No Impact Man

[¿Que?]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9Ctt7FGFBo

I'm trying to develop a well thought out, meaningful, rock solid critique against this sort of liberal moral grandstanding. From the trailer, we can already see some very basic patriarchal power imbalances between No Impact Man, and his poor wife, who is less than enthusiastic. She makes the interesting point by revealing the inherent contradiction in this project. It is ultimately both about No Impact Man, while at the same time it cannot work without participation from the whole family. And yet, the title of the book/movie is not No Impact Family.

But that's identity politics. What good is women's liberation if the environment is unlivable. Are there any more substantial critiques of this sort of tactic in general and this particular guy specifically.

Thanks

[CommunityBeliever]

I reviewed this documentary back in January.

I think this film really reveals the elitist nature of many environmentalists. They are like look at me, I am environmentally friendly, and all you poor people out there that just can't afford solar panels and that just can't afford to go out of your way for hours and hours to pretend that you are helping the environment, well you are negatively impacting the environment causing pollution and global warming.

If anything creates pollution it is the imperialist wars conducted by the U.S government, not some poor consumers consumption habits.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If anything creates pollution it is the imperialist wars conducted by the U.S government, not some poor consumers consumption habits.

Actually consumption habits do negatively impact the environment, but where mainstream environmentalism goes wrong is in focusing on the individual consumer for having them, rather than recognising it as a symptom of a system that puts profits before people and the environment.

[¿Que?]

I reviewed this documentary back in January.

Right after I posted this, I thought to myself, "I should've done a search." Care to post a link?

[Quail]

I don't really think that not using electrical appliances is the best way to go about reducing pollution while maintaining a decent quality of life. The best way to do that would be to start using cleaner energy so that people can continue to get the benefits of electricity without the environmental damage. Obviously one person can't do this. We would have to see energy companies making the change, which I don't think will happen any time soon. Capitalism is short-sighted in that profit is valued over long-term sustainability.

Also, the percentage of energy that is used by individuals is so low that there's really not a lot of point in individuals reducing their consumption. It's businesses and industry that are really causing the most pollution. I find it extremely annoying when there are all of these adverts on TV about individuals being greener because it won't make as much difference as the adverts claim.

I don't really like the way the man is forcing his family to participate either. The woman really doesn't seem as though she really cares as much as he does.

I do think that leftists should think about the environment and sustainability, but we can live sustainably without going back to the stone age. This man, instead of looking for real solutions, is just denying himself the best quality of life.

[Vanguard1917]

Also, the percentage of energy that is used by individuals is so low that there's really not a lot of point in individuals reducing their consumption.

And the goal of reducing mass consumption is not compatible with any progressive anti-capitalism, which after all aims to make people materially richer not poorer. As long as greater austerity is the aim of environmentalism, the latter is nothing short of antithetical to what socialism stands for.

British environmentalist George Monbiot made precisely this point, and very explicitly:

"Unlike almost all the public protests which have preceded it, [environmentalism] is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves."

[bcbm]

And the goal of reducing mass consumption is not compatible with any progressive anti-capitalism, which after all aims to make people materially richer not poorer.

as if increasing mass consumption as it exists today is the only way people can get richer?

[Vanguard1917]

as if increasing mass consumption as it exists today is the only way people can get richer?

No, but increased poverty, e.g. in a recession, usually entails a reduction in levels of mass consumption. Implicit in wanting to be better off is being able to consume more than previously. For example, i've never heard of a strike for better wages being motivated by a desire to consume less.

[black magick hustla]

dude the bosses have all sorts of cyberneticists, advertisement people, psychologists, etcetera to dupe people into spending in worthless gadgetery and trendy gimmicks. i mean, i agree that enviromentalism in general is stupid but i dont think the alternative is just mindless consumerism that is clearly engineered by the bosses. i think there is a difference between buying trash and living a long, healthy life that includes medicine, shelter, etcetera.

[Omi]

I don't really think that not using electrical appliances is the best way to go about reducing pollution while maintaining a decent quality of life. The best way to do that would be to start using cleaner energy so that people can continue to get the benefits of electricity without the environmental damage. Obviously one person can't do this. We would have to see energy companies making the change, which I don't think will happen any time soon. Capitalism is short-sighted in that profit is valued over long-term sustainability.


I don't necessaryly agree with this viewpoint. The fact is, large energy companies are investing in sustainable energy sources. The problem is, that the fabrication of sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar power require rare metals, of which china almost has a monopoly regarding this market. Capitalists aren't stupid, they will invest in what they may see as the only way to make sure their children will be the next ruling class... The problem is not that sustainable energy is incompatible with capitalism, the problem is that this future energy will still be in the hands of capitalists and the old forms of energy will not disappear until there is really no gas left in the earth whatsoever as long as money is to be made from it.

