Work less, buy less?

[Klepto]

Some years ago I saw the phrase 'Work less, buy less' spray painted on a fence behind which a new retail outlet was under construction. This struck me as a very concise statement of a concept that I personally believe: in order to truly reject consumerism you must also reject the incentives it provides to it's adherents, specifically more (often trivial, sometimes useless) material possessions and luxury services (foreign holidays etc.). Stereotypically this manifests itself as the urge to buy shoes in women, and gadgets in men. It seems that Marxism predicted this phenomenon with the realisation that Capitalism leads to overproduction and must therefore constantly expand into or create new markets. We are taught to 'Need what recently didn't exist!'.


We're run by the Pentagon, we're run by Madison Avenue, we're run by television, and as long as we accept those things and don't revolt we'll have to go along with the stream to the eventual avalanche… As long as we go out and buy stuff, we're at their mercy. We're at the mercy of the advertiser and of course there are certain things that we need, but a lot of the stuff that is bought is not needed.

In addition to the general wish to consume as little as possible while still maintaining a comfortable life, I also refuse to buy certain products or from certain companies. I remember when I was young that there were campaigns to discourage people from buying South African oranges in order to pressure that country to abandon it's policy of apartheid, I try and practice this in a wider context.

I have seen several posts here that seem to frown on any such boycotts, either generally or in specific cases. Is this the predominant view, and if so then why?

[Plagueround]

I can see where this thread is going. Might as well wheel out the VG1917 theme song.

[GPDP]

I can see where this thread is going. Might as well wheel out the VG1917 theme song.

ahahaha, this.

[Lynx]

I practice this.

[Invincible Summer]

I used to be much more cautious as to what I purchased - I would try to buy "ethical" clothing and food and I was into that mindset a few years ago, until I realized that it's 90% of the time a marketing ploy.

I mean, I'm still going to prefer to buy union-made clothing and not shop at Wal-mart or whatever, but one must be cautious as to avoid getting trapped in the "radical consumer" mindset where one believes that their "leftist" buying habits will affect capitalism.

[al8]

^^This.

And as well. It is unjustified that consumers, that are not in the loop in the production process be made responsible for the ways of production.
What revolutionary leftists are about is to end mismanagment, unequal and unfair distribution that stem from the systemic flaws of capitalism. And instead institute smart, well managed, rational production at an increased level to meet peoples demands instead of moneyed demand.

Limiting wage attainment and purchases is a reformist intra-systemic strategy that is ulitmately futile and unconnected to our program.

[bobroberts]

I think it's important to understand what influences us to want the things we do, how it happens, and why it happens. Do some investigation into the history of wonderful world of public relations, and the lengths people go to in order to influence our decisions to buy this or that, or vote this way or that way, and it's hard not to be repulsed. What we want and desire, in the consumerist context at least, is shaped by forces and stimuli outside our own control. The less we know about these forces, how and why they manifest themselves in our lives, and what they are trying to accomplish, the easier it is to manipulate us.

[Klepto]

Thanks for you replies, I think I understand a little more now.


I used to be much more cautious as to what I purchased - I would try to buy "ethical" clothing and food and I was into that mindset a few years ago, until I realized that it's 90% of the time a marketing ploy.
I'm aware of this, I'm not talking about buying into the 'Fair Trade' scheme. I'd go further and say that 100% of the time they are about marketing, but in some cases they may actually be of real benefit to the workers they are supposed to benefit. AFAIK the only thing I buy that actually has a Fair Trade logo on it is Cuban orange juice (although given the environmental impact of shipping it a third of the way around the world perhaps I shouldn't).


...one must be cautious as to avoid getting trapped in the "radical consumer" mindset where one believes that their "leftist" buying habits will affect capitalism.
Agreed, nothing is gained by slavishly buying things portrayed as ethically unencumbered by the advertisers. I don't for a second think that my buying habits will change the world, but our buying habits together just might, a little, sometimes. I don't think that one less car in the world will have any impact on climate change, but (for environmental reasons) I have never owned a car.


It is unjustified that consumers, that are not in the loop in the production process be made responsible for the ways of production.
Yes, but if I become aware that a particular company is conducting itself in a way that I particularly disapprove of should I carry on giving them my money regardless? To do so would seem defeatist and fatalistic.


What revolutionary leftists are about is to end mismanagment, unequal and unfair distribution that stem from the systemic flaws of capitalism. And instead institute smart, well managed, rational production at an increased level to meet peoples demands
instead of moneyed demand.
While I agree wholeheartedly with most of that, why the increased level of production? It seems to me that here in Scotland at least there is a huge surplus of material goods, many of which serve no practical use. If capitalism leads to overproduction then why should that overproduction continue or be increased after the revolution? It seems to me that the current levels of production already require large scale psychological manipulation (marketing) in order to justify themselves.


Limiting wage attainment and purchases is a reformist intra-systemic strategy that is ulitmately futile and unconnected to our program.
Thank you for this insightful answer to my general point on minimising one's economic footprint. This is the kind of answer I was looking for, I will consider your words carefully.


