Freeganism Discussion -Split from Free Store! thread

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

We will not start a revolution by handing out random shit we find round the house. Although if you want to do if because you dont want to take the stuff to the tip then fine. Although i tend to ask my mates if they want anything though before I bin it.

[Vanguard1917]

We aren't going to be having any revolution if we dont create alternatives to capitalism!

Consuming unwanted junk is not an 'alternative to capitalism', and attempts to 'reduce consumption' are outright reactionary. After all, who needs the bosses and state to enforce belt-tightening policies on to the public, when you have eco-miserabilists championing austerity and passing it off as 'revolutionary'?

To rephrase your sentence, we're not going to be having any revolutions if the best that's on offer is second-hand crap that would otherwise be in people's bins.

[Plagueround]

While I don't agree with the idea that such things are revolutionary, it does not automatically make them a bad idea, nor can one simply dismiss things one would obtain from a free store as "second-hand crap". Again, it would appear you would prefer people simply shop at Wal Mart because it would "insult human progress" if they were to wear some perfectly good clothing that's been used.

In any event, how about we stick to the purpose of the Mutual Aid and DIY forum and discuss ways of setting up free stores and the like rather than discussing our own personal opinion on the matter?

[Vanguard1917]

While I don't agree with the idea that such things are revolutionary, it does not automatically make them a bad idea, nor can one simply dismiss things one would obtain from a free store as "second-hand crap". Again, it would appear you would prefer people simply shop at Wal Mart because it would "insult human progress" if they were to wear some perfectly good clothing that's been used.

You have to take into account the political motivation behind it, which is of 'reducing consumption', as the OP states. There is also the underlying idea that people should make do with other people's rubbish, rather than confronting the poverty that they're in. That's what makes it a not very positive 'initiative'.



In any event, how about we stick to the purpose of the Mutual Aid and DIY forum and discuss ways of setting up free stores and the like rather than discussing our own personal opinion on the matter?


Why? See my previous paragraph.

[Plagueround]

You have to take into account the political motivation behind it, which is of 'reducing consumption', as the OP states.

While I don't think there is anything wrong with consumption per se, certainly there could be value in reusing and recycling things.

At the moment, I'm wearing a 25 year old military jacket I found for 5 dollars at a second-hand store. I've had it for 5 years and it's held up longer than most store bought jackets I've ever owned. I don't see eye to eye with the original poster because my doing this is by no means revolutionary, but it was a damned good purchase because I saved a shit ton of money and I have a good coat that's survived all the hard work and play I've put it through.

Similarly, giving people clothing does nothing to alliviate poverty or change the system, but it does put clothing on people who might otherwise not be able to afford it. I agree entirely that we should not politicize this issue, but to state that there is absolutely no value in these things is false.


There is also the underlying idea that people should make do with other people's rubbish, rather than confronting the poverty that they're in. That's what makes it a not very positive 'initiative'.

If it was the extent of someone's activity perhaps. Then again, it could also be a great opportunity to include some literature or get talking to people. Pop a pamphlet in the pockets or something.


Why? See my previous paragraph.

I'm getting a bit tired of people popping into the DIY forum to spout their opinions while offering no positive advice on how to approach the things people are trying to learn or do. However, since I do agree the original poster's ideals about revolutionary activity seems a bit off, I'll reverse what I said and won't stop discussion in this case.

[Vanguard1917]

While I don't think there is anything wrong with consumption per se, certainly there could be value in reusing and recycling things.

There is something wrong about projects promoting the virtues of reduced consumption, especially as we're in a recession and people's living standards are dropping. It's apologism for increased poverty at a time when we need to be condemning it more than ever.



Similarly, giving people clothing does nothing to alliviate poverty or change the system, but it does put clothing on people who might otherwise not be able to afford it. I agree entirely that we should not politicize this issue, but to state that there is absolutely no value in these things is false.



It's one thing that people consume other people's rubbish as a result of poverty and desperation; that's a fact of life under capitalism and it's not what i'm calling 'reactionary'. It's what those in poverty have often been forced to do due to a lack of choice.

