blitzkrieger

Well said Bob.

tbh I think the whole BND is going to fizzle. I spoke to a number of people today and they knew nothing about it, and frankly didn't give a toss. Probably be relegate to the "And finally..." section if it makes the news.



[aside]A freind of mine is doing a social sciences degree (or something like that ) and mention his philosophy lecturer was talking about how, because of America, it is now acceptable grammer to begin a sentence with "And"..........Whatever floats your boat [/aside]

Von

Nothing can be done to change the world until capitalism crumbles. Until then lefties should all go shopping to console themselves.

Shinji

Indeed, retail therapy for political extremists.

Food therapy works as well. Street protest getting nowhere? Cries for the smashing of capitalism going unnoticed? Run out of the hallucinogenic drugs that make you think anyone cares what you think? Console yourself with a nice juicy McDonalds quarter pounder. There there. You'll feel much better.

Von

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Although no one is probably going to give two shakes of a mongoose's tail, ideas like this are the brainchilds of idiots imho.

The plural of brainchild is perhaps brainchildren. While I don’t necessarily agree with BND, I’m not smug enough to think that the people behind it are idiotic. As with any idea that attempts to question the way things are, it will have its kneejerk detractors, people in whom the very idea of change either produces anxiety or a threat to authority. Such people are weird.

It’s asking people to question the validity of the “practical economic realities” we live in. It’s “practical economic realities” that dictate that we must consume more and faster to maintain “consumer confidence” whatever that is. Does greater consumption result in greater confidence? I was in America last year and I never saw so many fat people in my life. Fat but bloody confident. I’ll tell you what produces a downward spiral in consumer confidence – jumbo jets crashing into buildings and the carpet bombing of medieval societies that’s what, and no amount of nonsense from George W(asp) Bush (telling us we can defeat terrorism by spending more money on flash trousers, buns, flags made in china, trips to disneyworld, blah blah blah, fukk sake?) will alter that. It was consumer confidence that led to the South Sea and Dot Com bubbles. Confidence is pure bluff.

Faster television, faster computers, faster food. MTV, Microsoft, McDonalds. The “practical economic realities” mean that at present, we’re bombarded with 1300 adverts a day in ever more intrusive forms. You literally can’t take a pee without having an ad in your face. It’s self-evident that MTV, Microsoft, McDonalds and “practical economic realities” all suck massive mickey. Looking around at the rake of new books on the future of corporatism, apparently the plan is to turn goods into idols and the market into some sort of god. Advertising is being recast in ecclesiastical terms as "evangelism" and the corporation as an ecumenical organization. The next step after conferring "personality" on the corporation is its "ensouling" - a logical evolution of the concept of the corporation as an entity. “In an irreligious world, brands provide us with beliefs. They define who we are and signal our affiliations. The next big thing in brands is social responsibility”, said some corporate wacko whore in The Economist. There you have it.

BND people *might* argue that there’s nothing wrong with the availability of consumer goods per say, but rather it’s the extent to which they seek to attain the “total occupation of social life” and the impact that this is having that is the problem. As Guy Debord (raving wine guzzling situationist) wrote in Society Of The Spectacle in 1967 “Social space is invaded by a continuous superimposition of geological layers of commodities. Alienated consumption becomes for the masses a duty supplementary to alienated production.“ Or as Bruce Robinson (raving wine guzzling creator of Withnail And I and How To Get Ahead In Advertising) put it “The whole ambiance now is “Listen to that (top 40 muzak) on your fukking headphones day and night, come home and eat your Marks and Spencer’s chicken fukking tikka – there’s a luxury for you – and sit in front of Brookside (or your computer) til you die, PS with two weeks in some slob Thomas Cook Holiday. There it is, a fat-a$sed munching society with junk being shoved down it.”

For maximum efficiency, consumerism demands predictablity. Creative or innovative people are by definition unpredictable and therefore must be either co-opted or else be considered extraneous. Anyone who’s ever spent 5 minutes with muzak biz company scum will know what I mean. Why do people intuitively slag off manufactured boy bands and enthuse about (for example) Nirvana? Because they admire the spontaneity, freshness and sense of freedom Nirvana exuded. To expect any spontaneity or innovation from conveyor belt muppets like Ronan Keating or Limp Bizkit is a waste of fukking time. Why do U2 complain that they’re not considered “cool” except by people who’ve never heard rock music before, like the mulleted masses of the former eastern bloc countries? Because despite Bono’s pathetic pseudo revolutionary stance and his tiny leather jacket with the little red star on it, the people (demographic in marketing dept speak) he so desperately wants to impress, see the incredible marketing machine, the sheer calculated fukking massivity of it, driving the whole cynical laboured pompous stadium mock rock U2 brand and the considered reaction is.....“Twat.” Apologies to U2 fans.

Now, on to the assertion that 20% of the global population consume 80% of global resources- to put things in perspective, human beings comprise less than a thousandth of the nitrogen cycle, and play a part in roughly a millionth (5 millionths if you count global warming) of oxygen and dioxide byproduct cycling. Now that isn't a lot- the world bovine population contributes more.

Cows can’t drive cars. Not yet anyway. But with GM heading the way it is, there may come a time when they can drive themselves to the abattoir. Monkeys could do it I’m sure. Imagine losing your job to a monkey. It will happen!

Not to say that we shouldn't take the environment into consideration, this is where NGOs put pressure on governments to find a balance between productivity and sustainability of scarce natural resources.

This is an example of what some call the retreat from responsibility. Leave everything to pressure groups, NGOs, “experts”, anyone at all that will take care of doing awkward things like thinking or asking questions. Where was this support for the 250,000 individuals, members of NGO’s and pressure groups who showed up in Genoa and got beaten and gassed off the streets by robocops as per usual? The same 250,000 individuals, members of NGO’s and pressure groups that didn’t understand the issues at stake if I remember correctly.

The loss of the sense of personal responsibility from official culture was expressed by Thatcher's TINA principle. There Is No Alternative. Any sense of personal responsibility becomes futile; an antiquated concept which has no place in the “practical economic realities” of global capitalism. It’s part of the trend towards a self-obsessed culture of narcissism where instant personal gratification over-rides all other considerations. The human condition in the post-modern (post-liberal, post-national, post-rational, post-whatever) western world can be described as one of severe disorientation, even more so since Sept 11th. Disillusionment with the democratic political process, exemplified by the growth of the anti-globalization (pro-democratic, internationalist, whatever it’s called now) movement and record low turnouts in the Nice Treaty referendum and British general election, as well as the evaporation of the church’s influence on society, signify a time of cultural and political alienation and stagnation. Traditional left/right/centre shades of politics no longer provide any sure guide to political thinking. The reaction to ceaseless spin (as exercised by the phony Tony Blair government in Britain for example) has been irony and cynicism. We are living in cynicism so to speak.

The whole myth of Oedipus dealt with the relationship between personal responsibility and fate. Nietzsche also re-raised the issue with his idea of Eternal Recurrence and its relationship with the individual will. But regardless of how the relationship between necessity and responsibility plays out, Oedipus and Nietzsche would seem to concur that full human potential can never be reached without acting *as if* we were personally responsible for it. It's that *as if* which separates noble from ignoble natures.

Ironically, this seems to be what neo-liberal capitalism shares with the propogators of Jihad. In neither are real human actors responsible. In the one, it’s market mechanisms and economic necessity, and in the other, it is the inexorable will of God. The exercise of personal responsibility becomes futile in both cases. What is human has no place in either.

If I were to buy products that I knew would cause long-term destruction of the social fabric in my nation, I certainly wouldn't protest to the guy selling said products. I would merely refuse to buy them.

