Arguments against buying from Corporations

[Lyev]

I find sometimes people can infuriatingly apathetic when buying Coca-Cola or Nike or huge companies like that. They just don't seem to care. I was thinking it would be useful for me and everyone else on the forum if people could post facts, examples or arguments that I could dispense to pricks wearing their wanky Nike trainers.

By the way I think I was right in posting this in the Politics forum, wasn't sure where else to put it.

[Raúl Duke]

Here's a link about Coca-Cola's anti-union work which as a tactic uses right-wing paramilitaries against union organizers

Link (http://www.mediamouse.org/corporate/cocacola.php)

In most cases, in my observations, some people might care about this, while another (perhaps larger) group of people will not (which then divides between those who feign caring yet go one buying said products without a 2nd thought and those who straight up don't care).

[OneNamedNameLess]

I was thinking it would be useful for me and everyone else on the forum if people could post facts, examples or arguments that I could dispense to pricks wearing their wanky Nike trainers.

Great idea.

I have been thinking of starting a thread, maybe in OI, about the crimes of corporations and companies for a while now. If I think of the high street in the UK Topshop, Primark, River Island and so on, I can come up with unethical operations by all of them. The same goes for fast food chains such as McDonald's, KFC etc, supermarkets including Marks and Spencer, Tesco and the like and don't get me started on brands! This would really highlight the evils of capitalism and indicate just how wide spread the problem is.

[Korchagin]

Such kind of thinking is impractical and unreasonable. I don't drink Coca-Cola wear Nike shoes not because they are owned by capitalists, but because their products are junk. My Toyota was produced by exploited labor, but I still have to drive because this form of transportation is essential, especially in an area like mine where there is an underdeveloped public transportation system. I used to have this "boycott corporations" mentality before I realized how stupid and senseless it is.

[Charles Xavier]

Umm... so walk around naked and grow your own food? Come on honestly now. Someone takes away my Adidas and I will punch you in the face. 99% of the clothes out there Niked or not are made in sweat shop conditions. We are fighting capitalism not consumerism. If I had a bigger wage I would be a bigger consumer.

[Radical]

I find sometimes people can infuriatingly apathetic when buying Coca-Cola or Nike or huge companies like that. They just don't seem to care. I was thinking it would be useful for me and everyone else on the forum if people could post facts, examples or arguments that I could dispense to pricks wearing their wanky Nike trainers.

By the way I think I was right in posting this in the Politics forum, wasn't sure where else to put it.

Sadly from my experiences with the British Left and On RevLeft. The majority are all FOR buying Coca-Cola and Mcdonalds.

Whereas I believe as Communists we should try our best to avoid the major corporations. We need Capitalism to survive. However we dont need to drink Coca Cola and eat Mcdonalds.

There are many anarchists that try to avoid Capitalism to the point they grow all their own vegetables and make their own clothes.

I am also strongly critical of those so-called Communists that smoke weed in Britan. Due to the fact Weed is almost always linked to Crime, Prostitution and Exploitation.

[Ned Flanders]

Umm... so walk around naked and grow your own food? Come on honestly now. Someone takes away my Adidas and I will punch you in the face. 99% of the clothes out there Niked or not are made in sweat shop conditions. We are fighting capitalism not consumerism. If I had a bigger wage I would be a bigger consumer.
I agree in principle. I once made the decision to stop drinking coca cola and stop buying products for instance from Nestlé etc. But it doesn´t matter what capitalists I "choose to do business with" because the nature of the system is always the same. This sort of "responsible consumer" rhetoric is bullshit in my opinion. Each of us has money in a bank, which the bank uses to invest in those very same corporations you might be boycotting. And the pension funds in most western countries are investment funds who invest as well in those very same corporations. We should also remember that people who live on low income are usually forced to by their products from the bigger capitalists because they can afford to offer products at a lower price. I also think if you subscribe to the "responsible consumer" philosophy you are giving up to the neoliberal bullshit about the "democratic nature of the market". You can´t live outside the system. Instead of boycotting this or that corporation, we should strive to overthrow them all.

[bellyscratch]

I think people should try not to buy from the 'unethical corporations' but at the end of the day it won't achieve anything on a grand scale and you can't just boycott all of them because you won't be able to live a decent standard of life if you do. Its just too impractical for most people to boycott them and you'll have a massive job on your hands to convince people to do so. We have to bring down the system which they take advantage of to make any real difference, because even if you succeeded on bringing one of these corporations down, another just as unethical corporation, will take its place.