I think it's important to understand what influences us to want the things we do, how it happens, and why it happens. Do some investigation into the history of wonderful world of public relations, and the lengths people go to in order to influence our decisions to buy this or that, or vote this way or that way, and it's hard not to be repulsed. What we want and desire, in the consumerist context at least, is shaped by forces and stimuli outside our own control. The less we know about these forces, how and why they manifest themselves in our lives, and what they are trying to accomplish, the easier it is to manipulate us.
Well said. I try to be aware of the forces that are manipulating me, and understand their methods.

[al8]

While I agree wholeheartedly with most of that, why the increased level of production? It seems to me that here in Scotland at least there is a huge surplus of material goods, many of which serve no practical use. If capitalism leads to overproduction then why should that overproduction continue or be increased after the revolution? It seems to me that the current levels of production already require large scale psychological manipulation (marketing) in order to justify themselves.

Of course there will be the kind adjustments where some areas produce less and others more, resulting from the structural changes in society. I expect fx. that the obcene luxury products of the rich will stop being produced.

But one the whole I gather there will be increased production because real demand would reveal itself to be alot more then when demand was thought of and measured as moneyed demand.

And I don't think overproduction will be a problem in a rational, planned economy; especially now with the advent of advanced information technology.

[Charles Xavier]

Thats it because of don't consume hippies like you who buy into this marketting ploy I'm going to buy 5 copies of microsoft windows vista and everyday I'm going to buy 2 litres of Coca-cola at walmart to off set your stupidity.

I hate these pretentious asshole who blame the working class for consuming goods and services for the problems of the world. The problem isn't consumption its capitalism. And you cannot stop capitalism by not consuming. You can just stop yourself from making any sense.

[Cumannach]

While I agree wholeheartedly with most of that, why the increased level of production? It seems to me that here in Scotland at least there is a huge surplus of material goods, many of which serve no practical use. If capitalism leads to overproduction then why should that overproduction continue or be increased after the revolution? It seems to me that the current levels of production already require large scale psychological manipulation (marketing) in order to justify themselves.


Capitalism leads to overproduction of goods in the sense that it produces more of a certain product than can actually be sold profitably on a flooded market. That's different to producing products which can be sold profitably on the market but which are really a waste of social production by virtue of the nature of the products.

[Hit The North]

Thats it because of don't consume hippies like you who buy into this marketting ploy I'm going to buy 5 copies of microsoft windows vista and everyday I'm going to buy 2 litres of Coca-cola at walmart to off set your stupidity.


Of course, capital is the product of labour and can only complete its motion (and therefore reproduce itself) if workers buy the commodities which embody it with the wages they get from their exploitation. So pretending that consumption is not a problem under capitalism and - more crucially - part of the problem, is to misunderstand capitalism and the place of workers within it.

I mean, good luck if you want to squander your time and labour power on chasing the illusory happiness of 'stuff' - but at least have the intelligence to understand the role you're playing in the reproduction of your own oppression.

[Invincible Summer]

Thats it because of don't consume hippies like you who buy into this marketting ploy I'm going to buy 5 copies of microsoft windows vista and everyday I'm going to buy 2 litres of Coca-cola at walmart to off set your stupidity.

I hate these pretentious asshole who blame the working class for consuming goods and services for the problems of the world. The problem isn't consumption its capitalism. And you cannot stop capitalism by not consuming. You can just stop yourself from making any sense.

These "pretentious assholes" aren't directly blaming the working class, they're saying that everyone has a part in perpetuating the over-production and consumption inherent in a capitalist society.

Yes, the working class is large relative to the owning class, but I dont' think anyone is saying "YOU! PROLETARIAN! YOU'RE A FOOL FOR BUYING THINGS!"

If you want to take anti-consumerist rhetoric personally, that's your problem.



Of course, capital is the product of labour and can only complete its motion (and therefore reproduce itself) if workers buy the commodities which embody it with the wages they get from their exploitation. So pretending that consumption is not a problem under capitalism and - more crucially - part of the problem, is to misunderstand capitalism and the place of workers within it.

I mean, good luck if you want to squander your time and labour power on chasing the illusory happiness of 'stuff' - but at least have the intelligence to understand the role you're playing in the reproduction of your own oppression.

I agree - even though boycotting certain products is not going to halt capitalism in its tracks, the fact that some people recognize that consumerism is part of the capitalist problem is already positive. They may not consider themselves radicals or revolutionaries, but the potential is there.

[al8]

Comsuming itself isn't the problem, it's the context within which it takes place. That is in capitalism. In other words; in an inefficient and irrational system of production and distribution, that does not meet peoples demands properly.

[al8]

I just finished watching a video by a linguist that I subscribe to on youtube, that I think might be of relevance here.

-W0JIlyOWbg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W0JIlyOWbg

He offered an allegory of the development of shaving tools over his lifetime to contrast it to the development of foreign language acqusition teaching aid.