But you couldn’t give a toss about trying to convince fellow citizens to do the same so your boycott, apart from making you feel better about yourself, would be futile. This whole don’t rock the boat attitude reminds me of Ibsen’s play An Enemy Of The People. Main protagonist discovers that the baths, the source of the town’s prosperity, are contaminated and have to be closed down for expensive repairs. For his honesty, he’s persecuted and ridiculed because “Considerations of expediency turn morality and justice upside down.”
In effect, the mechanism rules. If a mechanism is allowed to rule, personal responsibility is null and void. To be responsible means to be alert to the world around us, for whose health and well-being we feel personally responsible. With the atrophy of this sense of personal responsibility, even the desire to become conscious would atrophy as well. And certainly, democracy becomes meaningless too if the citizen loses all sense of personal responsibility for its future.

Von

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus However, the idea that I should stop spending merely because other nations' governments haven't a clue how economic development proceeds within the boundaries of a sensible international trade partnership, is a preposterous one. A well-defined multilateral trading arrangement that protects fledgling industries in a developing economy is the responsibility of those nations' governments, not of the free market agents making a quick buck on the back of corruption reaching to the highest levels of 3rd world government.

Heh. That sounds like a gentrifed version of Viz’s “man in the pub“. You’re one step away from saying nig nogs can’t rule themselves. You don’t have to go all the way to the 3rd fukking world for corruption you know. Have a look here to see how our masters plan to treat the corrupt savages.

The idea that the West is to blame for all these evils is a popular one in several decolonized nations, some of them have a case. But most are simply providing an excuse for "their own way of doing things" which is often to the public detriment in their societies. Blaming the corporate world for political ills is an ultra-simplified view of the so-called "evil" of globalization. The same globalization that brought about international law, the United Nations, GATT/WTO and the same globalization that allows NGOs to operate on an international scale with the freedom to express their views. If the message of anti-consumerism includes anti-globalism in its policy line, I reject it utterly, and without reservation.

The UN? Bwahahaha. The UN is utterly impotent. International law? Get up the yard. As has been said a million times before, the theory behind globalization is grand but in practice as it is now, it’s significantly less than grand. I invite you, in the most cordial terms I can muster, to go read any of the zillion or so books on how corporations operate (Captive State, No Logo, Good To Great, The Atomic Corporation, Corporation Nation, anything with corporate or corporation in the title in fact) before coming out with naive drivel like that. Globalization and the quest to dominate markets is not a new phenomenon. The seemingly unstoppable trend of globalization and cooperation between the US and Europe in the 19th century gave rise to an equally powerful backlash, brought about by the confluence of rising global income inequalities and political instability that played a role in sparking the first world war. Another wave of globalization occurred during the 1920s, only to be brought to an abrupt end by the Depression and more war. The preconditions of these earlier backlashes - widening global income disparities and mounting geopolitical tensions – are at present starker than ever. Not only does history tell us there is nothing inherently stable about globalization, but it also highlights globalisation's tendency to sow the seeds of its own demise.

GoneShootin

buynothingday ?

so what, we all buy nothing, and day after that ? we buy LOADSA stuff.

in fact, the day after buynothing could be the biggest sales coup ever. Image our pent up shopping hunger being forced into just one day, concatenating buynothing day and the day after into just one day.

its all a conspiricy !

DadaKopf

Advertising is being recast in ecclesiastical terms as "evangelism" and the corporation as an ecumenical organization. The next step after conferring "personality" on the corporation is its "ensouling" - a logical evolution of the concept of the corporation as an entity. “In an irreligious world, brands provide us with beliefs. They define who we are and signal our affiliations. The next big thing in brands is social responsibility”

Jesus, spot on. If anything should be taken away from BND and from reading's Von's exhaustive post, it's that the reach which advertising and modern marketing methods has become so total that it's reached mythical status to the point of religion. The whole bleedin' Culture Industry and the modes of exchange are achieving total saturation in almost every section of lived experience. Our experiences and instantiations of the world are being formed by these forces, not our own. This is sick.

You know, it's funny but the resurgence of leftist thinking and the revitalisation of Marxist thinkers like Horkheimer and Gramsci must be directly related to the fall of the USSR - otherwise that whole way of thinking would still be taboo. With the fall of Communism, it's becoming less stigmatised and people are taking the real practicalities out of it but some people still hold on to the old-fashioned, rigidly-orthodox image of leftist thinking they've been brought up with. I mean, the whole point of Marxism etc. was that it was constantly under re-interpretation itself but when people read posts like Von's, they automatically associate it with prejudices and preconceptions that don't help anyone when the opposite is the case.

However, it's very easy to criticise capitalism or globalisation but what about building alternatives to it? Well, of course this is being done right now - theory before praxis - but a popular movement has to be formed alongside this intuition. I think BND is a great place to start; like a work of modern art, it simply challenges your lived-experience by reconstituting your reality a little to simply appreciate the extent to which consumerism is all pervasive in modern life. By association, the act tends to nullify the commodity, even to subjectivise the objectified, and to turn it on itself - one inevitably has to lead to the question: "what about the people who make this?" That's what BND is about: challenging your own experience of consumerism and to think a little more ethically. It's not in the least about sticking to to the businessmen, small companies etc., as some kind of retaliatory act. It's even slightly situationist - it's a sort of revolution of everyday life.

Anyway, great post, Von.

DadaKopf

For those of you interested in BND or those cynics out there, I sent a few questions off to www.buynothingday.co.uk and got the following responses back:

Q. Buy Nothing Day is supposed to challenge the hold that consumerism has on our everyday lives. This is a purely experiential, personal form of protest but BND also claims that it makes people question the ethics of the products they buy and the issues of global inequality. How exactly can this link be made from the personal to the global in this way? It seems there are problems linking a causal relationship; is this really credible?

A. Buy Nothing Day is simple holiday from consumerism, it either involves taking part in an action or spending the day loafing, the choice is up to the individual. Buy Nothing Day has also become a doorway to other issues questioning the products we buy, how they are manufactured, what affect they have on environment and developing countries. However, we have 364 to think about these issues.

Buy Nothing Day is a way of getting the over-consuming message across easily. This needs to be done in a constructive way that appeals to the shopper on the street - that is the challenge of BND.

Q. Many people seem to think that BND is intended to negatively impact businesses deliberately, especially small businesses but, clearly, this is not BND's goal. How do you propose this false interpretation may be resolved to maximise the event¹s aims?

A. We have never attempted to stop people from shopping by blocking doorways or used tactics that would inconvenience consumers. This year you won't see any 'anti' this or that banners. We've changed tactics because we feel this style of campaigning is becoming negative. Instead we'll be diverting attention from the shop window towards a group of people enjoying themselves without the need to consume. The Businesses who are negative towards Buy Nothing Day need to question themselves, because our action is challenging them to clean up and be fair.

Q. People have commented that the problem with BND is that active consumerism can't be so easily defined, what consumerism is for one is not for another. How do you see BND as dealing with that accusation?

A. Do we shop for necessity or or greed? People who shop for lifestyle have no lifestyle, those who shop for necessity are half way there. It is difficult to define consumers because they are so diverse. A green or ethical consumer who understands the issues is a positive consumer and this is what we want to promote.

Q. Do you think that BND, perhaps, overreaches itself in declaring what it hopes to achieve compared to what it can or should legitimately achieve?

A. BND has always been an awareness campaign and the goals aren't beyond what we can actually achieve. The campaign in the UK is relatively new and the awareness of BND has grown phenomenally in the last two years. The response from people has been very positive, this is good it shows people are interested and want to do something, no matter how small.

Q. Some people are intending to take part on the 24th will be stocking up the day before on food and other necessities so that their effort is diminished, doesn't this defeat the purpose? How do you see people entering into BND more genuinely and productively?

A. I don't think this is true. People always ask obvious question; what if I run out of toilet paper on BND? Tough, you'll understand how lucky you are, unlike the the billions of people in the world who don't have access to clean water or proper sanitation. I guess the the only true way to celebrate BND is to stay at home and do something constructive. Going 24 hours with spending any money is quite challenging. If you manage it - you'll feel liberated and detoxed from consumerism - I suggest you give it a try.