But it's something altogether different to promote the view that such a state of affairs is somehow positive, as though it's an 'alternative to capitalism'. It's not an alternative to capitalism. It's a product of capitalism. Singing its praises is therefore merely to provide very convenient apologism for capitalism, a system that can't sufficiently raise living standards.

[Blackscare]

I don't see what's so wrong with reusing shit. Some things aren't bad by the time their owners are ready to part with them, they shouldn't just be trashed in favor of a newer shinier version. That is pure consumerism. It's not revolutionary to reuse things, it's just common sense.

Products used to be built to last, not so anymore. They're made to either fall apart after a while or look obsolete in a year when the next version comes out with slight visual differences. Often the "old junk" you talk about works better and is more durable than the new products you'd rather see everyone go out and buy. Product design these days is aimed only at milking people for as much money as possible, you're an idiot if you think everything new is better.

Also, being responsible and deciding not to chuck perfectly good items in a land fill is by no means a way of promoting poverty or whatever your hair brained point is. Pretty arrogant to assume that everyone with the common sense to reuse items must be dirt-poor.

[Delirium]

Consuming unwanted junk is not an 'alternative to capitalism', and attempts to 'reduce consumption' are outright reactionary. After all, who needs the bosses and state to enforce belt-tightening policies on to the public, when you have eco-miserabilists championing austerity and passing it off as 'revolutionary'?First off, i'm not claiming that free stores themselves are going to bring about a revolution. Community controlled projects such as a free stores, gardens, autonomous spaces, etc can help organize people. Along with unions, students, and other revolutionary forces that will develop.

The second thing that you seem saying is that consumption is somehow revolutionary.

This seems pretty idiotic to me.

By reusing, recycling and repaing goods you become more skilled yourself, less dependent on the capitalist system, you're not supporting exploitive labor, and if done widely enough hurt the capitalist's profit. Again doing this by itself isnt going to create a revolution.

It seems that you dont really understand that a perpetual growth economy is suicide in a world with finite resources. Nearly everything the capitalist system produces is designed to break or become obsolete. This ensures perpetual consumption of goods. If you look at the effects of this system, its not really benifiting the working class. Its exploiting them. Its time we start using them wisely and for the benifit of everyone, instead of wasting them so an elite can get rich.

idk, it alls seems pretty basic to me.

[Vanguard1917]

The second thing that you seem saying is that consumption is somehow revolutionary.



Nope. I'm saying that attempts at reducing consumption are reactionary, the work of the bosses and the state.



By reusing, recycling and repaing goods you become more skilled yourself, less dependent on the capitalist system, you're not supporting exploitive labor, and if done widely enough hurt the capitalist's profit.


Again, no. You can't consume your way out of capitalism. Consuming less is not an 'alternative' to capitalism. In reality, dropping living standards are a key feature of capitalism. They're not things to be celebrated or welcomed.

Capitalism creates poverty -- i.e. mass underconsumption. By claiming that people overconsume under capitalism, you're merely providing apologism for capitalism and its inability to raise living standards -- i.e. consumption levels.

[butterfly]

Consuming more is not an alternative to capitalism, it solves nothing in terms of distribution.

[Delirium]

Nope. I'm saying that attempts at reducing consumption are reactionary, the work of the bosses and the state.

False, capitalists and bosses only benefit from consumption ie: profits.




Consuming less is not an 'alternative' to capitalism.I know that, socialism is what we are aiming for.



Again, no. You can't consume your way out of capitalism. Consuming less is not an 'alternative' to capitalism. In reality, dropping living standards are a key feature of capitalism. They're not things to be celebrated or welcomed.

Capitalism creates poverty -- i.e. mass underconsumption. By claiming that people overconsume under capitalism, you're merely providing apologism for capitalism and its inability to raise living standards -- i.e. consumption levels.All that i'm am saying is that our economic system is extremely wasteful and inefficient. Huge amounts of useable things are thrown away,only in order to be produced again for the capitalists gain.