I think he somewhat unwittingly shed light on the waste, inefficiencies and impracticalities of hyped merchendice. Merchendise with inbuilt obsolecence and outbuilt obsolecence stemming from the way capitalists control the instruments of production, distribution and communications. They gear it first and foremost to find purchasers to buy the stuff that they peddle for sale, and keep them buying it (instead of producing to meet need or wants in an ever advanced way). By the general way in which capitalism fuctions, artificial scarcity is rewarded since sturdy, durable, functional products would eventually ("saturate the market"/"make the market full",) make products too abundant, that is, more numerous, thus both cheap and widely already owned. Thus it is profitable to make short-lived products so they can be sold more often and be produced more steadily.

[Saorsa]

To argue that workers should voluntarily reduce their living standards due to some ridiculous idea that they are consuming too much for the "environment" to handle is utterly reactionary. I eat at McDonalds at least once every couple of days on average and I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt for doing that, nor should anybody else. Our task is to organise, educate and agitate amongst workers with the goal of overturning capitalist property relations and establishing a society based upon workers power. Our task is not to do the job of the capitalist class for them and tell workers that their consuming too much out of some ridiculous, misguided notion of "environmentalism".

[Lynx]

This slogan can be reversed: Buy less, work less.
If you enjoy working like a dog then by all means buy lots of stuff and make sure you are up to your eyeballs in debt. Life is so much better that way :rolleyes:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I inconsistently agree with the OP. I understand I'm not going to change the system but it is more for my own concious. I feel bad eating some products or buying from some companies. I don't understand what's wrong about that?

[Klepto]

To argue that workers should voluntarily reduce their living standards
I'm not arguing that, I'm asking why there is obvious hostility to my personal choice to reject consumerism. I'm an anarchist, I don't want to force anyone to live according to my rules.


due to some ridiculous ideaWhy ridiculous? The only ridiculous aspect to my original post is the fact that some people here ridicule and misrepresent what I am saying. Communism is ridiculed in mainstream capitalist society, does that make it ridiculous?


that they are consuming too much for the "environment" to handleWhile I do believe that capitalist overproduction is harmful to the environment this was not the focus of my post. I never made the point you ascribe to me, please argue against what I have said rather than some general point you feel I might believe.


is utterly reactionary.Yes it's reactionary, it's a reaction against profligate consumerism. AFAIK pretty much all leftist thinking is a reaction against capitalism, does that make it ridiculous too?


I eat at McDonalds at least once every couple of days on average and I don't feel the slightest bit of guilt for doing that, nor should anybody else.Your belief that you are the sole judge of morality is IMO worthy of ridicule. I'll feel guilty about what I damn well please.


Our task is to organise, educate and agitate amongst workers with the goal of overturning capitalist property relations and establishing a society based upon workers power.That seems a bit narrow to me, my task is to try to make the world a better place for my children. I believe the best way to do this is to make the world a better place for all children.


Our task is not to do the job of the capitalist class for them and tell workers that their consuming too much out of some ridiculous, misguided notion of "environmentalism".
Do you think that 'climate change' is a conspiracy dreamed up by our masters in order to better control us? If so then please start another thread on the subject, it's not what this thread is about.

[ZeroNowhere]

Do you think that 'climate change' is a conspiracy dreamed up by our masters in order to better control us? If so then please start another thread on the subject, it's not what this thread is about.
Overhyped, yes, by Al Gore among others (Hell, I've heard some Greens talk about a climate sensitivity of 10 degrees celsius. What), dreamed up, no. However, how much people consume is irrelevant here, and environmentalism is irrelevant anywhere.
Not to say that environmentalism is necessarily against consumption. Greens consume more (to break it down, in general, the richer you are, the greener you are, and richer you are, the more you consume), they just make themselves feel better by being totally 'ethical' and 'environmental' and crap.


I'm not arguing that, I'm asking why there is obvious hostility to my personal choice to reject consumerism. I'm an anarchist, I don't want to force anyone to live according to my rules.
Mainly the talk about 'consumerism'. I mean, yes, there is a powerful ad industry, and yes, capitalists do try to convince people to buy shit, but the word and discussion of 'consumerism' assumes that there's something bad about... Consumption. Capitalism is the problem with consumption, consumption is not a problem.


Yes it's reactionary, it's a reaction against profligate consumerism. AFAIK pretty much all leftist thinking is a reaction against capitalism, does that make it ridiculous too?
What.
You could have at least googled 'reactionary' or something before that.


In addition to the general wish to consume as little as possible while still maintaining a comfortable life, I also refuse to buy certain products or from certain companies.
Which does pretty much nothing at all. I mean, really, the only reason that I don't eat at McDonald's is that I don't like the food (though it's probably quite good for family trips with children), and the only reason I don't drink Coke is that it's boring. But really, 'work less, buy less' is a lifestyle choice. I have no issue with hermits and whatever people want to do, but only as long as they're not portraying it as somehow a better lifestyle and revolution against something or the other rather than personal preference. Consuming less on principle achieves nothing whatsoever, and there's no actual reason to do it. Well, except to get some artificial feeling of happiness that the 'anti-consumerists' are so quick to attack the 'consumerists' for.

[Klepto]

What.
You could have at least googled 'reactionary' or something before that.You have a point there. I'm aware the word isn't generally used to mean what I was meaning, particularly in the context of leftist politics. I will try not to make the same mistake again.