Also, if you look at something like Primark, then many people are forced to buy clothes from there because they barely have any money. We don't want to isolate people who are poor by telling them they are 'bad people' for buying cheap clothes, otherwise we will isolate them from the movement.

I have no objective at all for people trying not to buy from the worst corporations out there and I do try do it myself as much as I can, but just don't beat yourself up over it and put you efforts into getting people organised to change the entire system.

[Agrippa]

I think self-sustainability / autonomy from the capitalist mode of production should be a major goal (if not the goal) of the anti-capitalist movement.

However, this is different than boycott politics which are totally ineffectual and bourgeois.

The reason people purchase Coca-Cola is not out of sympathy for the practices of the Coca-Cola corporation, but because it is a cheap source of caffeine and HFCS, two addictive substances. Badgering them about murdered union leaders is not going to persuade them to stop, it's just going to annoy them and dissuade them from further engagement.

The idea that even within the paradigm of anti-capitalism, there are hyper-capitalist "corporations" that are uniquely unethical is unscientific and anti-communist. Small, local businesses also oppress their workers, and can have just as negative of an impact in the communities they operate it. (For example, retail-driven gentrification is usually conducted mostly by "small businesses") Ironically, it's actually the local businesses that boycotting can be an effective tactic against, not the corporations.

Even if enough people boycotted the 10 or 15 worst corporations to the point where those corporations went out of business, (something that would never happen) other corporations would naturally assume their place according to the basic principles of capitalist profits. So what's the point?

Also, the tendencies of Leftists / Social Democrats to decide which are the "very worst" corporations tend to be irrational, driven by random, subjective aesthetic declarations, etc. For example, why is Wal-Mart worse than Target, McDonalds worse than Burger King, etc.?


I am also strongly critical of those so-called Communists that smoke weed.

Even glaucoma sufferers?

[Sarah Palin]

In the 21st century, it is impossible not to by from a huge corporation, unless of course you're making everything yourself. But some of you may say that there are still small organic food companies. Wrong. Take a look at this: https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html . I guess the best you can do is try hard to by things such as clothes that are union made.

[Lyev]

Ok, I know it is impossible to avoid buying from these companies. By the very nature of capitalism and therefore competition the small business is becoming more and more elusive. I do try to avoid buying from corporations and I do realise that boycotting products isn't going to damage the corporations business. However I still feel it's important to know where the things I'm buying have come from.

Even though I agree that boycotting products won't really achieve much I still think it's important for the consumer to know where their food or clothes come from or under what conditions they were produced. The title of the thread was 'Arguments against buying from Corporations' not 'Tell me why boycotting is inneffectual'.

[Agrippa]

By the very nature of capitalism and therefore competition the small business is becoming more and more elusive.

Do you have any proof? I don't see any way the small merchant class could be totally eliminated in the near future. If all economic operations were conducted by super-conglomorates like Wal-Mart, capitalism would be less stable...if anything, the capitalist order is becoming more "localized" as a response to ecological crisis.


I do try to avoid buying from corporations and I do realise that boycotting products isn't going to damage the corporations business.

Then why bother avoiding it?


However I still feel it's important to know where the things I'm buying have come from.

Absolutely.


Even though I agree that boycotting products won't really achieve much I still think it's important for the consumer to know where their food or clothes come from or under what conditions they were produced.

Perhaps, especially in regards to where their health is concerned, but in my opinion, it would make more sense to propagandize to folks in regards to issues in which capitalist production directly and locally effects them, instead of lecturing them about their minuscule contribution to global exploitation.


The title of the thread was 'Arguments against buying from Corporations' not 'Tell me why boycotting is inneffectual'.

So you're saying you only want people who agree with you to respond?

[Smash DEM BMP]

?

[Charles Xavier]

Boycotts aren't always bad, I mean during a labour dispute if possible boycotting a company's product in order to hurt a company's bottom line. Or boycotting goods from Israel or South Africa. etc.

[redflag32]

So whats the alternative? Shop in smaller expensive shops and get slagged off by the left for being bourgeois? When you think of it rationally, someone shoping in the smaller boutiquie shops is probably doing less "damage" than someone who shops in the larger corporations. But those who shop in the smaller more ethical and usually more expensive shops get slagged off as bourgeois while those who shop at the larger cheaper corporation are allowed to pretend their more working class.