Of course the long term solution is an efficient economy that is democratically run.

While we are working on that revolution though i think that a free store is a good way actually get people the items they want or need without the exploitative system of capitalism.

[ellipsis]

Capitalism creates poverty -- i.e. mass underconsumption. By claiming that people overconsume under capitalism, you're merely providing apologism for capitalism and its inability to raise living standards -- i.e. consumption levels.

Maybe over and under consumption aren't the right words, idk. I think people misallocate the limited resources they do have, which effectively increases their level of poverty. I frequently see improvised people who live outside their means through rent to own, lay away, credit cards and other forms of credit.
I support myself, my girlfriend and our dog on 10 dollars an hour part time. How? I don't drive; I don't spend money on clothes, cd, appliances, furniture, shit I don't need and if I do need it I usually find a second hand item for free; I dumpster a lot of food; I don't eat meat usually, which reduces my grocery bill. If I really wanted to I could move into a tent and shower at the local parks/beachs and stop paying rent.
Meanwhile people living in subsidized housing down the street drive new escalades.

The rich and poor of this country waste a lot of food and consumer goods. People, particularly young people move around a lot, at least in the US and often time it is merely easier/more convienent to throw out all of their stuff and buy new stuff when they move in to their new place.

Oh I am ranting, I better stop...

[Vanguard1917]

False, capitalists and bosses only benefit from consumption ie: profits.

No. Capitalists benefit from mass consumption only insofar as they can make money out of it. As anyone who has ever been sacked or received a pay cut will tell you, reductions in working class consumption are part and parcel of capitalist profit-making.

The problem with capitalism is that it can't raise mass consumption levels, not that it encourages people to consume 'too much'.



Maybe over and under consumption aren't the right words, idk. I think people misallocate the limited resources they do have, which effectively increases their level of poverty. I frequently see improvised people who live outside their means through rent to own, lay away, credit cards and other forms of credit.
I support myself, my girlfriend and our dog on 10 dollars an hour part time. How? I don't drive; I don't spend money on clothes, cd, appliances, furniture, shit I don't need and if I do need it I usually find a second hand item for free; I dumpster a lot of food; I don't eat meat usually, which reduces my grocery bill. If I really wanted to I could move into a tent and shower at the local parks/beachs and stop paying rent.
Meanwhile people living in subsidized housing down the street drive new escalades.

The rich and poor of this country waste a lot of food and consumer goods. People, particularly young people move around a lot, at least in the US and often time it is merely easier/more convienent to throw out all of their stuff and buy new stuff when they move in to their new place.

Oh I am ranting, I better stop...


Yeah, i think you should, because a lot of that sounds like middle class snobbery to me -- that the masses are greedy and consume too much of the wrong shit, etc.

[DIzzIE]

A couple pertinent quotes the OP (or anyone else interested in free stores) might find inspirational:

Don't let the venom spouting from the fangs of posters like Vanguard1917 or Comrade Joe, who choose to mask their ignorance with hatred, get you down.


THE FREE STORE

The FREE STORE lies at the center of our revolutionary vision. It is the key to organizing longhairs on the Lower East Side. Today there are hundreds who will fight to defend it, tomorrow there will be thousands. It breaks all the rules because it has only one: "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL FROM THE FREE STORE."

Everything is given away free at the FREE STORE and so it is inundated with garbage. When you open a FREE STORE America cleans out her cellar and dumps it in front of your door. America calls this charity and a FREE STORE is not about charity. A FREE STORE accepts no garbage. Return all garbage to its original owner with a map to the nearest garbage dump. Old clothes and books are garbage. Accept old clothes only if you have facilities (sewing machines or tie-dye operations) to turn the garbage into art. A FREE STORE dispenses ART, it does not dispense politics and it does not dispense garbage. For that you can always shop next door.

Everyone asks, "Who runs the FREE STORE?" There can only be one answer: "What do you want?" If you can help the customer then respond, "I run the FREE STORE." If you cannot help the customer then respond, "You run the FREE STORE."