WhiteWashMan

and what exactly is wrong with commertialism and capitalism.
usually you will find its the people with nothing who d all the shouting.

as G'nR said:
its so easy to be social
its so easy to be cool
its so easy to be hungry
when you aint got sh1t to lose.

DadaKopf

I think you're missing the point, slightly. It's not about commercialism or capitalism as such, it's about the effects it has to which most people simply don't think about. BND is a way for people to begin to think about it.

Sharkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf


Basically it's a great way for people to realise how much consumerism has become an inescapable part of everyday life, through trying to avoid it, we become more aware fo how it affects us - and it's only for a day!

Anyone here willing to take part on the 24th November?

C'mon. Screw the symbolic crap and get real. If you're going to be an anti-consumption advocate -- live it 24/7 -- don't yak about not spending on a particular day to prove your moral superiority.

Find a cave, kill some animals and wear their skins, eat grubs under rocks and potatos for a few years. No burning of wood or fossil fuels, no barter for medicine, none of that store-bought soap or tooth-paste. That'll impress the chicks!

DadaKopf

And you're missing the point, also.

JustHalf

Going 24 hours with spending any money is quite challenging. If you manage it - you'll feel liberated and detoxed from consumerism - I suggest you give it a try.

This attitude worries me.

For a start, I do not see how going 24 hours without spending any money is quite challenging. Unless consumerism is habit-forming... and although I'll admit it is easy to fall into such a habit (after all, the country is set up so we HAVE to buy things or have stuff bought for us -- this is necessity) I'd find it hard to have such a low opinion of human beings.

It is perfectly understandable that some people find a need to participate. It's also perfectly understandable that most people will not want to. I'm talking about those who try but find it too hard.

Also, this opinion that you'll feel liberated and detoxed from consumerism? What are they getting at? That consumerism is a contaminant?

I'm organising a Buy Nothing Day in Maynooth because I think people don't realise that they can go a day without buying anything, and hopefully extend that to the realisation that all you SHOULD be able to buy is things. I doubt I'll be able to get many people to make that jump though (probably due to my poor skills of persuasion more than anything ).

Unfortunately, you CAN buy more than things. You CAN buy a lifestyle. You CAN buy 'friends'. You CAN buy 'happiness'. It all depends on how much money you have.

And as we've all probably guessed now, I could do with some sleep. Bye.

DadaKopf

So why are you organising a Buy Nothing Day for Maynooth? It's great that you are, I doubt it will happen in my very own UCD - too many Fianna Fáilers and Commerce students!

Yeah, I've been curious about this assumption that you'll be 'detoxed' from consumerism - I can't entirely see the link there but I do see the point of BND. In America, BND falls the day after Thanksgiving day - the biggest shopping day of the year in the US. BND makes sense: it's a day free from elevated, totally unneccesary consumerism.

What's so succinct about BND is that when you consider all the major holidays and feast days of America and Europe, presents and gimmicks are central so, in effect, these holidays are about consumption (Love Day, anyone?). There are holidays about consumption, why not holidays about non-consumption? Those of us who see over-consumption as a bad thing will see non-consumption as a good thing. It's possible to do something positive by not 'doing it at all'. Whether anyone ends up 'detoxed' is probably the same as saying a person will feel a certain way when they view a certain painting. I see BND as more of an artistic project than a political one, which is the reason for its appeal (but not judging from this board).

Unfortunately, you CAN buy more than things. You CAN buy a lifestyle. You CAN buy 'friends'. You CAN buy 'happiness'. It all depends on how much money you have.

I'm afraid I don't quite agree with you. I don't think people can buy any of these things, it's just that they're told they can. That's part of the challenge of BND - to help people realise that you are who you are because of what you do not what you can buy.

Gargoyle

Quote:

While most Americans celebrated their blessings, both material and spiritual, on Thanksgiving last year, the anti-consumer movement united to celebrate Buy Nothing Day. They called for a boycott of shopping, buying . . . indeed, consumption itself. Adbusters, an anti-consumption group famous for its "culture jammer" network, focused on "expos[ing] the environmental consequences of consumerism."
Consumers of the developed world, they claim, cause "a disproportionate level of environmental damage" to Planet Earth. One Web site even claimed that Buy Nothing Day is "the one day a year we turn off the economy." Their campaign might well have been endorsed by economist Thorstein Veblen, who at the turn of the nineteenth century coined the derogatory term, "conspicuous consumption."

Some activists proclaimed the day, "Steal Something Day." By taking action against capitalist exploitation, "Steal Something Day promotes empowerment by urging us to collectively identify the greedy bastards who are actually responsible for promoting misery and boredom in this world," one wrote.

Their rationale? According to these groups, the consumption patterns of the developed world are simply unsustainable. They raise fears of suburban development and climate change: In their view, economic development creates problems, rather than human opportunities.

The anti-consumption group refuses to consider the offsetting benefits of economic growth and technology, and of consumption. Through material wealth, we lead healthier, happier, and more fruitful lives. We have been freed from the toilsome, hand-to-mouth lifestyle that most of the world still leads--a life of subsistence farming, exposure to the elements, disease, and early death. Unfortunately, such "nasty, brutish, and short" lifestyles have been romanticized by these wealthy elites.

It is somewhat ironic that Adbusters rails against technology . . . but uses computers to coordinate its anti-consumer campaigns. The leaders of this movement live in modern insulated houses or apartment buildings (not in mud huts), which save energy and still protect them from the elements. They own refrigerators and use plastic containers to store their food, both of which help to eliminate wasted food. And should one of them fall seriously ill, it is a near-certainty they will call an ambulance to take them to a hospital, where modern medical technologies would be used to save their lives.

Which of these options would they reject as "unsustainable" or not "green"? What are "green" substitutes for technologies that use resources to save resources?

Our lifestyle promotes both environmental and human well being. Resources are used not to willfully "destroy" the Earth, but to help us live healthier, cleaner, and more environmentally benign lives. We use resources to control our environment (rather than being controlled by it). Consumption actually helps us to "lighten" our footprint on the Earth: New technologies replace older technologies, allowing for better resource conservation.

In reality, the anti-consumption movement is a cloak donned by groups who seek to impose their vision of society upon us. For instance, they warn we are "running out" of resources . . . but at the same time, they reject technologies that would save resources.

They claim biotechnology is "too risky" for people and for the environment. People might suffer allergic reactions to foods created using biotechnology, they claim (citing no scientific evidence to support this assertion), and biotechnology might produce "superweeds." Yet the far-greater risk is that malnourished people in technologically lagging regions of our planet will erode their soil, harm biodiversity, and leave less land for simple environmental amenities. These risks are never weighed.

Adbusters correctly recognizes that poverty is unsustainable--but at the same time, the group claims a small number of the world's people live at the expense of many. They call for redistributing the current resources of the world via sustainable development, rather than expanding these resources to alleviate global poverty. The world's poor lack basic necessities such as mobility, clean water, literacy, medicine, and energy--all of which people in the anti-consumerist movement take for granted.

Mere resource redistribution will not solve these problems or provide for sustainable development. Only a system that encourages and empowers these people to become more productive to provide their own needs offers any hope of sustainable development. [That system is laissez-faire capitalism.]

With technological progress, affluence, and economic development, people in developing countries will be able to appreciate the environment just as Adbusters' members do.

Despite being consumers, people are also creators of resources. We replace scarce whales with more abundant oil and gas fields to light and heat our homes. We use sand to create silicon optic fibers to communicate with each other. Humans address scarcity by finding substitutes that are cheaper, better, and more abundant.

A static analysis always focuses on scarcity. A dynamic analysis, on the other hand, realizes that humans possess, in Julian Simon's terminology, the infinite resource: knowledge and ingenuity. When people are free to be productive, the people of the Earth can all be as rich as we are now, and far richer in time. Our intellect allows us to put things to work, to improve both our lives and our environment.

Buy Nothing Day celebrates the decision not to consume. But most of the world lacks the ability to make such a choice. Rather than promoting guilt for being wealthy and healthy, we ought to empower the less-fortunate members of our world to become as wealthy as we are. The poor of the world must speak out against such elitist paternalism--they have nothing to lose but their poverty.

