How to combat Consumerisim?

[j-mak]

Hey, I've been reading up on the history of Cuba, just as a general interest thing.

Anyway, when Cuba and the US came to an agreement on allowing Cuban exiles to return to Cuba to visit their families that remained on the island, it led to the newer generation Cubans leaving the island for the consumerism offered to them by the United States.

In a Socialist/Communist society, the nationalization of products would defiantly destroy any form of consumerism, eg. Nike, Adidas, Puma, would all become 'the people's shoes'.

How would your ideal communist/socialist society deal with this?

[ed miliband]

God forbid the rabble want to own Nike shoes.

[AK]

Here's an old thread that might answer some of your questions you might want to read through: http://www.revleft.com/vb/under-communism-would-t131581/index.html?p=1719495

[bailey_187]

Cuba doesnt allow for less products and diversity of products because they dont want it, it is forced on them due to being (relativly) underdeveloped and the embargo. The majority in underdeveloped countries can not enjoy 'consumerism' due to their underdevelopment as a result of imperialism.

Communism aims to raise consumption, not decrease it - we want a world of abundance. We dont want to destory "consumerism" but commodity production and wage labour.

'Anti-consumerism' is petit-bourgeoise elitist politics.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"...neither do the communists envisage abolition the fixity of desires and needs ... they only aim to organize production and exchange in such a way as to make possible the normal satisfaction of all desires, that is, a satisfaction limited only by the desires themselves." - Karl Marx

[danyboy27]

In a Socialist/Communist society, the nationalization of products would defiantly destroy any form of consumerism, eg. Nike, Adidas, Puma, would all become 'the people's shoes'.

veta retro satanas you evil anti-individualist devil!

communism dosnt mean all shoes will become people shoes, it will simply mean the mean of production will belong to the worker, hell the worker can decide to create multiple types of shoes, t-shirt and clothing style with differents names.

I even expect MORE diversity in that field, there is a lot of creative people who are currently limited beccause of the accumulation of wealth and their own social condition.

[Ovi]

Cuba doesnt allow for less products and diversity of products because they dont want it, it is forced on them due to being (relativly) underdeveloped and the embargo. The majority in underdeveloped countries can not enjoy 'consumerism' due to their underdevelopment as a result of imperialism.

Communism aims to raise consumption, not decrease it - we want a world of abundance. We dont want to destory "consumerism" but commodity production and wage labour.

'Anti-consumerism' is petit-bourgeoise elitist politics.
Why do so many call what they disagree with (and many times because they completely misunderstand) liberal/petit-bourgeois? It's stupid. Consumerism means equating happiness with consumption; the more we consume, the happier we are. It means viewing the rich not as our enemy, but our idols; and the sole purpose of our existence is to strive towards being rich. If you ask me, I'd say that consumerism is one of the most reactionary elements of capitalism; it's what keeps the capitalist economy going (underconsumption would lead to recession; though overconsumption and taking debts that you can't pay back seem to have the same effect in capitalism) and what makes social inequality seem legitimate.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why do so many call what they disagree with (and many times because they completely misunderstand) liberal/petit-bourgeois? It's stupid. Consumerism means equating happiness with consumption; the more we consume, the happier we are. It means viewing the rich not as our enemy, but our idols; and the sole purpose of our existence is to strive towards being rich. If you ask me, I'd say that consumerism is one of the most reactionary elements of capitalism; it's what keeps the capitalist economy going (underconsumption would lead to recession; though overconsumption and taking debts that you can't pay back seem to have the same effect in capitalism) and what makes social inequality seem legitimate.

It seems like you are arguing against inequality, not consumerism. "Designer clothes" aren't bad in of themselves, they are bad in capitalism because they are artificially made scarce and produced in a way that satisfies profit, not the consumers themselves. But if something is a decent quality and aestetically pleasing to most people, there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

I think a worker's society would want to know what goods consumers want because why produce things that nobody wants or will use? So there will be a motivation to produce quality goods that last and can be had by anyone. Without scarcity, not one will be "consumerist" in the show-y way that we see in the rich or in the conspicuous consumption of capitalism. What would be the point of coveting an iPad if everyone could easily borrow or have their own iPad? If our lives are not atomized and privatized, people probably will have less of a desire to horde goods, but they would still have a desire for quality goods.

[bailey_187]

Why do so many call what they disagree with (and many times because they completely misunderstand) liberal/petit-bourgeois?

I know what you mean, however, in this case it makes sense. The petit-bourgeois/small business owners hates the ability of the working class to access cheap goods in abundance from the big capitalists.



Consumerism means equating happiness with consumption; the more we consume, the happier we are.

Generally, this is the case. There are also other things that us happy though e.g. friends, company, hobbies.
Why would workers not like to have access to many different types of clothes, food etc?




It means viewing the rich not as our enemy, but our idols; and the sole purpose of our existence is to strive towards being rich.

The rich (capitalists) are our enemy because they represent an outdated economic system that does not work in our favour. We hate the rich becuase they extract labour from us, not becuase they have access to large amounts of goods. They have access to this on such a scale because they exploit us. We dont because they exploit us and their economic system holds back the productive forces.



If you ask me, I'd say that consumerism is one of the most reactionary elements of capitalism

For workers, the most reactionary element of capitalism is wage-relations and profits.



it's what keeps the capitalist economy going (underconsumption would lead to recession; though overconsumption and taking debts that you can't pay back seem to have the same effect in capitalism)

The foundation of what keeps the capitalist economy going is extracting surplus value from workers.


and what makes social inequality seem legitimate.

No it doesnt. The ideology of capitalism (e.g. work hard, get rewarded, these capitalists work hard, those workers are lazy) makes social inequality seem legitimate

[death_by_semicolon]

veta retro satanas you evil anti-individualist devil!

communism dosnt mean all shoes will become people shoes, it will simply mean the mean of production will belong to the worker, hell the worker can decide to create multiple types of shoes, t-shirt and clothing style with differents names.

I even expect MORE diversity in that field, there is a lot of creative people who are currently limited beccause of the accumulation of wealth and their own social condition.

Excellent point. Artistic diversity for art's sake could really blossom. However, I think "art" for profit's sake (primarily branding) would dwindle to be much less prominent than today.

[howblackisyourflag]

Electronic products are very popular consumer products these days, many of them contain coltan, mostly mined in the congo, with the support of multinational corporations, and rwanda, backed up by the usa, which has helped contribute to the death toll there of maybe 10 million people. I know its not completely related to your question, but I dont see how informing people about that and looking for alternatives would be petit-bourgeoise elitist politics, i doubt the people who are dead because of it all would call it that if it had been prevented.

[Raúl Duke]

it led to the newer generation Cubans leaving the island for the consumerism offered to them by the United States.

I doubt they're leaving just solely out of that. Part of the reason is that they're being told stories of middle-class life in Miami. Unfortunately for them, unless they have middle-class relatives in Miami, they'll be living in poverty (which could be worse than in Cuba, they could end up homeless, etc) once they get there unless there education/skills is worth something that can grant them a middle-class (or more) lifestyle.