There should be art on the windows and walls. The front should be particularly beautiful, to attract new customers. Making the store beautiful is the first order of business, keeping it beautiful is the second. The store can be called HEAVEN. HEAVEN is where you get whatever you want. You don't spit on the floor in HEAVEN. Paint stars on the ceiling, suspend fluffy clouds from the walls. Construct planets in the aisles. There should always be a supply of sandles, robes, wings and harps for those who wish to play clerk. Use Mylar on the walls. When you look at Mylar walls you look into your soul and smile. Cover the front with phosphorescent paint. It absorbs light and will glow at night. When people ask how the store is run, tell them "by the rays of the sun." In a FREE STORE there are no problems, there are only things to do. It is a free forum of theater in which the forces of art battle the forces of garbage. Who wins is unimportant, for the FREE STORE is a school and the student is repeatedly forced by the vacuum to choose sides. Which side are you on? Are you a garbage collector or are you an artist? The choice is always yours in the FREE STORE.

* * * *

The FREE STORE is expanding in a variety of ways. We are currently redesigning the Astor Place Subway Station, constructing a park, and establishing a number of rent-free communes. In addition, Craft Training Programs (the Liberty House concept) are being set up in the building next door. In time we plan to liberate the whole Lower East Side and turn it into a FREE CITY. It will be the living model of the future.


Christie took up his position near the display of kitchenware. His manner was affable, but his eyes darkened as a squall blew through his mind. He was a Petri dish of mental infections, a smear-culture of grimaces and tics. He leaned behind the refrigerator and spat on the ground, then deployed himself like a salesman, turning a wild smile onto his customers.

'Well, what am I offered?' He caressed the microwave, and addressed a young woman with a daughter pushing a small pram. 'One careful owner, perfect working order, a few chicken kievs, throw in a cheeseburger. Fully reconditioned.'

'How much?' The woman ran a finger over the greasy enamel. 'There's a written guarantee?'

'Written?' Christie rolled his eyes and confided to me: 'A sudden trust in literacy. Written, madam?'

'You know, a printed form.'

'A form...' Christie raised his voice to a shout above the pipe band. 'Madam, nothing is true, nothing is untrue! Say nothing, admit nothing, believe everything...'

The woman and her daughter moved away, taking the small crowd with them. Seeing that I was the last of his audience, Christie turned to me.

'Sir, I've been watching you. Am I right? You have your eye on that refrigerator. The big fellow...?'

I waited as Christie sized me up. I was the enemy, in my dove-grey summer suit, a creature of the Metro-Centre and the retail parks. I was fairly sure that he no longer remembered me. His arrest, the violent police, his appearance at the magistrates' court, had disappeared into some garbage chute at the back of his mind.

'Yes, the big fellow.' I touched the huge wreck of the refrigerator. 'Can I assume it works?'

'Absolutely. Enough ice cubes to freeze the Thames.'

'How much?'

'Well...' Enjoying himself, Christie closed his eyes. 'Seriously, you couldn't afford it.'

'Try me.'

'No point. Believe me, the price is beyond your grasp.'

'Twenty pounds? Fifty pounds?'

'Please...the price is unimaginable.'

'Go on.'

'It's /free/!' An almost maniacal grin distorted Christie's face. 'Free!'

'You mean...?'

'Gratis. Not a penny, not a euro, zilch.' Christie patted me cheerfully on the shoulder. 'Free. An inconceivable concept. Look at you. It's outside your entire experience. You can't cope with it.'

'I can cope.'

'I doubt it.' Confidentially, Christie lowered his voice. 'I come every Saturday, sooner or later someone asks, "How much?" "Free," I say. They're stunned, they react as if I'm trying to steal from them. That's capitalism for you. Nothing can be free. The idea makes them sick, they want to call the police, leave messages for their accountants. They feel unworthy, convinced they've sinned. They have to rush off and buy something just to get their breath back...'

'Very good.' I waited as he lit a roll-up. 'I thought it might be a piece of street theatre. But in fact you're making a serious point.'

[...]