JustHalf

Originally posted by DadaKopf
So why are you organising a Buy Nothing Day for Maynooth? It's great that you are, I doubt it will happen in my very own UCD - too many Fianna Fáilers and Commerce students!

As I said in my last post, so people will realise that they can actually go a day without buying things. Well, I sort of said that - as I made clear, I am not sleeping enough.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I'm afraid I don't quite agree with you. I don't think people can buy any of these things, it's just that they're told they can. That's part of the challenge of BND - to help people realise that you are who you are because of what you do not what you can buy.

If a person is told one concept, and that concept is drilled into them so much that they believe it, then for all intents and purposes it is real.

GoneShootin

hate when individual posts get long. dont have the attention span to read them all

ooo look a shiny thing....

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

First, a few small points:

Cows can’t drive cars. Not yet anyway

Industrial output, automobile use and waste disposal are included in those statistics. They don't need to drive cars, they just outproduce us in harmful greenhouse gases by natural means. Spooky, huh? :P

You’re one step away from saying nig nogs can’t rule themselves.

Bullsh1t- I'm saying in simple terms, that if people leave themselves open to exploitation, if they in fact, invite such exploitation, then they're reaping what they sow. And I still stand by the argument that the western world has done a lot more on its part in waiving 3rd word debt, increasing untied aid, encouraging development programmes, than the 3rd world has done on its part to encourage sensible trade. As for corruption- there are levels, and levels, and levels of corruption Von. A nation like Nigeria is so riddled with corruption to the highest levels of office, that millions of people suffer. Can you prove to me that millions suffered for Berlusconi's transgressions, immoral as they are? We all have to live with a certain level of corruption in politics. But when corruption threatens the livelihood of three quarters of your population? This isn't uncommon in the third world, totalitarian leaderships devaluing their own currency markets for a quick buck on currency speculation, embezzling billions of dollars daily from government coffers- this isn't quite the level of corruption seen in the West, I'm sure you'll agree. There needs to be a balance Von- would you toss loose change to a homeless guy on the sidewalk? And if you did, would you expect that change to help him dig himself out of his situation? Development can't be a one-way street, globalization is an easy scapegoat for what is in actuality, a far more complex problem. There are other ludicrous arguments presented in Von's post, such as the claim that global income inequalities caused the First World War, and that economic depression and war are the inevitable outcomes of globalization- anyone who's read Steven Ambrose, Chomsky or Devine will know that there were sweeping political and economic reasons for both wars and for the depression...nowhere is globalization mentioned. I could go into further detail, but the ludicrosity of these comparisons is so self-evident, I won't bother.

Originally posted by Von:
In effect, the mechanism rules. If a mechanism is allowed to rule, personal responsibility is null and void. To be responsible means to be alert to the world around us, for whose health and well-being we feel personally responsible. With the atrophy of this sense of personal responsibility, even the desire to become conscious would atrophy as well. And certainly, democracy becomes meaningless too if the citizen loses all sense of personal responsibility for its future.

This is the beauty of democracy you see- if you don't like the current mechanism or system of rule, vote for a different one. TINA? What a crock...if there is no party that enshrines your views, go start one! Recruit other naifs to your cause, whatever floats your boat. That, is how legitimate political views are formed Von. Want to take to the streets and be tarred with the same brush as the violent thugs looking for satisfaction at the expense of peaceful protest? That's fine too, a democratic system allows for that.

Be prepared however, to lose a substantial amount of political credibility- people don't respond to placards and slogans, except perhaps with disdain, muttering "Don't those smelly unwashed hippies have something better to do?". That's not my opinion by any means, but the halls of public opinion and "plebiscinian" credibility are the imporatant issues that need to be tackled. Because that's where your battle will be won or lost Von- not on the streets of cities where global trade conferences take place, not on the back-alleys of capitals, and certainly not on a message board. If you are advocating what in your view is sensible change, then public opinion is not going to be swayed by a few thousand people taking to the streets. Certainly not when the case the protesters are making rarely affects their way of life. Personal responsibility on a global level is not something that wins votes, public support, or political credibility. Cynical perhaps, but also a practical view, though you might snub it as expedient. Nevertheless, it is the way of things, as they stand, like it or lump it.

As for consumerism, listening to "Top 40's muzak" and eating their crappy takeaway meals- who is forcing you to do any of these things? If you consider such actions shallow or devoid of character, then no one's pointing a fukking gun at your head. Distressed that other people exercise the right of choice? Tough sh*t. Live under the blanket of prosperity and question the manner in which it is achieved? Some might call it biting the hand that feeds you, but that's a bit too cynical, even for me :P Well go live on an island commune then, grow your own fruit & veg, and get away from those evil, insidious billboards that destroy our social fabric. Oh I'm sorry, you want the change the system, not live outside it...well then return to paragraph one, start a political party that perfectly enshrines your goals, and get on with it. Or join the next best thing to get you started. It's one thing to complain about the inadequacies, lack of moral principle and personal responsibility rife in the human condition- it's another to get off your a$s and do something about it. Waving a placard around? That's the easy part- want to get real change done? Go to the houses of parliament(if people will elect you) and stake your claim.

To be honest, you accuse me of not being a*sed to convince my fellow man- well I do, just by a means that is slow, sensible and democratic in nature. I've moved petitions, lobbied for the Wildlife Fund near my hometown, written letters to my senator, that is how sensible political change is affected. "The protests of a few shall not deplete the fruits of the many", as Thurow once said. If the majority of public opinion backed your arguments, then they would be politically achievable. Seeing as the methods the left uses to make itself heard are viewed with disdain or contempt by the vast majority of the general public, you might want to try electing a few officials to make your voice heard in the corridors of power. Otherwise this is just so much pompous nattering, isn't it? Message board warriors, placard-waving masses, but no legitimate political voice. Which strangely enough, is exactly what attracts a lot of people to the left, the idea that they can be a "rebel", "a social outcase, dude!", or just an old-fashioned "Viva la Revolucion" Che-Guevara logos emblazoned revolutionary. You know, suddenly, the legitimate elected processes don't seem all that bad, do they?

The UN? Bwahahaha. The UN is utterly impotent. International law? Get up the yard.

You're taking the f*cking p1ss right? I mean, forget the millions of children saved from malnutritive death by UNICEF, the millions of refugees settled then repatriated, the millions of lives saved by UN Peacekeepers. Oh, and the erradication of smallpox by the WHO and ECOSOC? That wasn't really an achievement was it? No, no. Or the guarantee of minimum birth weight across two thirds of Africa. None of these things are significant enough to bother with, the UN's just impotent...yeeees, that's it. Scoff at international law? You don't have a clue do you? How do you think every single international treaty is negotiated, every single European treaty of note, from Maastricht to the Treaty of Rome? My dad worked in international law for over 28 years, I suppose he was just wasting his time arguing for the human rights of ethnic minorities? Be cynical, go ahead, but get down off your cynical high horse first and look around. Learn about how your rights are safeguarded under international law, at every level, read a few books, understand the legislation, and the impact the European Court of Human Rights is having on every legal system across Europe. Then tell me it means nothing, not before.

In other words, the TINA argument means absolutely nothing- there is always an alternative, it's just that the intellectual left are too pampered, spoiled and lacking in political will to turn those ideals into reality by legitimate means. Living outside the system in an escapist manner is somehow more appealing, yet taking to the streets, trying to "live the revolution" is a lot less likely to succeed than actually thinking the practicalities through in a sensible manner, and getting across a political paradigm.

You can vote with your ballot-paper, a placard, or your feet, whatever floats your boat, our societies give you the freedom to do all three. But don't expect it to amount to significant change.