Its the same with the arts.

[Charles Xavier]

So whats the alternative? Shop in smaller boutiques and get slagged off by the left for being bourgeois? When you think of it rationally, someone shoping in Brown Thomas is probably doing less "damage" than someone who shops in the larger corporations. But those who shop in the smaller more ethical and usually more expensive shops get slagged off as bourgeois while those who shop at the larger cheaper corporation are allowed to pretend their more working class.

Smaller stores can exploit workers just as bad as bigger stores.

[Lyev]

Do you have any proof? I don't see any way the small merchant class could be totally eliminated in the near future. If all economic operations were conducted by super-conglomorates like Wal-Mart, capitalism would be less stable...if anything, the capitalist order is becoming more "localized" as a response to ecological crisis.
I never said they would 'totally eliminated', don't put words into my mouth. I just think it's harder for harder for smaller business to survive in the climate that capitalism provides.


Then why bother avoiding it?
Because I feel guilty when I buy those products.



So you're saying you only want people who agree with you to respond?
No I didn't say I only want people who agree with me to respond. It's more interesting when people disagree anyway, it sparks debate. I was just saying I thought it be a bit more productive 'if people could post facts, examples or arguments'. You don't have to be such a grumpy guts about it and try to argue with me.

[redflag32]

Smaller stores can exploit workers just as bad as bigger stores.

The smaller boutique certainly wont get its products from sweat shops and they are generally more ethical (because they have to be). The people shopping at these place do so because of these facts and because they think they are buying a product which isnt mass made. Walk into any independent wine or clothes shop and you will see products which were well made in ethical conditions (in comparison to the global stores). For people owning these smaller stores is not JUST about the profit. Thats the key.

[Charles Xavier]

The smaller boutique certainly wont get its products from sweat shops and they are generally more ethical (because they have to be). The people shopping at these place do so because of these facts and because they think they are buying a product which isnt mass made. Walk into any independent wine or clothes shop and you will see products which were well made in ethical conditions (in comparison to the global stores). For people owning these smaller stores is not JUST about the profit. Thats the key.
So what is it besides just profit? And I find most smaller stores won't even abide by minimum wage laws and usually hire people under the table, as such they have no rights, they are not officially employed, if they are laid off they have no access to unemployment insurance and also are not eligible for benefits. And they also mass made products.

I'm not here to defend small scale capitalism, I am here to defend my class. And small business while they are economically beneficial in one regard, they will spend more of their disposable income locally helping the local economy,. Are even more environmentally harmful and can be just as exploitative as big companies.

Take for example a steel company, which would produce less pollution, 1 big company employing 5,000 workers Or 50 companies employing 100 workers? Obviously the company employing 5,000 would be much more efficient at steel production than the 50 smaller companies.

[Blackscare]

The smaller boutique certainly wont get its products from sweat shops


Who says? Do you think they make the clothes themselves? They order their clothes from suppliers like any other store. It just feels like you're buying from a more ethical place often times.

Sure, there are small stores that are ethical, but there's no reason that they certainly wouldn't get products from sweatshops.



I just think it's harder for harder for smaller business to survive in the climate that capitalism provides.

As a Marxist, I believe that capitalism happens in stages. Early on, small business flourishes, etc etc. That is the age of capitalism that is hearkened back to (as if it still existed or was likely not to degrade even further) by its defenders. It does, to be fair, do much to stimulate innovation and infrastructure building. That is it's historical role.

As time moves on, markets are cornered by monopolies and oligopolies because capital has a tendency to accumulate. That means that nothing we do in the way of boycotting can accomplish much because the tendency towards corporations/corporatism is inherent in capitalism.

We, as communists, don't want to "distance" ourselves or boycott corporations like Nike and Walmart. Corporations like Walmart are, at their most basic level, systems of distribution/production/etc that are incredibly efficient and massive. The potential for entities like these, contrasted with the infrastructure in place (not to mention computers, the Internet, and the million other things that make the idea of socialism more realistic today) when the Russian Revolution, just for instance, is amazing when you think about it. We want to take control of these industries and transcend the system they exist within (capitalism), to replace it with a system oriented towards human need, not profit. Only then will things change on a humanitarian (and likely, ecological) level. The idea of defending small business is a dream, not only can it not be done, I would argue that it would be contrary to our overall goals.