As his wife climbed from the driving cab he called out: 'Maya...a close shave, I nearly had a customer.'

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

None of this is building a class conscious socitey but rather you are just handing things out. Dont let life stylists ***** let you think this is in any way revolutionary (im not saying dont do it , im saying its not revolutionary).


- That word has been deemed offensive by this forum, please don't use it. - Plagueround.

- Oh come of it. - Comrade Joe

[DIzzIE]

From your prior comments in this thread it's abundantly clear that neither you nor Vanguard1917 have any fucking clue what a free store is; so mayhap you should cease opining about matters you're entirely ignorant of? Or come to think of it, do keep running your mouth about how a free store is some sort of ersatz garbage dump, as it does provide me with entertainment :lol:.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Your right its obviously alot more then just giving shit away.

Its giving shit away and being a wanker about it.

[bobroberts]

Again, no. You can't consume your way out of capitalism. Consuming less is not an 'alternative' to capitalism. In reality, dropping living standards are a key feature of capitalism. They're not things to be celebrated or welcomed.

Capitalism creates poverty -- i.e. mass underconsumption. By claiming that people overconsume under capitalism, you're merely providing apologism for capitalism and its inability to raise living standards -- i.e. consumption levels.

You shouldn't link consumption to standards of living. They are not related, especially under capitalism. There is a system of propaganda under capitalism that encourages and manipulates people into buying and consuming products they have no rational need for, and to seek emotional fulfillment, social status, (or whatever it is they find useful in selling product to their target group) through consumption. By promoting this kind of consumption, human effort is diverted away from addressing human needs and meaningful rises in the standard of living, and rewards those who do so with financial success. It also invites larger calamities by burning through resources in a world with finite resources, and production methods which harm the workers, community, and the people who consume the products. Breaking the spell of capitalist propaganda designed to encourage meaningless consumption, and measuring progress by how many items an individual can consume, is a necessary step towards ending capitalism.

[Vanguard1917]

You shouldn't link consumption to standards of living. They are not related, especially under capitalism. There is a system of propaganda under capitalism that encourages and manipulates people into buying and consuming products they have no rational need for, and to seek emotional fulfillment, social status, (or whatever it is they find useful in selling product to their target group) through consumption.

Like what?

[bobroberts]

It is hard to explain briefly. If you have the capability, I would suggest watching "The Century of The Self" (there is a thread on this forum about it here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/century-self-freudians-t102270/index.html ) which goes into detail about it. Or you can watch "The Persuaders" which is available onilne here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/ .

The basic point is that our society is deeply manipulated by groups which profit by manipulating us into consuming whatever good it is they are trying to sell. The methods in which they do so are pervasive. We would be better off by recognizing this manipulation and exposing it for what it is, rather than viewing it as some ingrained desire in the common man being fulfilled in the capitalist mode of consumption, which is wasteful by design.

[Vanguard1917]

The basic point is that our society is deeply manipulated by groups which profit by manipulating us into consuming whatever good it is they are trying to sell. The methods in which they do so are pervasive. We would be better off by recognizing this manipulation and exposing it for what it is, rather than viewing it as some ingrained desire in the common man being fulfilled in the capitalist mode of consumption, which is wasteful by design.

On the whole, I don't think that people are being 'manipulated' into consuming what they consume. People are not sheep or zombies, but have brains and are capable of making conscious decisions as to what they buy with their limited funds. Working class people in general first buy the things that they need, and then, if there is any money left over, the extra things that they desire. They're not children who are hypnotised and led astray by adverts that they see on TV. We need to view people with a bit more respect than that.

[ellipsis]

Yeah, i think you should, because a lot of that sounds like middle class snobbery to me -- that the masses are greedy and consume too much of the wrong shit, etc.

I don't know where so-called comrades on a) judging people for what class they were born into and b) calling me middle class as if it were an insult, despite that fact that I am a seasonal laborer/landscaper and "wage slave." I wonder if somebody with the free time to write more than 2500 posts on this forum could say the same thing.