"The moral high ground is a lot easier to espouse when one is in a position of no importance whatsoever"

-Oscar Wilde

How...true :P

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
In other words, the TINA argument means absolutely nothing- there is always an alternative, it's just that the intellectual left are too pampered, spoiled and lacking in political will to turn those ideals into reality by legitimate means. Living outside the system in an escapist manner is somehow more appealing, yet taking to the streets, trying to "live the revolution" is a lot less likely to succeed than actually thinking the practicalities through in a sensible manner, and getting across a political paradigm.

This rings so true.

All to often, I hear those who want to effect radical change shouting empty cliches like "the system must change". Why?

Exactly what should the system change to??? Have these "new world" proponents actually considered a full change to our way of life, how to implement it, analysed the full viability of such a system given human nature, and looked at a way of how to transition from our current way of life to this new system?

No - I didnt think so.

All the "new world" philosophies, while laudable in many ways, seem to be based on a basic misconception - the evils that need to be fought in this world are derived from our current global system of trade and government.

Sorry - but you have it backwards. The flaws in our current system exist because of human nature exploiting them.

If you wish to create a perfect society by banishing all these bad aspects of our world (consumerism, globalisation, exploitation, etc etc etc) then your best bet is to dust off and nuke the site from orbit, because while human beings exist as a society, there will be those who seek to gain the most from any system. You propose an alternate system, and I'm pretty sure that I can show how to exploit it. If I can do that, I'm positive that there are enough people out there who *will* exploit it.

You want to effect change, then try to improve the system before trying to replace it. I applaud the idea of raising public awareness, but exactly what are you raising awareness of? How much we spend and consume? Why is this a problem? If everyone was able to spend and consume this much, in an environmentally friendly way, there would be no problem.

The problem is not the spending. It is not the consumerism. The problem is the exploitation in the workplace, and the exploitation of the environment. These are the problems to tackle, and to be honest, are they not the problems where the public is far more likely to listen?

And if you follow it up the line, the actual root of all of these problems is corruption in politics. Restrict the ties between government and business and you will do more for all these causes than will ever be achieved seperately. Cut the ties these super-corps have over the elected officials and you put politics back in the hands of the people.

But do you think anyone would seriously take that one on? Not a hope. Its easier to cry for revolution.

jc

JustHalf

Moving out of topic? Why, that's what the boards were created for!

When I go to the bathroom, I am harassed by the fists that cry "One Solution... Revolution!", scrawled across the cubicle wall. I fail to see how this is the case. In fact, it's defeatist.

How can the idea of a revolution appeal to people? Do they realise that they are saying that their cause cannot be achieved by democratic means? And if they do realise this, why do they support it?

I think it's a cop-out. I believe that to for a person to support this viewpoint is for them to ignore their own social responsibilities.

DadaKopf

I've never seen so much crock on this board in quite a while.

First of all, Gargoyle, could you cite that article you pasted? It's entirely one-sided and, even though it makes some well argued points, it's completely myopic and blinkered. For example: "... most of the world lacks the ability to make such a choice. Rather than promoting guilt for being wealthy and healthy, we ought to empower the less-fortunate members of our world to become as wealthy as we are" - agreed but what many people, including myself, is that this simply is not happening. Merely assuming that's the desired objective, the question must arise: what is stopping this from happening? Wow, then this person goes on to paraphrase Marx, "they have nothing to lose but their poverty" - what an insultuing statement. It assumes that these people have ltitle desire to escape the poverty trap, well, I'm sure most people in Africa desire a commodious life but it's not they who keep themselves in poverty, it's their leaders and Western organisations such as the WTO.

if people leave themselves open to exploitation, if they in fact, invite such exploitation, then they're reaping what they sow. And I still stand by the argument that the western world has done a lot more on its part in waiving 3rd word debt, increasing untied aid, encouraging development programmes, than the 3rd world has done on its part to encourage sensible trade

I don't know where you're living. That's the idea, in principle, and is Christian and noble and lovely and nice - but that's not what happens. You mention Africa so I'll tell you the conversation I had recently with the governor general of the Central Bank of Eritrea. He was talking about the WTO, IMF and World Bank. He was saying that these groups force countries into adopting alien forms of governments and incompatible economic systems, forces them into more debt than they need or want and sucks money out of the areas by not encouraging indigenous industry and business. These countries are forced into incompatible arrangements to please the big guys, not the better interests of those which these organisations appear to be helping. This is coming from a person who deals with these organisations personally, except the Eritreans have made great efforts to tell the WTO etc. to go stuff themselves unless they agree to his terms.

The intuitive assumption everyone makes that anyone who criticises the current systems of exchange and economy are in complete opposition to it, and therefore wish to replace it with another model, are incorrect for the most part. Most sensible people know that capitalism is ingrained in the international psyche by now and it's stupid to go down a regressive line of thinking, as if it's possible to get back to any kind of original position. However, the truth of the matter is that capitalism is out of control. Yes it's efficient, yes it's potentially the most liberating and compatible model of exchange but it has to change for the benifit of mankind.

A system can be said to be successful if it's achievements are equal to their aims. The current structures simply are not doing what they're supposed to be doing. When they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, they need reform. Liberalism and capitalism has potential but more work has to be done.

Supercell

How about a Short Acceptable Post day?

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

You mention Africa so I'll tell you the conversation I had recently with the governor general of the Central Bank of Eritrea. He was talking about the WTO, IMF and World Bank. He was saying that these groups force countries into adopting alien forms of governments and incompatible economic systems, forces them into more debt than they need or want and sucks money out of the areas by not encouraging indigenous industry and business.

Dada, would you honestly expect him to say anything else? That the governer general of the national bank of Eritrea would say something along those lines suprises me not one bit. The IMF and World Bank, particularly the IMF, force nations to make tough, long-term reforms in exchange for aid- the idea is to ensure capital system reform, instead of just giving poor nations handouts. Needless to say, these tough decisions are extremely unpopular. While several governments in Africa hardly have to worry about a legitimate plebiscite, they can't risk angering their populations in the short term with reforms that could very well render impotent several of the most powerful and corrupt officials, politicians, warlords and existing government ministers. Any outside action to weaken their positions will naturally be condemned from within. This isn't just true of Eritrea- Indonesia, Guyana, Nigeria and Namibia have all delivered exactly the same response- that the IMF simply "doesn't understand our way of doing things". What a crock, as you so eloquently put it- they're simply frightened to death of unpopular, but necessary reforms. As far as them being forced into this position, erm...are you sure you realize what you're saying? The WTO is a pretty elite club of free-trade nations, governments want to be in the WTO, they aren't press-ganged into it. I concede that the WTO has as its goal the removal of trade barriers, a dangerous move for a nation trying to develop its own indigenous industries, but who's forcing them to join? It would be in their best interests to develop their financial and capital systems to the stage at which they may apply for entry. The IMF and World bank provide the impetus for reform sorely needed by several of these nations to provide transparency for their financial systems, and to root out the corruption almost enshrined in their industrial economy. The IMF is interested in long-term and sensible monetary reform- and it doesn't force anyone to do anything- unless you want its aid. The World Bank provides hard loans for essential purchases only, nations need to encourage investment and formulate ownership of investment and trusts on their own.

I think it's an amazing idea to be honest, rather than abuse-ridden welfare aid, we have aid tied to sensible and long-term reforms- helping nations to help themselves through difficult but necessary long-term reforms. That they cause strife amongst a few fat, greedy, corrupt (and in many cases overfed) politicians is a source of joy to me, not worry. I return to my original statement- these strife-ridden nations have only themselves to blame for the lack of improvement in their predicament- if IMF-led reforms are causing strife, consent had to be given to them first- if a nation is suffering without aid, again, the choice was theirs. No matter which way you look at it, responsibility rests firmly with the shambolic organs of government that embezzle, cheat, steal, abuse, spike, and otherwise exploit their own financial systems for personal gain. It sickens and disgusts me that these same people (and their cronies) continue to espouse the evils of organizations whose involvement they gave acqueisance to, thinking it would be another fat gravy train.

