What is it these anti - Capitalists believe in?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
It is to do with the fact that we should have no masters or rules and any decisions should be made by ourselves and by no one else.

Either a troll or an anarchist. Best ignored or culled in either case.

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
No one can ever explain this theory to me. Would you like to do so?

Simple really, If you are using Windows, you are supporting a product produced by Bill Gates , one of the wealthiest Capitalists in the World.
Have the courage of your convictions and withdraw from using the products and lifestyle of the capitalist world.
Don't Cherry pick.
mm

potlatch

I didn't really want to contribute to this thread because it looks like a troll but:

It's simply not the case that someone is "supporting" Gates or Microsoft when they use their products.

It's more the fact that people have less and less choice in using any other OS. I use Windows and Office because they offer the most practical advantages to me - it allows me to pirate software more - I haven't even paid for any of the software I'm using.

I mean, to use this point as a criticism against the movement is short sighted and almost devoid of any point. Does anyone really believe that anyone is suggesting that we do away with technology and tools altogether? True, some people actually do believe this and go and have sex with trees, but most sensible people would accept that technology is useful and something to which we should all have access. Maybe, reversing that criticism, it's more repugnant that three quarters of the world haven't access to modern technology than those who do. Nobody is really suggesting that we return to the stone age, it's completely the opposite: people genuinely want an end to the inequitable means of spreading these amazing tools around the world.

Most people use Microsoft because they have no choice or are misinformed that they have no choice in the matter. That's the problem.

To support a product, choice is generally the precondition, isn't it?

bonkey

Originally posted by potlatch
most sensible people would accept that technology is useful and something to which we should all have access

Thats ridiculous.

The technology you are currently using was designed by multinational companies. The software it is running was written by multinational companies. The technology you use to connect your PC to the internet was put in place by multinational companies.

The reason that pretty much all of the technology you are using is there in the first place is because it is the multinationals who created it. The multinationals you wish to see gone.

You will accept the fruits of multinational labour as long as its necessary to your vision. surely you are being convenient in what you want.

As for your lack of choice argument :

Most people use Microsoft because they have no choice or are misinformed that they have no choice in the matter. That's the problem.

Most people buy runners from exploitative companies because they have no choice, or are misinformed that they have no choice. Thats the problem.

But - hang on - we're supposed to boycott Nike. Surely we should boycott MS as well?

I use Windows and Office because they offer the most practical advantages to me - it allows me to pirate software more - I haven't even paid for any of the software I'm using

So it would be okay to wear Nikes as long as I stole them, then? Yes?

jc

I agree entirely with Bonkey's reply:)
It's saved me time typing:)
mm

potlatch

Not necessarily. The means by which the software is produced is connected implicitly with something that I oppose but not the software and not the technology. That was my point.

If anything, we're living in such a complex world that making an all or nothing choice like that simply isn't possible. The inequity of the situation isn't the technology, yes - it's the multinationals. Like I said, I use MS Windows but I haven't paid for it, therefore that multinational isn't getting my money. Theft? Yes. Freer way to distribute technology? Yes. Do I support Microsoft? I use their products and they work for me so, as a product, I 'support' them. As a multinational? Not particularly.

The two issues are intimately connected and much more complex than I could ever imagine, than any of us could imagine, but there is a division between what the product does and how it gets to the level of indispensibility. Both present problems of different sorts (is what it does damaging? versus is the multinational damaging?). It makes a certain kind of sense to continue using a product that benefits you while also actively opposing what Microsoft is and what is stands for. As with all social and political issues, it's a question of balance.

The Corinthian

By using a Microsoft product, you are endorsing its use. You example encourages others to use Microsoft products also. For example, every time a Webmaster sees your IE footprint on their logs, encourages them to optimise their site for IE, not any other browser.

So your argument is a little bit suspect to say the least.

billy the squid

We'd all be a hell of a lot poorer if Michael Dell and co. had not set up here

In what way, Michael Dell has a strangle hold on Limerick City because its too big.