If that wasn't bad enough, you completely misunderstand my point. It has nothing to due with greed, which implies conscious desire. Would you agree that the culture industry manipulates consumers into unconsciously living beyond their means? Often by consuming products which they do not need or even want, products which serve no beneficial societal function?

Eating meat is inherently wasteful. Personal automobiles are inherently wasteful. Mass consumerism is inherently wasteful. These are facts. By taking oneself out of the wasteful system of capitalism as much as possible and by appropriating waste for socially beneficial reasons, one becomes less complicit in the exploitative system of capitalism, becomes less oppressed and subjugated by it and attempts to heal the wounds that it causes, however temporary the fix. That is how freeganism works and that is why it is simply one solution, but not THE solution to the situation at hand. Once people realize that they don't have to rely on the capitalist class to survive, class consciousness becomes that much closer to being realized.

[Plagueround]

Eating meat is inherently wasteful. Personal automobiles are inherently wasteful. Mass consumerism is inherently wasteful. These are facts.

If I lived in a remote location, hunted for my own food, and owned an automobile that I used to travel long distances to the nearest town when I needed supplies, could you empirically demonstrate that I would be more wasteful than someone who rides a city bus regularly to a farmers market to buy vegetables?

[ellipsis]

They're not children who are hypnotised and led astray by adverts that they see on TV. We need to view people with a bit more respect than that.

Sorry didn't see this post on the next page. I have a friend who works in advertising and tells me the level of analysis and synthesis goes into marketing products, i.e. where they are put on shelves, which displays attract the most number of consumers for the longest periods of time, they even installed RFID in shopping carts so that they could track and analyze consumers movement within a store and display ads on monitors in their carts alerting them about items near by being on sale. If this amount of science is devoted to marketing and advertising, don't you think that they are getting some return on their investment? Why are ads in movies and tv shows, on pizza boxes, the sides of cars, people's clothes, literally everywhere? BECAUSE THEY WORK! People's mind's are formed entirely based on information which as been feed into, if people cannot escape seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching advertisements, that is going to have a signifant influence on their behavior.

Before my young nieces knew how to read, they knew what the Monster Energy drink logo meant. At stores they attempt to pay with imaginary credit cards.

If you so desire, I would recommend the film The Corporation (free online) and Alfuenza, a PBS doc.

[ellipsis]

If I lived in a remote location, hunted for my own food, and owned an automobile that I used to travel long distances to the nearest town when I needed supplies, could you empirically demonstrate that I would be more wasteful than someone who rides a city bus regularly to a farmers market to buy vegetables?

If given the correct data, possibly. It would help if you carpooled with other remote location dwellers or better yet walk, bike or hitch hike.

I should have said "farm-raised meat."

[Plagueround]

Sorry didn't see this post on the next page. I have a friend who works in advertising and tells me the level of analysis and synthesis goes into marketing products, i.e. where they are put on shelves, which displays attract the most number of consumers for the longest periods of time, they even installed RFID in shopping carts so that they could track and analyze consumers movement within a store and display ads on monitors in their carts alerting them about items near by being on sale. If this amount of science is devoted to marketing and advertising, don't you think that they are getting some return on their investment? Why are ads in movies and tv shows, on pizza boxes, the sides of cars, people's clothes, literally everywhere? BECAUSE THEY WORK! People's mind's are formed entirely based on information which as been feed into, if people cannot escape seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching advertisements, that is going to have a signifant influence on their behavior.

Before my young nieces knew how to read, they knew what the Monster Energy drink logo meant. At stores they attempt to pay with imaginary credit cards.

If you so desire, I would recommend the film The Corporation (free online) and Alfuenza, a PBS doc.

I was so sad the day my 2 and a half year old son cheerily pointed out the McDonald's logo to me, despite the fact he's never been in the store. The amount of advertising aimed at young kids is scary, and you can't really escape from it...(unless you go live out in the woods...but that's another thread I'm dealing with, not this one).