Agree to the IMF's involvement or don't agree- but one thing is fairly certain- the long-term involvement of the IMF has almost always yielded results- the cases of Mexico, Brazil and Pakistan all show that long-term reform of financial systems can yield prosperity. Very few politicians are willing to consider long-term measures, they only care in truth, about the next election and the next campaign-fund donation. The financial security of their nation needs to be maintained in the short term, after that, the opposition can always be blamed. Long-term reform is the only way transparency and international credibility can be established in the financial institutions of these nations- to agree to a plan of reform and then criticize it for its failings? That's hypocrisy for you- read the menu, confirm the price, start the meal, and walk off without paying the check? Come on...

Occy

amp

People do stuff. Stuff costs money. People spend money to do stuff. People work to earn money to buy and do stuff. QED.

Next week:

NO BREATHING DAY!
Yes, we are gathering together to protest against the quality of air in Ireland by not breathing for an entire DAY! So mark the 28th November 2001 as No Breathing Day! Main rally point is Ayre Square, Galway.

DadaKopf

Aw Jesus, I couldn't even be bothered responding to that. Get a clue will you?

koneko

Well said amp.

"Anyone here willing to take part on the 24th November?"

In a word? No. I buy things because I either need (clothes, food, bus tickets) or want (DVDs, computer parts, yay!) them.

If I don't them them on November 24th, I'll get them the day after. Same difference.
Oh yeah let's all stop people from buying things, trash the economy, maybe live in caves the rest of our lives killing animals for food. But wait, no that's bad too isn't it. I'd be a crap hippy really.

A lot of people take part in protests cos they think it's what's good for everyone, without knowing all the details. I did a hunger strike for a day when I was 11. Wouldn't do it again cos it's totally pointless.

Having said that, anyone that wants to take part in this BND-malarky, go for it. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you.

Red Moose

Originally posted by Von



Faster television, faster computers, faster food. MTV, Microsoft, McDonalds.

You're right obviously. These things all suck I'm *not* to going to upgrade my PC on Saturday to help the protest. My new XP Athlon arrives on Monday.

Also, I too disapprove of MTV, Micrsoft and McDonalds. I'm so leftwing now that I watch VH1 Classic Rock, use Linux and eat at Burger King!

ARGH I'M A ****ING COMMUNIST!

There's nothing really wrong with wanting more. What is the alternative - to go back to each person growing their own crops, etc., ? That was what so funny about the credit-card-debt thing of Fight Club (and the Genoa riots too, I am a big miffed that the recent Canada meeting didn't get covered as the riots are the most entertaining TV I've ever seen - thank you all you anti-capitalists, it's makes for great entertainment).

Von

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
blah blah blah

Your prejudices are interesting. You choose not to mention corruption in say, former soviet bloc countries. Does Nigeria’s corruption have anything to do with Shell Oil and their domination of the economy? Let’s dig up Ken Saro Wiwa and ask him. People in third world countries leave themselves open to exploitation eh? Serves them right for “electing” gentlemen like Diem, Mobutu, Pinochet, Suharto, Savimbi, Marcos, Fujimori, Saddam, Salinas, and scores of others, none of whom were supported in any way whatsoever by western governments in order to further corporate interests and engender a “favourable” climate of investment.

I said globalization (plain old imperialism or colonialism it was called then) played a part in starting WW1. I know illiteracy is rife in America (According to a recent US government report, The State of Literacy in America, over 90 million US adults, nearly one out of two, are functionally illiterate or near illiterate) but try to read before replying or else don’t bother. Imperialism was about acquiring cheap sources of raw materials and labour as well as new markets for finished products. Corporate led globalization is about acquiring cheap sources of raw materials and labour as well as new markets for finished products. The problem is in trying to ensure economic globalization is “ethical” as the Belgian PM put it.

Unless you’ve been living in a 1950’s sit com for the last few years you’d realise that more and more people are not bothering to vote anymore. Why’s that then? What percentage of the electorate voted in the US presidential election? 50%? Even allowing for the level of illiteracy, why’s that then? Where’s the cynicism, disenfranchisement and apathy comng from? A while ago, I was talking to a conservative journalist who writes for business magazines who said Blair’s election victory was good news because it meant socialism was finally dead. There’s Thatcher’s TINA principle in operation.

Albert Einstein wrote an essay which might explain why many people are not bothering to vote and at the same time many others are organizing mass demonstrations, working at local level and attempting to draw attention to corporate abuses at home and abroad.

“Man’s position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, television). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.“

Einstein may have come out with some gibberish like the theory of relativity but he's spot on here.

I fail to see the point of quoting Wilde out of context. I assume you’re aware that he actually classed himself as an anarchist.

On the subject of BND, the real issue is not consumption itself but its patterns and effects.
How are the products and resources we consume actually produced?
What are the impacts of that process of production on the environment, society, on individuals?
What are the impacts of certain forms of consumption on the environment, on society, on individuals?
Which factors influence our choices of consumption?
Which factors influence how and why things are produced or not?
What is a necessity and what is a luxury?
How do demands on items affect the requirements placed upon the environment?
How do consumption habits change as societies change?
Businesses and advertising are major engines in promoting the consumption of products so that they may survive. How much of what we consume is influenced by their needs versus our needs?
Also influential is the very culture of today in many countries, as well as the media and the political institutions themselves.
What is the impact on poorer nations and people on the demands of the wealthier nations and people that are able to afford to consume more?
How do material values influence our relationships with other people? What impact does that have on our personal values?
And blah blah blah.

adnans

why does everyone has to oppose an idea whenever they hear it? it doesnt bite and it surely wont take your job away. it might seem a bit of a blunt idea - "buy nothing day", its impossible! i'll buy a newspaper today, maybe some take away and definitely a bunch of pints tonight. i can not 'not buy' anything today as its been etched into my head already.

when i think of BND, i tell myself it's really called "think before you buy day" cause of the consequences that arise when you buy certain products. as Von just mentioned, they all have effects and patterns that affect the environment, society and individuals.

we dont live in a perfect world and the tv calls us consumers instead of citizens. nobody is telling you not to buy anything today, nobody likes being ordered around, especially by a non profit organisation like adbusters.

so before you buy that jumper from a swanky shop today, look on the label and see where it was made. now take an estimate on how many fingers the children that made the jumper have lost in order for you to wear that jumper.

"I'm just a another consumer, and i like consuming" - flipper02 (a forum statement)

adnans

DeVore

To support Dadakopf (yes I know!)
I'd have to say its an interesting idea.

I think people here are *wilfully* misunderstanding the idea.

The idea is NOT that we would all be happier if we just stopped buying sh|t. That has been impossible since the day the cavemen invented three-way barter with tokens.

But you have to stop and think: Do I *really* need that Ikea lamp, the ying-yang designer table, the cornfed baby veal steak.

How much of the stuff we buy do we REALLY need. And I dont mean need to survive, I mean need in ANY sense, even just for a comfort purchase.

I'll give you an example:
I dont drive. I dont have a car. I get along just fine, though my life is a little tougher when traveling places I wouldnt normally go.

I take mass transport everywhere, and taxis when there isnt a bus/train etc.

I do this for lots of reasons, I dont like stress, I dont see cars as economically worthwhile but also because they are a big reason for the destruction of the planet. How many times has the middle east been a problem or flashpoint because of the petrol supplies alone.

The point is not... yay look at me, I'm brill me the point is that LOTS of you have cars and would say "oh I couldnt live without my little jamjar". The truth is, you could you just cant be arsed.

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

I have a question for you all: How many years until the Earth is uninhabitable. How many years do you give mankind? Maximum...

I'd say no more then 100 max.

DeVore.