I can think of several people who are worse off because of Michael Dell because for years they didnt know how to respect the people who worked for them.

me thinks back to the fella who was there with me who collapsed after three weeks of twelve hour shifts carted out of EMF3 in an ambulance.

billy the squid

We'd all be a hell of a lot poorer if Michael Dell and co. had not set up here

In what way, Michael Dell has a strangle hold on Limerick City because its too big.

I can think of several people who are worse off because of Michael Dell because for years they didnt know how to respect the people who worked for them.

me thinks back to the fella who was there with me who collapsed after three weeks of twelve hour shifts carted out of EMF3 in an ambulance.

and that was only one of many examples I could give you

billy the squid

The problem anti - capitilists are having is that large companies are able to put more pressure on governments that the people who elect those governments.

as for your comments about us being alot poorer if it wasn't for are saviour Michael Dell, dont get me started.

Lets just say his company treated his employees like dirt when he was able to get away with it.

potlatch

I'm simply saying that it makes sense to endorse a product on its true/good merits regardless of the company.

Let's assume for a moment that boycotting all Microsoft products might bring an end to the Microsoft empire, but how will that affect the thousands of the people employed in the company? What is a more honest way to approach the multinational problem?

Personally, I say it makes more sense to judge products like computer programs on merits but that doesn't necessarily exclude me from the right to criticise the methods of the company. The law is such an example: there are clearly things wrong with the law but I nevertheless support it in principle, as a tool to maintain a semblance of societal order-maintenence. But does that also exclude me from criticising the legal system?

I simply believe that there are never either/or situations here; everything is a question of balance and fairness.

It's true to say that products and humans entertain a parasitic relationship. In the early days of capitalism and proto-consumerism, products were judged on merits but especially since the 1950s, they weren't not sold on merits, they were sold on the basis of appealing to people's insecurities, basically. They manipulate us. Unfortunately, it's not products who the parasites on us, it's we who are the parasites on products. I'd prefer it to be the other way around, I'd prefer it for products to once again be based on merits which, in my mind, would result in smaller companies (because having to appeal to consumers on merits rather than image might destabilise their consumer bases) and I would prefer legislation to limit their size and influence in politics.

Once again, I use products because of their merits so I support the specific products but not necessarily the company (in this case I haven't bought a single program I use). That's always what I try to do when buying something.

So, back to the argument: if I adopt this tactic, does that not mean that I can have my cake and eat it? Well, if the balance is right, perhaps this is a valid stance. I'm just a person and a consumer with a conscience who's trying to make sense of everything and it seems to me that there's no point denying the existence of multinationals and no point denying our reliance on commodities but it does make sense to criticise multinationals and the laws that allow them to exist.

I just think that people assume too quickly that the argument is all or nothing when clearly, it is not.

bonkey

Originally posted by potlatch
I'm simply saying that it makes sense to endorse a product on its true/good merits regardless of the company.

Cool - so as long as a company makes a good product, it doesnt matter if the company is a multinational, exploitative capitalist entity then, no?

Because thats what youre saying.

Personally, I say it makes more sense to judge products like computer programs on merits but that doesn't necessarily exclude me from the right to criticise the methods of the company.

Have you ever advocated (or do you ever envisage yourself advocating) the boycott of a company's products, based on the company's actions? You know - McDs, Nike, that sort of thing? If you have even once done this, then I hope you recognise the complete hypocracy of what you've just posted here. If you dont believe in boycotting, then fair enough....read the next two paragraphs before getting all indignant about me mislabelling you

Taking it a step further - you came into this argument because you thought the notion of people using MS products was not incompatible with "the movement". Well, large amounts of "the movement" want us to boycott, and want these companies gone.

So, even if the use of MS products doesnt clash with your personal ideals, it definitely clashes with those of many in "the movement"....which still makes it a valid point and not a troll - which was your original objection.

The law is such an example: there are clearly things wrong with the law but I nevertheless support it in principle,
<snip>
I haven't bought a single program I use.

Aha - so theft against the multinational companies is compatible with supporting the law in principle? Care to explain that one?