Sure, as was said before, certain actions like sympathy boycotts are fine but in general, it's ineffective.

[samizdat]

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to address the political spheres of capitalism as opposed to the financial instiutions that it produces.

Unfortunately the entire system is interconnected. Even if you do decide to produce your own food and knit your own clothes the reality is the fact that your sovereignty within the confounds of the state itself is paid for and protected through federal tax dollars that are a collective result of...you gussed it...the exploitation of labor. Even if you are a self declared Marxist, you are apart of the state.

[*Red*Alert]

I try my best to avoid the products of the corporations mentioned above, and have only ever owned one "high street brand", being a pair of Reebok trainer's bought for me about 5 years ago.

However much we try to avoid capitalism and corporations, globalisation has made it almost impossible to require a mass-produced good for survival whether it be food, clothing, transportation, or even the coffin we get buried in.

We cannot stop consuming and defeat capitalism, as both are intertwined, since the means of production are owned solely by the Bourgeoisie, and until Worker's in some part of the world take over these means of productions we will simply remain consumers of these corporations.

One thing I do somewhat like is the irony of the fact that many of their mass produced goods are used against them. I personally have used several from megaphones to shoes to ski masks at protests!

[redflag32]

So what is it besides just profit?

Ive worked in both and the smaller business man is generally more ethical and un-willing to exploit as blatantly as the someone in a larger corporation. Im just speaking from my own experience of course. There seems to be more of a passion for the product rather than the profit. The owner of a butcher shop is usually passionate about meat and the craft, the owner of Tescos isnt.



And I find most smaller stores won't even abide by minimum wage laws and usually hire people under the table, as such they have no rights, they are not officially employed, if they are laid off they have no access to unemployment insurance and also are not eligible for benefits.

Well all i can say is that i disagree. Its true that alot of the smaller shops dont have unions but from my own experience ive not really needed them. The boss is usually working long hours along side the workers so there is more respect there. The boss is usually on good terms and is friends with his workers so its not usually the case that he/she exploits them to the same degree as a boss who doesnt do a days work would.


I'm not here to defend small scale capitalism, I am here to defend my class.

You can still do that while making a distinction between large corporations and small businesses.


And small business while they are economically beneficial in one regard, they will spend more of their disposable income locally helping the local economy,. Are even more environmentally harmful and can be just as exploitative as big companies.

How can they be more environmentally harmful if they, as you say, spend more of their disposable income locally than global corporations? How on earth can you suggest that a small business is more harmfull than a big global company?


Take for example a steel company, which would produce less pollution, 1 big company employing 5,000 workers Or 50 companies employing 100 workers? Obviously the company employing 5,000 would be much more efficient at steel production than the 50 smaller companies.

There are so many variants involved in that example that we cant possibly take it seriously.

[redflag32]

Who says? Do you think they make the clothes themselves? They order their clothes from suppliers like any other store. It just feels like you're buying from a more ethical place often times.

Sure, there are small stores that are ethical, but there's no reason that they certainly wouldn't get products from sweatshops.


Yeah point taken, but in general the smaller run businesses are usually run by people who are passionate abut their product and craft and who dont have profit as their sole purpose for that business.

[communard resolution]

Ive worked in both and the smaller business man is generally more ethical and un-willing to exploit as blatantly as the someone in a larger corporation. Im just speaking from my own experience of course. There seems to be more of a passion for the product rather than the profit. The owner of a butcher shop is usually passionate about meat and the craft, the owner of Tescos isnt.

You may have made that experience, but I disagree with elevating this experience to a rule of thumb. I could counter this with the personal experience of some of my friends who worked in small independent shops in London peddling t-shirts to rock/punk tourists. These kids were working 6 days a week and 10 hours a day at 4 pounds an hour (cash in hand). And no, I cannot confirm the owners' passion for the product either - the owners didn't have a clue what they were selling and offered Crass/anarchy t-shirts alongside Adolf Hitler ones. They sure knew how to kick their employees asses though (esp. if they weren't trying to talk/harrass customers into buying t-shirts enough and such).

This is just one example, I'm sure there's many more. I wouldn't think there's a rule as to who is generally more ethical, the bourgeois or the petty bourgeois.