Greenbean

"these strife-ridden nations have only themselves to blame for the lack of improvement in their predicament"

I don't know how true that is particularly. But at least lets look at it a level back. All humans are pretty much equal - near equal intelligence, near equal strength, weight height and so on. We're all genetically near enough the same. But economically and society some are disadvantaged and in a bad place - ie we don't all start off equally. If you were born into a "strife-ridden" nation would you consider yourself to blame? Even if we were to agree that outside nations don't take any interest in and don't exploit the resources of an undereducated, low influence, low democracy country; is it at all fair to simply say its their fault - these are the same brains as work as your or mine- just they are reacting differently under different conditions. I feel, if we can, we've got to give these people the same starting step as us - its far to easy to say they are to blame for their own setting. Lets say we have a race to a finish line - if someone is injured, or disadvantaged do you see it as fair to not give them any reward because they're disadvantaged. Some may be holding out the begging bowl, ireland style and taking everything they get - but I do think that the majority have never been given a chance - they're more usefull that way. I dunno, capitalism is great in that though everyone may not start equal, everyone does have a chance of improving their situation - but I do suspect that this really isn't the case when the situation of one can be improved to the detriment of another.

amp

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Aw Jesus, I couldn't even be bothered responding to that. Get a clue will you?

Man, that's not up to your usual high standard Dadakopf.

And so, I respond thusly:

I know you are but what am I!!!

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

And blah blah blah.

Now now Von, there's no need to get unpleasant...why not simply accept that there's a different way of looking at things hmm?

You choose not to mention corruption in say, former soviet bloc countries

A very deliberate omission- the majority of these nations are working hard to tackle these problems from within- their electorates are far more committed, politically active, and there are organs for affecting change within these nations far more easily. Also, they have great incentives- the common market, and NATO. For a nation to be accepted for membership, it cannot, in all fairness, be riddled with corruption to the extent of which we are discussing. Regional development through the use of such incentives simply isn't taking place in Africa, no nation's really tried to step up to the plate and have a go.

As far as western support for dictatorship goes, that has absolutely nothing to do with our system of government, it was a function of the manner in which the Cold War was fought. We could all be living in libretarian anarchy, and such exploitation would still occur. The Soviet Union was hardly lacking in their support of communist dictators- this is to do with human nature, not our form of government, as bonkey points out. I agree it was despicable on the part of all involved, but I refuse to acknowledge that "corporate culture", "globalization" or our system of government (none of which coincides with OPS support by the Soviet Union) is to blame.

The seemingly unstoppable trend of globalization and cooperation between the US and Europe in the 19th century gave rise to an equally powerful backlash, brought about by the confluence of rising global income inequalities and political instability that played a role in sparking the first world war. Another wave of globalization occurred during the 1920s, only to be brought to an abrupt end by the Depression and more war.

I know illiteracy is rife in America (According to a recent US government report, The State of Literacy in America, over 90 million US adults, nearly one out of two, are functionally illiterate or near illiterate) but try to read before replying or else don’t bother.

Again, there's no need to heckle or hector- it adds zilch to your already shaky argument. You point out that your statement reflects that globalization/income inequality played a role in sparking the first world war. Perhaps you misunderstand me- I don't think it played any role whatsoever. Economies were practically nationalized, the concept of international trade was nowhere near as open as today. Furthermore, I doubt a single (credible) modern european historian would cite "globalization" or "income inequality" as a cause of the First World war. Such arguments were never even mentioned in western governments at the time, the war happened because of a complex intermeshing of political alliances that were compelled to act when regional imperialism in the Balkans became to hot to handle. Not because the rich were getting richer and the poor becoming more destitute. Get your facts straight.

Unless you’ve been living in a 1950’s sit com for the last few years you’d realise that more and more people are not bothering to vote anymore. Why’s that then? What percentage of the electorate voted in the US presidential election? 50%? Even allowing for the level of illiteracy, why’s that then? Where’s the cynicism, disenfranchisement and apathy comng from?

The apathy mainly stems from an amalgamation of views across parties in many nations, especially Britain and the United States. We saw this at the last presidential election- the reason so many stayed at home is that both candidates had little to offer policy-wise that was substantiall different from his opponent. I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I disagree that taking to the streets helps anything. Party reform and internal discussion are the meaningful ways forward, not marching up and down Capitol hill with a banner in both hands.

As I said before- if you feel there's no alternative, get off your ar$e and go and create one. There's no law against starting a party with meaningful policies, nor one to prevent you from petitioning for change within a party. If you want policy change, then campaign for it through legitimate political process. Unless you're lazy/filled with apathy of course. In which case, feel free to continue demonstrating and proclaiming "there is no alternative"

I fail to see the point of quoting Wilde out of context. I assume you’re aware that he actually classed himself as an anarchist.

What's your point? He also classed himself as a Whig, a Tory and a liberal at various stages in his life...and his political viewpoint is irrelevant in the context of the quotation. The point he makes very astutely, is that it is very easy to occupy the moral high ground when you aren't in a position to take risks, make tough decisions, make mistakes, and being branded an idiot for making them. Whenever the left has had opportunities in power in the West, they've always squandered them because of a failure to make tough decisions that needed to be made to ensure stability. TINA is simply a form of apathy propagated by the left to make up for their own failings in power, pretty pathetic, really.

As for Einstein's essay, I agree in principle with some of what he says, especially the need to control how private capital affects mainstream political decisions. I reject his message however, that humanity is deteriorating because of the creation of economies of scale. EOS have brought unimaginable standards of prosperity to the western world, and the productivity of such economies would be impossible to sustain in the absence of small business, creative and entrepreneurial thinking, and a stable government system in which these may function. As such, that particular statement by Einstein turns out to be totally false. As for the notion that capital wealth is entirely concentrated in the hands of a few individuals...so what? There lies the function of government- the redistribution of wealth. Those with a greater proportion of wealth are taxed more, and the government redistributes wealth through society as it sees fit. Without the goals of prosperity and affluence, what would drive us to succeed in the modern world? Succor for our fellow man? Please...

Returning to the main topic, BND, I still fail to see how its ideas are either noble or deserving of merit. Evaluating need before greed, and whether or not my quality of life can be improved by a purchase, are considerations I employ every day. I suspect most consumers do the same- I doubt that they need a special day to remind them they should consider the neccessity of their purchases.

I also reject the idea that we consider the base necessity of purchases we make. If that were the case, a roof over our heads, sustenance and social interaction are all that we need. Let's put this in perspective- how many of you who've posted here actually need your computers? It might be central to your work, but is there really any need for it if you don't use it that much in your work? Following the reasoning through, there is no pressing need for us to buy computers, it can be argued that they waste scarce economic resources, hurt the third world and depress employment spending. But if that's your argument, why don't we all just go back to living in trees and flinging our $hit at each other? After all, we don't *need* electricity, running water, production facilities, or even paper to survive do we? The reason we have progressed is our species' inherent ambition and drive to improve the quality of life. Convenience, amenity and consumption all inherently improve the quality of life- all of a sudden this is bad? I wholeheartedly disagree. No one's forcing you to buy that Ikea lamp, the koi pond, or the *shudder* Brittney Spears CD. But that should be your decision, and if you decide to part with your hard-earned money to make that purchase, then it's your decision. I personally would buy none of these things, I see no need for them. As such, BND would have little if no effect on my consumer behavior. And I doubt that people who would make those inane purchases would think twice because it happens to be "Buy Nothing Day".

Which factors influence how and why things are produced or not?

We call it supply and demand- if there is a demand for a good in the economy, then someone will supply it. People want, people have the choice to get. Sounds good to me.

Occy

Von

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
The apathy mainly stems from an amalgamation of views across parties in many nations, especially Britain and the United States. We saw this at the last presidential election- the reason so many stayed at home is that both candidates had little to offer policy-wise that was substantiall different from his opponent.

In the British general election, the Tory campaign was based on xenophobia; keeping the pound, spouting meaningless soundbites like “common sense” and blaming refugees for everything, from foot and mouth disease to Radiohead’s Amnesiac album. Phony Tony and co campaigned on health, education and transport because spindoctors told him that’s what the proles wanted to hear. The Lib Dems and everyone else are still regarded as a wasted vote because of the ludicrous first past the post system. There are several sources of voter apathy in Britain. One could stem from the view that the trend of commercialising every facet of social life, in effect handing social and cultural control of the country over to anonymous shareholders, makes the whole democratic process a sham, and produces a stunted homogenized society which marginalizes and disenfrachizes those who can’t or won’t buy into it. Another could come from people who think they’re the centre of the universe and don’t care about anything except maybe getting slaughtered drunk every weekend. The introduction of PR in Britain might help and if Nader had got enough votes to get federal funding that might have helped in the US too.