So, back to the argument: if I adopt this tactic, does that not mean that I can have my cake and eat it? Well, if the balance is right, perhaps this is a valid stance.

I fail to see how supporting the law, and supporting theft (which is illegal) can ever be a valid, balanced stance. Surely it completely undermines any position you may have to offer criticism. You cant say that these companies dont play fair which is bad, but that its okay for you to break the law to get back at them. Either both sides are right or both are wrong. So - are you wrong, or are the multinationals right?

jc

colinsky

Originally posted by bonkey
Not true. The manufacturing cost of the shoe is approximately $5, on that I would agree. However, you completely ignore the cost of shipping, wholesale and retail costs & markup.

Oh, I bet Nike spends a bit on advertising as well.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Globablisation is just a disguise for Manifest Destiny and we will not allow the people and the environment of the Planet Earth to be destroyed in order to make the business men more money. We will use our right to destroy capitalism by any means necessary and implement a humanitarian anarcho-communist society based on needs and not wants.

You've forgotten something inside that cloud of naivety in which you live in: People.

People (apart from the small band of anarchists and commies that you are friends with - 450 at yesterday's rally) don't want to live in an anarcho-communist society.
Will People will live in a society based on needs and not want? No. Why? Because People like money. And they like money because they want nice houses, wide-screen TVs, fancy-ass computers, custom-built surfboards and NIKE runners.
People will not live quietly like robots in an anarcho-communist society - see the fall of the communist system in Eastern Europe for details (and proof).

It's simply human nature to want stuff - and any amount of crusty protestors isn't going to change that one bit.

Resist .

Originally posted by ReefBreak

People (apart from the small band of anarchists and commies that you are friends with - 450 at yesterday's rally) don't want to live in an anarcho-communist society.
Will People will live in a society based on needs and not want? No. Why? Because People like money. And they like money because they want nice houses, wide-screen TVs, fancy-ass computers, custom-built surfboards and NIKE runners.
People will not live quietly like robots in an anarcho-communist society - see the fall of the communist system in Eastern Europe for details (and proof).

It's simply human nature to want stuff - and any amount of crusty protestors isn't going to change that one bit.

You seem to me to be a victim of the Capitalist society that you were brought up in - because capitalism and pointless possessions are all you have ever known you think that it's the only way of life. What's the poin in owning Nike runners or a nice house when it's at the expense of;

1.Your time,which you can never get back, that you had to spend working to get those *things*.
2.Other peoples lives - the people who have to (yes,have to) work in sweatshop conditions for measly wages to keep the western world happy with cheap low quality products.

And YOU might be happy - but for every person who is rich there are a lot more people who are barely able to keep themselves fed not just in the 3rd world right here in your city and what does capitalism do for them ? Nothing - It just keeps the interests of the rich at heart and makes the poor feel guilty for not being as great as them.

Yes,im using a computer - would I have a computer under another system ? do you really think that Multi-Nationals are so great that they're the only reason we have computers ? less than 1% of the world own computers so perhaps under a different system we would be able to *communise* all these things that the rich keep to themselves (computers,money,means of production,eduction,health).

You might be happy with capitalism - but that's because you're fed capitalist propaganda every day when you turn on your television,read the newspaper or try to walk down the street (billboards/constant advertising). Lots of people are not content with capitalism and why should we be ? We won't be happy with any system that restricts our right to Freedom and Joy (capitalism-maoism,marxism,state-socialism).

it's OUR world too.

http://www.indymedia.ie

eth0_

IMHO capitalism will never die, greed is an intrinsic part of human nature and it always will be. You pay someone a wage and they'll always want more and more.

Groups like the Socialist workers party and Globalise resistance are utterly laughable. Most people in Dublin (where their worlds seem revolve around) absolutely DESPISE their in-your-face pseudo communist rants and marches. They come across to me as middle class students who've just developed a class consience and are perhaps, ashamed of what they have? They'll never ever achieve anything in this country because they just come across as extremists, with no manifesto of interest to the common working man or woman.