Fortunately, if someone asks him about it now, he replies "McDonald's is icky!" ;)

[Plagueround]

If given the correct data, possibly. It would help if you carpooled with other remote location dwellers or better yet walk, bike or hitch hike.

I should have said "farm-raised meat."

I would say I'd be using less resources than anyone who uses the internet. :lol:
(http://www.gimmiethescoop.com/data-center-power-consumption-global-warming-will-the-web-crash)

[Vanguard1917]

I don't know where so-called comrades on a) judging people for what class they were born into and b) calling me middle class as if it were an insult, despite that fact that I am a seasonal laborer/landscaper and "wage slave." I wonder if somebody with the free time to write more than 2500 posts on this forum could say the same thing.

I'm not judging you according to your personal background. I'm criticising your views, which sound like middle class snobbery, whether you yourself are middle class or not.



If that wasn't bad enough, you completely misunderstand my point. It has nothing to due with greed, which implies conscious desire. Would you agree that the culture industry manipulates consumers into unconsciously living beyond their means? Often by consuming products which they do not need or even want, products which serve no beneficial societal function?



Like what?



Eating meat is inherently wasteful.


No, it isn't. Modern mass meat production technology and methods mean that we can produce meat more efficiently than ever before. With further progress and innovation, we can make it even more efficient.



Personal automobiles are inherently wasteful.


No, they're not. They can often help us get from a to b quicker and more comfortably than alternative modes of transport.



Mass consumerism is inherently wasteful.


I don't know what you mean by 'mass consumerism', but increases in mass consumption -- i.e. the widespread, mass consumption of goods -- are a good thing for those of us who hate mass poverty.



These are facts.


Not quite.



By taking oneself out of the wasteful system of capitalism as much as possible and by appropriating waste for socially beneficial reasons, one becomes less complicit in the exploitative system of capitalism, becomes less oppressed and subjugated by it and attempts to heal the wounds that it causes, however temporary the fix.


Good for you. Be a 'freegan' if it makes you feel good. But is buying shit from jumble sales and charity shops any kind of alternative to capitalism for 6.5 billion people? No, it's not even an alternative for those who are forced to buy second-hand stuff because, due to their poverty, they have no other choice.

If we want an alternative to this system, we don't need self-gratifying lifestylist nonsense, but a serious critique of the system, a system which can't provide the goods for all.

[Vanguard1917]

I was so sad the day my 2 and a half year old son cheerily pointed out the McDonald's logo to me, despite the fact he's never been in the store. The amount of advertising aimed at young kids is scary, and you can't really escape from it...(unless you go live out in the woods...but that's another thread I'm dealing with, not this one).

Fortunately, if someone asks him about it now, he replies "McDonald's is icky!" ;)

I personally really like the family-friendly atmosphere of McDonald's, and i can easily see why kids love McD's so much. Tasty food, tolerant staff, toys, colourful pictures on the walls... It's an ideal place for a quick munch, especially when you have kids with you.

[Delirium]

Well think about it this way, either you can work 3 hours at a minimum wage job to earn $22 in order to go and buy a pair of sneakers, or you can go get a pair from the dumpster or the free store for nothing. Which is better for a human being? To have to work a degrading job in order to buy necessities or to get them from someone who does not need them?


No, it isn't. Modern mass meat production technology and methods mean that we can produce meat more efficiently than ever before. With further progress and innovation, we can make it even more efficient.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality


No, they're not. They can often help us get from a to b quicker and more comfortably than alternative modes of transport.

The only reason why cars are the dominant for of transportation is because there was and is a conscious effort to undermine other forms of transportation ( trains and buses) while massively subsidizing the automobile industry.

Here are some basics about consumerism for you to read.


Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#cite_note-CIWeb-0) is the process of a product (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29) becoming obsolete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete) and/or non-functional after a certain period or amount of use in a way that is planned or designed by the manufacturer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturer).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#cite_note-CIWeb-0) Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production,_costs,_and_pricing) because the product fails and the consumer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer) is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_%28economics%29) which might also rely on planned obsolescence.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence#cite_note-CIWeb-0) The purpose of planned obsolescence is to hide the real cost per use from the consumer, and charge a higher price than they would otherwise be willing to pay (or would be unwilling to spend all at once).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
[/URL]


Perceived obsolescence appeals to our psyche and tries to lead us into thinking that the products we have are already obsolete, useless and must be upgraded to better models. The major contributors to the success of perceived obsolescence is media advertising and social pressure. Furthermore, companies complement this strategy by stopping production and support for old versions and doing an aggressive marketing campaign on the advantages of the new model.

[url]http://fitzvillafuerte.com/the-relationship-of-obsolescence-and-frugality-part-2.html (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence)

[ellipsis]

Like what? Lets see: CDs/DVDs, cheap plastic stuff which is going to break (see delirium's post), jewelry, designer clothes, video games, junk food, extraneous home decor, etc. If you have never gone dumpster diving, you probably don't realize what a throw-away consumerist culture there is, at least in the US. Whenever people move, they throw away tons of useful items that they don't want to deal with. Young people especially move around alot, even more so for those in college/university. This spring go check out university dumpsters at the end of the semester. My friends find food, beer, ipods and other electronics, clothes, furniture, etc.


No, it isn't. Modern mass meat production technology and methods mean that we can produce meat more efficiently than ever before. With further progress and innovation, we can make it even more efficient.
Despite any innovation in meat production, the fact remains that it takes many more pounds of grain to feed livestock than pounds of meat to get in return. Also you can grow more non-meat foods than you can raise meat on the same ammount of land. Add to this the MASSIVE ammounts of waste (which produces %10 of global CO2 emmissions), the anti-biotics and horomones fed to livestock, the energy it take to refrigerate the meat from slaughterhouse to consumer.


No, they're not. They can often help us get from a to b quicker and more comfortably than alternative modes of transport. Quicker and more comfortably yes. But you are consuming more than your fair share of petrol in the process, making more than your fair share of pollution


I don't know what you mean by 'mass consumerism', but increases in mass consumption -- i.e. the widespread, mass consumption of goods -- are a good thing for those of us who hate mass poverty. Consumerism≠consumption.


Good for you. Be a 'freegan' if it makes you feel good. But is buying shit from jumble sales and charity shops any kind of alternative to capitalism for 6.5 billion people? No, it's not even an alternative for those who are forced to buy second-hand stuff because, due to their poverty, they have no other choice.

If we want an alternative to this system, we don't need self-gratifying lifestylist nonsense, but a serious critique of the system, a system which can't provide the goods for all.

This discussion seems to be an exercise in futility. Not only are you talking down to me, but you aren't even listening to what I am saying.

[Pogue]

I see nothing wrong with sharing and making full use of your environment. I see alot more right in class struggle though.

[Vanguard1917]

Lets see: CDs/DVDs, cheap plastic stuff which is going to break (see delirium's post), jewelry, designer clothes, video games, junk food, extraneous home decor, etc.


What's wrong with fast food, household entertainment, and decorating your house? Nothing really. They're just things which you have decided to rally against. You believe in austerity and simple living. That's fine. But you also want to enforce your personal lifestyle choice on to others.

In the 19th century, the desire to make everyone live the simple life, free from amusements and other 'wasteful' distractions, was called puritanism.



Despite any innovation in meat production, the fact remains that it takes many more pounds of grain to feed livestock than pounds of meat to get in return.


Even so, people do not want to eat just grain; they also want to eat meat -- a food product which is, btw, highly nutritious, as any nutrition expert will tell you.

Therefore, we need advanced meat production methods to try to produce enough meat to satisfy human wants. What you seem to want to do is dictate to people what they can and cannot eat.

That's authoritarianism.



Quicker and more comfortably yes.


Exactly. Therefore, we can't say that it's a 'waste'. It's a superior form of transport, at least in those two senses.



Consumerism≠consumption.



For you, they seem to be the same thing. You see rising levels of mass consumption as a problem -- as wasteful, greedy, and so on --and you refer to it as 'consumerism'.