I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I disagree that taking to the streets helps anything. Party reform and internal discussion are the meaningful ways forward, not marching up and down Capitol hill with a banner in both hands.

Whether you or I or anybody else likes it or not, movements for positive social progress have invariably been accompanied by a lot of ne’er-do-wells taking to the streets, from the chartists to the suffragettes to the civil rights movements in the US and Ireland to the situationist/student/worker movement of 1968. The present movement’s aims are not especially radical compared to any of those. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which sought to give corporations the same rights as national governments, was stopped by these people. Radicalism – in this case, public protest – is usually a prelude to social change of some sort. “We must overact our part in some measure, in order to produce any effect at all.” – essayist, William Hazlitt.

As I said before- if you feel there's no alternative, get off your ar$e and go and create one. There's no law against starting a party with meaningful policies, nor one to prevent you from petitioning for change within a party. If you want policy change, then campaign for it through legitimate political process. Unless you're lazy/filled with apathy of course. In which case, feel free to continue demonstrating and proclaiming "there is no alternative"

TINA is a phrase of Thatcher’s not some concoction by moaning lefties and it’s neo-liberalism’s guiding tenet. Bush sez either you’re with the McWorld military industrial complex (good) or you’re a terrorist (bad). That’s sub-neanderthal logic. Some alternative. The problem is not a shortage of political parties with good intentions. The Belgian prime minister, Mr.Verhofstadt asked me last week if he could include a letter I wrote to him on the subject of globalisation and violence at demonstrations in a book he’s publishing in time for the D14 summit in Brussels. The book is to be distributed to European leaders and the media, so contrary to “man in the pub” opinion, not all people in high places operate with tabloid headline mentality. I never said anywhere I took part in any demonstrations. Dunno where that came from. I know a few people involved at various levels all right and I’ve translated documents for the Italian white overalls group but I also know some people in our government and media and have worked with them. It’s all the same to me. You ought to get over the whole left/right thing and think beyond archaic dogma if you’re at all interested in developing an objective informed opinion instead of simply reinforcing your prejudices.

What's your point? He also classed himself as a Whig, a Tory and a liberal at various stages in his life...and his political viewpoint is irrelevant in the context of the quotation. The point he makes very astutely, is that it is very easy to occupy the moral high ground when you aren't in a position to take risks, make tough decisions, make mistakes, and being branded an idiot for making them.

I don’t want to invoke an F18 air strike by threatening the american monopoly on commenting on the lives of Irish writers, but Oscar Wilde, in spite of his affectations, posing and cucumber based jokes, lent his name to Shaw’s petition for the release of the Haymarket martyrs without hesitation and opposed locking up people for damaging property so his views would have much in common with some of today’s more extreme protesters. Of course his political viewpoint is relevant in this context. Instead of lazily co-opting people like Wilde (who like many artists was perceived as a threat to the establishment and subsequently destroyed) why not quote a writer with political views closer to your own? If any such writer exists. Like Malthus or someone, I dunno. About occupying the high moral ground: it’s those who condemn protesters in boring Daily Mailesque terms who occupy the high moral ground. Uncritical acquiescence to the view proffered by authority figures or the mass media is a demonstration of elitism. The propaganda of elitism operates in different ways but these ways are the way of all forms of prejudice. It makes a wide range of statements and won’t allow a challenge unless it be done on its own terms, and it continues to make such statements until eventually part of the foundation of the dogma comes to be accepted as a kind of ‘truth’: fat women have got hearts of gold, men with red hair lose their temper, catholics are inferior to protestants; jews are greedy, pakistanis are greedy; people on the dole are lazy; whites are superior to blacks; folk who go to university are born clever; foreigners are evil; strangers are dangerous; asylum seekers are lazy, greedy, inferior, evil, dangerous liars, and anyone who attends a political demonstration is a mindless middle-class hippy hoolithug.

“What is said by great employers of labor against agitators is unquestionably true. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so abundantly necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilization.” – Oscar Wilde

Whenever the left has had opportunities in power in the West, they've always squandered them because of a failure to make tough decisions that needed to be made to ensure stability. TINA is simply a form of apathy propagated by the left to make up for their own failings in power, pretty pathetic, really.

Look at the health, education and transport systems in Sweden, France or Germany and compare them to what the proles in allegedly wealthier countries like Britain and the US have to put up with. There’s no such thing as a waiting list in French national healthcare.

As for Einstein's essay, I agree in principle with some of what he says, especially the need to control how private capital affects mainstream political decisions. I reject his message however, that humanity is deteriorating because of the creation of economies of scale.

The Belgian PM is concerned about the rising levels of depression and stress related illnesses brought about by the effects of modern consumerist life and the fall in standards in areas like housing and food production apparently. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to attract people to work as public teachers and medical staff. The whole voluntary sector is in decline. Personal responsibility in general is in decline. In Dublin a couple of years ago I saw a woman on the other side of the street getting mugged by two thugs and even though she was screaming and struggling, about 6 people, men in suits it has to be said, must have walked straight by before a couple of lads went to her aid. If those people who walked straight by couldn’t be bothered to disrupt their dim-eyed walk to some overpriced twatty pub lunch to help someone being mugged, then it’s hardly likely that they can be expected to give a toss about anything else, least of all the effect of commodity fetishism on society.

As for the notion that capital wealth is entirely concentrated in the hands of a few individuals...so what?

Yeah dude, like, what’s so bad with living in a plutocracy anyhow, like? What’s so bad about a handful of individuals like, controlling the flow of all like, information? What’s so bad about government of the billionaires by like the billionaires for the like, billionaires? So what – the mantra of the button pushing junk munching terminally shallow generation of wassaaaappping automatons.

We call it supply and demand- if there is a demand for a good in the economy, then someone will supply it. People want, people have the choice to get. Sounds good to me.

How is demand created? That’s where the Black Arts of advertising, branding and marketing in league with the diabolical organs of corporate infotainment mass media come in, and batter the proles with repetition and pavlovian conditioning to exhaust their resistance until they capitulate and accept a message or product they initially defied and scorned.

DadaKopf

Just to clarify:

By Occy:
Perhaps you misunderstand me- I don't think it played any role whatsoever. Economies were practically nationalized, the concept of international trade was nowhere near as open as today. Furthermore, I doubt a single (credible) modern european historian would cite "globalization" or "income inequality" as a cause of the First World war

Occy, international trade in the nineteenth and early twentieth century was notoriously free. I remember reading a very informative article in the New York Times which vividly described the emerging global economy in the mid to late nineteenth century. It was exacerbated not just by a large merchant class but of huge business tycoons capable of transporting huge amounts of produce very rapidly. The level of free trade (which I expect was based on progressivist libertarian economics) was much, much freer than the complex systems of tarriffs and protections we have in place today. However, while globalisation has at least veered away from colonialism (or has at least masked its outward connections to it), colonialism itself was intrinsic to the development of the early global economy. It was colonialism which mostly contributed to the conditions of WWI and as such, 'globalisation' in the broadest sense is intimately connected. What we have today is a kind of mutation of this early form of world economy.

I wouldn't consider 'income inequality' as a cause of WWI but certainly it existed at the time and the war certainly plastered over those social cracks which were beginning to show themselves in the 1910s. It's possible to consider, though, that terminology has changed - perhaps 'income inequality' was/is termed as something else.

'Colonialism' is the used term for explaining much of WWI's origins. Isn't that just another word for an earlier form of globalisation?

I know this is directed at Occy and, God help me, I think you should get your fact straight about this. I really think a decent appraisal of the origins of the system we have today are neccessary if any strategy is to be developed. Misinformation like this helps no-one.