The only decent commie manifesto for this years elections is the Socialists' plans to get rid of the bin charges!

If these people were in power, there'd be no multinationals in this country, unemployment would be rife, and they'd let more non-nationals enter the country than it can healthily sustain.

It's just a pity none of these parties can incorporate communist views with the needs of this country.

Victor

Originally posted by eth0_
It's just a pity none of these parties can incorporate communist views with the needs of this country.

Like the National Socialists did in Germany in the thirties? :rolleyes:

colinsky

Originally posted by eth0_
The only decent commie manifesto for this years elections is the Socialists' plans to get rid of the bin charges!

I doubt I've been here long enough to grasp the entire issue, but that's one thing I don't understand. Obviously, there's some cost involved in trash collection -- if one is availing of the service, shouldn't one be reasonable expect to be pay a portion of the service overhead?

eth0_

Don't twist my words, that seems to be your forte on here.
I mean it's all fine and good trying to curb environmental problems, standing up for the real asylum seekers, making people aware of companies who treat their employees like s**t, but basically, there's more to MY life and the lives of most people than that, I care to some extent but I also care about the standard of education in this country, the transport infrastructure, my tax rates, etc etc etc.

Where's their manifesto's on these issues? If they have ANY, they keep them well buried.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Resist .
1.Your time,which you can never get back, that you had to spend working to get those *things*.

And if I don’t work, sacrifice my time and labour, should I just have *things* given to me? Or food for that matter, or clothes? By someone else who then has to sacrifice their time and labour? Or perhaps we should all be self sufficient and raise our own crops and sow our own garments? Upps, might that not take time to do so?

2.Other peoples lives - the people who have to (yes,have to) work in sweatshop conditions for measly wages to keep the western world happy with cheap low quality products.

Gee, wiz... I’m sorry you feel bad about that. Why don’t you toddle off to a sweatshop and educate these poor exploited unfortunates.

Yes,im using a computer - would I have a computer under another system ? do you really think that Multi-Nationals are so great that they're the only reason we have computers ?

Actually, it does require a large investment of capital to produce and distribute computers. More of these people giving up their time...

You might be happy with capitalism - but that's because you're fed capitalist propaganda every day when you turn on your television,read the newspaper or try to walk down the street (billboards/constant advertising).

LOL. So you counter that with this rhetoric.

it's OUR world too.

Not Really - I’m from planet Earth, you see...

bonkey

Originally posted by Resist .
We won't be happy with any system that restricts our right to Freedom and Joy (capitalism-maoism,marxism,state-socialism).

Ahhh - so - back to good ol' anarchy then, is it? No rules - nothing to get in the way of Freedom and Joy.

Explain something to me. If in your system, I feel that beating you to death would be the action which gives me the most Joy, would you support my Freedom to do this?

If so, then explain how such a society could avoid devolving into one of unrestrained violence?

On the other hand, if you dont support my right to beat you to death, can you explain how there is a system which doesnt restrict my right to Freedom and Joy?

Anarchy, in a Utopian society, would be a good solution. Then again, in a Utopian society, any form of rule would be a good solution.....its Utopia, remember.

Given that Utopia is nothing but a dreamer's wishful thinking, and we actually live in the real world, we must face facts. The fact is that in the real world, people have conflicting interests all the time. In the absence of rules, these conflicts can be resolved most efficiently through violence. Thus, anarchy in the real world would devolve into some form of dictatorship, where the people with the biggest sticks get to decide what happens.

No-one has claimed capitalism, coupled to democracy is perfect. No-one has denied that it is without its flaws.

However, using this as an excuse to call for its replacement with a system which is patently unworkable is ridiculous.

jc

ReefBreak

Oh dear, oh dear "Resist". Please... Put away your collection of overused cliches. They're spouted so much by your type that they've really lost all meaning. You may not realise it inside that muddled head of yours, but it's blatantly obvious to most that the only victim of propaganda is You.