[redflag32]

You may have made that experience, but I disagree with elevating this experience to a rule of thumb. I could counter this with the personal experience of some of my friends who worked in small independent shops in London peddling t-shirts to rock/punk tourists. These kids were working 6 days a week and 10 hours a day at 4 pounds an hour (cash in hand). And no, I cannot confirm the owners' passion for the product either - the owners didn't have a clue what they were selling and offered Crass/anarchy t-shirts alongside Adolf Hitler ones. They sure knew how to kick their employees asses though (esp. if they weren't trying to talk/harrass customers into buying t-shirts enough and such).

This is just one example, I'm sure there's many more. I wouldn't think there's a rule as to who is generally more ethical, the bourgeois or the petty bourgeois.

yeah ok fair enough

[ArrowLance]

I think we should limit our acceptance of the crazy consumerist spirit. Don't buy what you can get for free. Don't buy things because they are popular. But don't starve yourself of necessities and some luxuries because they are produced under capitalism.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

We are fighting capitalism not consumerism.

And you see no relation between the two? We should be fighting both. In fact, fighting consumerism is probably the only way we can individually (or collectively if you live in a communal situation such as myself) fight capitalism while we wait for the revolution that's going to magically appear overnight apparently.

Personally I don't see why we CAN'T change the way our communities operate before the revolution rather than after it.

If you don't fight consumerism, you're either all talk or just lazy.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to address the political spheres of capitalism as opposed to the financial instiutions that it produces.

Unfortunately the entire system is interconnected. Even if you do decide to produce your own food and knit your own clothes the reality is the fact that your sovereignty within the confounds of the state itself is paid for and protected through federal tax dollars that are a collective result of...you gussed it...the exploitation of labor. Even if you are a self declared Marxist, you are apart of the state.

Good points, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it. Making lifestyle changes to fight consumerism and globalization is about all we can do at this time.

And obviously I don't expect everyone to do it as not everyone has that ability. But it should be the duty of those who do have the ability to make it easier for others to do the same. (i.e. setting up self-sustainable communes and what not)

[Charles Xavier]

And you see no relation between the two? We should be fighting both. In fact, fighting consumerism is probably the only way we can individually (or collectively if you live in a communal situation such as myself) fight capitalism while we wait for the revolution that's going to magically appear overnight apparently.

Personally I don't see why we CAN'T change the way our communities operate before the revolution rather than after it.

If you don't fight consumerism, you're either all talk or just lazy.

I support consumerism. I encourage people to get the things they want if they can afford it. I like to look nice and have nice things. I usually can't afford to though. In socialism people will consume too. We will buy art work, paint, vitamins, cell phones, computers, tvs, Radios, clothes, etc. What I'm fighting for is economic justice not no economy.


Ive worked in both and the smaller business man is generally more ethical and un-willing to exploit as blatantly as the someone in a larger corporation. Im just speaking from my own experience of course. There seems to be more of a passion for the product rather than the profit. The owner of a butcher shop is usually passionate about meat and the craft, the owner of Tescos isnt.




Well all i can say is that i disagree. Its true that alot of the smaller shops dont have unions but from my own experience ive not really needed them. The boss is usually working long hours along side the workers so there is more respect there. The boss is usually on good terms and is friends with his workers so its not usually the case that he/she exploits them to the same degree as a boss who doesnt do a days work would.



You can still do that while making a distinction between large corporations and small businesses.



How can they be more environmentally harmful if they, as you say, spend more of their disposable income locally than global corporations? How on earth can you suggest that a small business is more harmfull than a big global company?



There are so many variants involved in that example that we cant possibly take it seriously.


I've worked for both small and big businesses, and small businesses are just as exploitative as big businesses are. And this idea that there is passion with the small businessmen that there isn't with the big business man is a load of bullshit. The difference between the small business man and the big businessman is capital nothing more. And that the small business man will sometimes, not always have a direct part in the labour.

[n0thing]

I don't really buy coke anymore, since I heard about the union murders. Nike shoes are overpriced shit; I wouldn't buy them if there were produced by cooperatives.

But yeah, our products are always crafted by exploitation. The most we can do is avoid the worst offenders.

[Lyev]

I support consumerism. I encourage people to get the things they want if they can afford it. I like to look nice and have nice things. I usually can't afford to though. In socialism people will consume too. We will buy art work, paint, vitamins, cell phones, computers, tvs, Radios, clothes, etc. What I'm fighting for is economic justice not no economy.