You seem to me to be a victim of the Capitalist society that you were brought up in - because capitalism and pointless possessions are all you have ever known you think that it's the only way of life. What's the poin in owning Nike runners or a nice house when it's at the expense of;

Wrong. I choose to buy "pointless possesions". I choose to buy my computer, my TV, my PS2, my surfboard, my guitar. Because I like to play computer games, watch TV, play music.

1.Your time,which you can never get back, that you had to spend working to get those *things*.
2.Other peoples lives - the people who have to (yes,have to) work in sweatshop conditions for measly wages to keep the western world happy with cheap low quality products.

Let's see. With your system, I would not have to work? Nice one. This is a new system is it? Imagine that, all those thousands of years that modern man has spent working - it now turns out that it was all time wasted.

Yes,im using a computer - would I have a computer under another system ? do you really think that Multi-Nationals are so great that they're the only reason we have computers ? less than 1% of the world own computers so perhaps under a different system we would be able to *communise* all these things that the rich keep to themselves (computers,money,means of production,eduction,health).

You might be using a computer, but make no mistake it'd be a very bad computer. Capitalism fosters competition; competition fosters ingenuity, inventiveness, research and lower prices. Compare the gas-guzzling, environment-killing cars of the commuist era to those from the capitialist west.

You might be happy with capitalism - but that's because you're fed capitalist propaganda every day when you turn on your television,read the newspaper or try to walk down the street (billboards/constant advertising). Lots of people are not content with capitalism and why should we be ? We won't be happy with any system that restricts our right to Freedom and Joy (capitalism-maoism,marxism,state-socialism).

it's OUR world too.

http://www.indymedia.ie

Granted there are problems with capitalism, particularly with the environment - but it's far more possible and realistic to fix these issues without resorting to ridiculous ideas about "resistance" and "crushing the system". Otherwise you'd better believe it, I'm fairly happy with capitalism. Not because I'm fed "capitalist propaganda", but because I work (my choice) for a good wage. This wage then enables me buy things. These things then enable me have more Freedom to enJoy the things I like.

A comparison. What were you doing at 1 pm yesterday? Feeling miserable about the state of the world? Preparing for a scrap with the cops? Me, I was feeling very happy with my Freedom and Joy....

May 6, 2002, Lahinch, Co. Clare, at about 1 pm:

Resist .

about 1 o clock you say ? well its completely off the topic but i was sitting in stephens green with my friends preparing for the RECLAIM THE STREETS action and defacing some of bertys election posters around the city centre.

so those who say libertarianism and *anti-capitalism* are un-workable .. what about the Paris Commune,spanish revolution, paris in 1968 and various other anarcho-communes that HAVE worked until they were killed by outside forces (capitalism-fascism)

and sarcasm is a sign of defeat when your agruing politics " The Corinthian" and to a lesser extent bonkey, it's just a cheap way of avoiding arguing the point.

colinsky

...so those who say libertarianism and *anti-capitalism* are un-workable ..

I didn't hear anyone specifically saying that, but I would argue that they are incompatible. Libertarianism strongly feeds in with captialism and globalism: it goes along with the conception that government interference into financial and personal interactions should be minimal, and only take place to protects one's rights of personal freedom, and property from attack.

On the other hand, most of the anti-capitalist/anti-globalist rhetoric I have heard involves setting strong legal restrictions on corporate entities; that is _legistlating_ a "conscience" for corporations through market regulations and other controls rather than allowing corporations to grow due to unhindered market dynamics.

I've also heard many anti-capitalists substitute one bad for another. One example in Europe is that of opening up of energy (France) or telecom (Ireland) markets. As long as there is a "government-sanctioned" monopology on public utilities, customers are forced to cowtow to whatever the one company prefers (compare, for instance, prices for broadband access between Ireland and UK/US). But many of the anti-captialists fight against unregulated markets which would allow other multinational utility providers to enter the market and encourage competition -- because to them, the multinationals that would be let in are the bad guys. Market regulations that hurt the average consumer.

-c/olin, libertarian.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by Resist .
about 1 o clock you say ? well its completely off the topic but i was sitting in stephens green with my friends preparing for the RECLAIM THE STREETS action and defacing some of bertys election posters around the city centre.

You're actually proud to admit you went around Dublin defacing election posters? Is it any wonder nobody likes crusties. Did you not have any homework for school that needed doing?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Resist .
and sarcasm is a sign of defeat when your agruing politics " The Corinthian" and to a lesser extent bonkey, it's just a cheap way of avoiding arguing the point.

As opposed to just ignoring questions you don't like as a cheap way of avoiding arguing the point?

So you say there's a better way. Reason with us. Convince us. Don't use soundbites or rhetoric. Tell us how the system you propose is viable. Explain how no one need work, but will still want to. How we can all agree upon our own joy and happiness without exploiting another's. How we will all be equal and equally happy with our lot.

And tell us how it's viable without imposing itself by force upon the very people it promises to liberate. Or perhaps you're more enlightened than us, and we need not understand.

bonkey

Originally posted by Resist .
so those who say libertarianism and *anti-capitalism* are un-workable

I have never said that. I dont think anyone here has said that.

I have said that anarchy is unworkable.

.. what about the Paris Commune,spanish revolution, paris in 1968 and various other anarcho-communes that HAVE worked until they were killed by outside forces (capitalism-fascism)

Not one of these has operated for generations - which is what would be necessary to show that the ideal has a future and is workeable.

If you get a group of like-minded people together, it is always possible to show that their proposed system will work for them. The challenge is to show that the system can perpetuate itself over time, and that it will not be killed from within if a small number of "dissidents" spring up inside the system, or from external pressures.

This has never been done with anarcho-based systems, nor is it ever likely to be. While you can cherry-pick those who get involved in a system, you get the closest possible to a Utopian society - an "opt-in" which almost guarantees short-term success. Long term success, however, can only be shown by a propensity to survive challenges to the system.

The fact that your examples were "killed off" is more or less an indication that they could not survive such challenges. Communism (the other great alternative) has resolutely failed to meet these challenges either - it has either imploded, or slowly been eroded by external influence from alternate systems.

To date, only capitalism and democracy have really shown themselves to be resistant to such challenges.

Imagine that the world was anarcho-communist. Now imagine that within that, a group of people decided to combine their efforts in a capitalist manner - that within their "sub-group" they would operate on the capitalist principles. How would the anarcho-communist environment deal with this? I mean - are you going to just suppress this pursuit of happiness, or accept that these people have the right to pursue capitalism if that is their choice. How does your system reconcile that at least one of the individuals in this "splinter group" will have a better standard of living than the normal member of the community? How will you prevent other people from saying "Hey - I could do that too, and improve my life". How can an anarcho-communist society guard itself against this?

Personally, I dont believe it can.

and sarcasm is a sign of defeat when your agruing politics " The Corinthian" and to a lesser extent bonkey, it's just a cheap way of avoiding arguing the point.

I am arguing the point. I am using sarcasm to counter the content-devoid sound-bites which have been offered as most of the anti-capitalist argument.

When someone raises a valid point, and does so with a minimum of empty rhetoric, I will reply to it seriously....as I have done in this post.

When someone offers nothing but self-contradicting cliches as an argument, I see no reason not to poke a bit of fun at them, becuase I've already pretty much abandoned the possibility of them having an intelligent discussion with me.

jc

shotamoose

Not being a fan of anarchism myself, I'll stick to trying to address the argument about consumerism that's been running through this thread...

I think it's fair to say that nobody was born wanting a laptop computer or a £60 pair of runners. I also think it's fair to say that the makers of these things are keen for us to buy them. Generally speaking, capitalists would like to make as much profit as possible and so have and continue to encourage consumerism, which results in more people wanting more products, or thinking they need them, or perhaps even developing a lifestyle which means they can't do without them (e.g. 'how the hell am I supposed to post to boards.ie without a pc?'). Now, people tend to feel they genuinely want these things, and I'm not going to argue that they don't or we'll be into a fruitless debate about what people REALLY want, really. They say they do, that's enough for me. But I don't believe anyone who claims that those wants came from nowhere, that they're entirely uncaused by outside forces. And if they are partly or wholly due to outside forces, they can be resisted by the individual or, on a social level, by a group or groups of people who feel it's worthwhile to resist it.