Pardon me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain there's a difference between buying 'nice things' because you need them and buying 'nice things' for the hell of it. Isn't that what consumerism is? Buying stuff for the hell of it? 'Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction and our ego satisfaction in consumption. We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced and discarded at an ever-increasing rate'. Of course, it goes without saying I see no problem with buying necessities, but capitalism needs consumerism to survive, doesn't it?

[Charles Xavier]

Pardon me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain there's a difference between buying 'nice things' because you need them and buying 'nice things' for the hell of it. Isn't that what consumerism is? Buying stuff for the hell of it? 'Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction and our ego satisfaction in consumption. We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced and discarded at an ever-increasing rate'. Of course, it goes without saying I see no problem with buying necessities, but capitalism needs consumerism to survive, doesn't it?
And whats wrong with me buying things for the hell of it? I do it all the time. The problem is not consumerism, the proletariat are the biggest consumers. Its capitalism.

[gorillafuck]

Sadly from my experiences with the British Left and On RevLeft. The majority are all FOR buying Coca-Cola and Mcdonalds.
I'm not "in support of buying from McDonalds" or anything, I just don't care if you do.


Whereas I believe as Communists we should try our best to avoid the major corporations. We need Capitalism to survive. However we dont need to drink Coca Cola and eat Mcdonalds.
I really like Wendy's burgers and fries. Is that a crime? If I stopped buying from Wendys, they wouldn't be damaged at all. And even if somehow by me not buying from them they were damaged, it wouldn't be a blow to capitalism in the least.


I am also strongly critical of those so-called Communists that smoke weed in Britan. Due to the fact Weed is almost always linked to Crime, Prostitution and Exploitation.
Ya, true communists can't enjoy smoking weed......

[Lyev]

And whats wrong with me buying things for the hell of it? I do it all the time. The problem is not consumerism, the proletariat are the biggest consumers. Its capitalism.

Please don't get all defensive, I was only asking trying to ask what consumerism is. I've got no problem with you 'buying things for the hell of it'; it's none of my business. Anyway doesn't capitalism need consumerism to survive? The two are intertwined, aren't they? I suppose the question is how many material possessions are absolutely neccessary? I found this quote on a website called http://www.verdant.net/society.htm#howaffects- 'Landfills swell with cheap discarded products that fail early and cannot be repaired. Products are made psychologically obsolete long before they actually wear out.' That's just the environmental side effects of constantly acquiring new things.'

Bertrand Russel says 'It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly.' But as I say it's none of my business what you buy and don't buy. I think capitalism needs consumerism to survive because, as Wikipedia puts it- 'Consumerism is the equation of personal happiness with consumption and the purchase of material possessions.' Webster's dictionary says it's 'the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable.' (I put the bold in to emphasize it).

Sorry, my reply is a bit waffling and all over the place :lol:.

[n0thing]

I am also strongly critical of those so-called Communists that smoke weed in Britan. Due to the fact Weed is almost always linked to Crime, Prostitution and Exploitation.
My next bong hit goes out to you.

[Charles Xavier]

Please don't get all defensive, I was only asking trying to ask what consumerism is. I've got no problem with you 'buying things for the hell of it'; it's none of my business. Anyway doesn't capitalism need consumerism to survive? The two are intertwined, aren't they? I suppose the question is how many material possessions are absolutely neccessary? I found this quote on a website called http://www.verdant.net/society.htm#howaffects- 'Landfills swell with cheap discarded products that fail early and cannot be repaired. Products are made psychologically obsolete long before they actually wear out.' That's just the environmental side effects of constantly acquiring new things.'

Bertrand Russel says 'It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly.' But as I say it's none of my business what you buy and don't buy. I think capitalism needs consumerism to survive because, as Wikipedia puts it- 'Consumerism is the equation of personal happiness with consumption and the purchase of material possessions.' Webster's dictionary says it's 'the theory that an increasing consumption of goods is economically desirable.' (I put the bold in to emphasize it).

Sorry, my reply is a bit waffling and all over the place :lol:.
Capitalism needs a lot of things to survive, and people will only stop consuming when they cannot afford to. Capitalism also needs the Proletariat to survive it needs workers who continually bring about production.