So why do some people resist consumerism? Greatly condensing the argument, I'd say its because it is not necessary and not ultimately healthy or helpful to humanity, and that as long as it succeeds it perpetuates exploitative capitalism. That is NOT to say that products are not helpful, or that technology is not helpful. It's possible to have technological development without it being driven by consumerism. It would be a different kind of development, and arguably not as fast or as suited to what consumers (as opposed to users) want.

I'm in two minds about the argument that it's hypocritical for someone who dislikes consumerism to buy consumer products. On the one hand I think it is mostly used to enables people who simply don't care about the issue to feel better by dismissing those who do. I'm not demanding that people care about far-off things like sweatshops in China and union-rights in Colombia, I'm simply saying that some people do (or want to, or think they do - its another ideology, after all). It's an ethical issue and so can't be made invisible. Either you care or you don't. Note that I'm not claiming that caring makes you a better or a smarter person and not caring makes you evil. Just that it is a legitimate stance to dislike and attempt to resist consumerism, a stance which does not need to be supported by Utopianism or browbeating and which does not deserve to be countered by indignation and insults.

On the other hand, by buying consumer products we are helping to perpetuate the system. So perhaps that makes me, someone who wants to see less consumerism, a hypocrite. The only defence I can offer is that we can only live within the society we live in and that I try to keep my hypocrisy to a minimum while trying to change that society. That's the way I see it anyway... (Hope there's not TOO many self-contradicting cliches in there )

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
So why do some people resist consumerism? Greatly condensing the argument, I'd say its because it is not necessary and not ultimately healthy or helpful to humanity, and that as long as it succeeds it perpetuates exploitative capitalism.

Which is a very fair point. In fact, I would be highly critical of todays hyper-consumerism. Just look at the US. 220 million people consuming 25% of the world's annual production. To put everyone at tehir level of consumerism would require the resources of at least 4 planets.

However, trying to be more sensible about your consumerism is a far cry from anti-globalisation, and/or supporting anarchy in any of its various forms.

There is nothing to say that capitalism and hyper-consumerism must exist hand-in-hand. While it is correct to blame the former for the existence of the latter, it is not true to say that the only way to defeat hyper-consumerism is the downfall of capitalism.

This is the problem I have with anti-capitalism at the end of the day. I have no major problem with many of the goals it hopes to achieve, but I just dont agree that removing capitalism is the solution to consumerism. Its like amputating a leg from the neck down as a solution to an infection.

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Just to address the point you made there JC- sure the US may consume 25% of the world's production, but in finance, entrepreneurship and through supply, we contribute to at least 25% of the world's production, probably more. Production requires investment, that we have the wealth to invest this heavily means that our economy is an important indicator for many regional economies (notable exception is the EU with a very well-thought out and streamlined set of trade policies). But if our people have worked so hard over generations within a stable, effective and non-interventionist(economically) government, then I think we've earned the right to invest that wealth. No offence, but if other governments are unable to stop MNC's exerting influence on their public, then they are either weak, corrupt or simply incompetent.

Yes, consumerism can be extremely harmful, overall it does a hell of a lot more harm than good. But there's a basic problem with attempting to curb or control consumerism via interdiction. By doing so, you selectively abolish freedom of expression in what should be a free democratic society. Let me explain.

Peoples' right to express their interpretation of a situation must never be punished or hindered in my opinion- just as protesters are permitted to protest (peacefully) and publicize their views, so too are advertising companies permitted to express an endorsement of their product. How are you going to reform promotion without removing the right to expression? I firmly believe that particular right should not be touched.

That Dutch politician who was recently assasinated may have had distasteful views, but his judge shouldn't be deciding his fate with the pull of a trigger, rather with the casting of a ballot-paper. For all the bluster, according to my better half(currently working in the NL) the entire nation has united to speak out against the violent means used to end his life. And when you think about it, his views are not distasteful when regarded objectively- he expressed dissent at some of the immigrants entering Holland because they don't share the same liberal values. Now that is controversial, and I would argue that very very few societies share quite the same set of liberal values as the Dutch- from East to West, the vast majority of societies are far more conservative than them- so why not refuse access to Western immigrants of let's say orthodox christian/jewish origin? This illustrates an important issue- that if Pim Fortyun were still alive, we could debate the issues with him directly and expose what a hypocritical ar$e he is. Killing him merely highlights the very issues he was trying to raise, and distances objections out of respect for what has happened. In short, a violent attack on expression of one's views can have devastating impact.

Now those who argue against advertising often state that we are being 'manipulated' by these advertisements. Well that's true, but the interesting thing is, 85% of us are fully aware of this manipulation through a visual medium, and accept it willingly. It's the same reasoning behind manipulation in a horror film, or a soppy romcom, you accept that your emotions/desires are going to be played upon like an accordian. So little room for complaint/protest there.

This freedom of expression can and should be global in nature- the problem arises when there is selective suppression of views; in many nations of the developing world, consumerism and advertising promotion flourishes, but there is no freedom to protest or to march(even peacefully). That is where the imbalance of power lies, not in the gap between rich and poor, not between East and West, but within the nation involved. Earlier in the thread, someone took up the position that 3rd world nations were being overrun, and made it sound like these nations were helpless in this regard. Nothing could be further from the truth- if a government wants to do what's best for a fledgling economy, they will place trade barriers around their nation to protect their infant industries. In fact, most Western nations have some form of protectionism purely based on keeping domestic industry afloat.

If however, that government is corrupt and intent on lining their own pockets, then it becomes a problem. Multinational corporation (MNC) exploitation isn't an issue for the WTO, the IMF, the World bank, or even the UN, it's up to individual governments to exercise their conscience in allowing certain big names in. If done correctly (and in a measured fashion) slowly allowing international trading pressures to bear on the economy can be of great benefit to its competitiveness and vitality.

I must say that I find the stance taken by many anticapitalists/antiglobalizers to be self-righteous and hypocritical. The arguments raised regarding the gap between rich and poor for example are clearly ridiculous- there has always been a division of wealth in society, and there always will be. Trying to point the finger at a current trend and blaming it for poverty is a common occurrence, but rarely true. Example- the way liberal politicians in England lambasted the Industrial Revolution as being the cause of increased poverty, when in fact the problem was urban migration.

Now if you're a poor farmboy, and you go to a city knowing full well the horrible conditions that faced you in the oppressive factories, then things must be even worse back on the farm. In other words, urban migration is merely a side-effect of rural poverty, ergo, globalization isn't the cause of poverty in the developing world, but a side-effect of it. If people are living in desperate poverty, they are likely to work for lesser wages than their developed nation counterparts (but by their standards, pretty damn good wages). Therefore, it is only logical that many MNCs will take the path of least resistance. Does globalization cause poverty? Hell no, but it sure as heck means that unless these nations pull themselves out of the debt and overspending they've engaged in to try and stimulate investment, they're perpetuating the state of the poor, and granting carte-blanche to MNCs to enter the country, thereby 'exploiting' them. In inverted commas because it is debateable, many of these 'underpaid' workers consider that they are getting a damn good deal, and not being exploited at all.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument with well-documented evidence that globalization is the root cause of current and future world-suffering. Logically speaking, these sufferances were present long before globalization even started to take place. Capitalism comes into the argument because without capitalism there could be no *purely economic* globalization. As a pure system capitalism stinks, but there is no such thing as a purely capitalist state, find me one and you get a cookie.

The view I've taken is hardly a balanced one, but it is from what I've seen to be a dispassionate view of how things are. Debate/refuation(heh, even assent) are all welcome of course, if you can be as$ed to read my post.

Occy