I agree that a sustainable environmental friendly form of energy is both necessary and that we as leftists should support this social change. I also agree that capitalism can only result in environmental disaster in the long run. I just disagree with the premise that capitalists will ignore the possibility's of investment in what may well be the only way to keep society running as a whole, even to the length of losing their share of the energy market.

[Vanguard1917]

dude the bosses have all sorts of cyberneticists, advertisement people, psychologists, etcetera to dupe people into spending in worthless gadgetery and trendy gimmicks.

Sounds very similar to the arguments of conspiracy theorists, that the idiot masses are being 'duped' into behaving like mindless zombies in a consumerist frenzy by the colourful TV adverts of the all-powerful.

We need to give working class people far more credit than that.

[Invincible Summer]

Romanticizing situations that most people want to get out of. How typical for a middle-class liberal.

[black magick hustla]

Sounds very similar to the arguments of conspiracy theorists, that the idiot masses are being 'duped' into behaving like mindless zombies in a consumerist frenzy by the colourful TV adverts of the all-powerful.

We need to give working class people far more credit than that.

there is no conspiracy. the ruling ideas are the ones of the ruling class. do you honestly think that bosses do not pay people who know about psychology, and what colors people like, etcetera to sell stuff? i am not saying people need to live in a mud shack with the bare minimum to survive. what i protest is your uncritical support of mass consumerism which makes absolutely no sense, marx already spoke about commodity fetish in the 19th century.

[Pawn Power]

I'm trying to develop a well thought out, meaningful, rock solid critique against this sort of liberal moral grandstanding.



Ha! Why? Seems like a waste of your time.

We need more critiques of capitalism not weird new yorkers trying to get some media around there bizarre behavior.

Though, those are just my priories.

[Pawn Power]

dude the bosses have all sorts of cyberneticists, advertisement people, psychologists, etcetera to dupe people into spending in worthless gadgetery and trendy gimmicks. i mean, i agree that enviromentalism in general is stupid but i dont think the alternative is just mindless consumerism that is clearly engineered by the bosses. i think there is a difference between buying trash and living a long, healthy life that includes medicine, shelter, etcetera.


Sounds very similar to the arguments of conspiracy theorists, that the idiot masses are being 'duped' into behaving like mindless zombies in a consumerist frenzy by the colourful TV adverts of the all-powerful.

We need to give working class people far more credit than that. Yo, didn't you all hear? We workers don't want freedom... we want more STUFF!

Its like that old protest song goes:

We shall overcome, we shall overcome, we shall overcome some day
Oh deep in my heart, I do believe, we shall overcome some day
We'll walk hand in hand, we'll walk hand in hand, we'll walk hand in hand some day
We shall all have more stuff, we shall have all more stuff, we shall all have more stuff some day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dni2dtuwxsc&p=8CC3B3EE16CB3A68&playnext=1&index=14

[ZeroNowhere]

what i protest is your uncritical support of mass consumerism which makes absolutely no sense, marx already spoke about commodity fetish in the 19th century.He did not mean anything approximating what you think he meant.

[Vanguard1917]

there is no conspiracy. the ruling ideas are the ones of the ruling class. do you honestly think that bosses do not pay people who know about psychology, and what colors people like, etcetera to sell stuff? .

OK, but that does not mean that working class people are being 'duped' into buying the things that they do. To suggest that it does would mean to paint workers as essentially being led astray like children by adverts they see on TV, rather than seeing them as rational individuals capable of making their own minds up about what they put into their shopping baskets.



what i protest is your uncritical support of mass consumerism which makes absolutely no sense, marx already spoke about commodity fetish in the 19th century


Yes, but as ZeroNowhere suggests, the phenomenon he spoke of is probably vastly different to what you have in mind.

In fact, and this may come as a shock, Marx argued that capitalist society's constant creation of new needs was a progressive feauture of capitalism, its 'civilising moment' and its 'historic justification':


'he [the capitalist] searches for means to spur them on to consumption, to give his wares new charms, to inspire them with new needs by constant chatter etc. It is precisely this side of the relation of capital and labour which is an essential civilising moment, and on which the historic justification, but also the contemporary power of capital rests.'


This is very different to the petty, middle class 'anti-consumerism' that currently prevails in the West.

[Quail]

OK, but that does not mean that working class people are being 'duped' into buying the things that they do. To suggest that it does would mean to paint workers as essentially being led astray like children by adverts they see on TV, rather than seeing them as rational individuals capable of making their own minds up about what they put into their shopping baskets.


Just as an example, there are actually quite a few products that don't do anything, such as weight-loss pills (which mostly don't work and are often harmful), which are pushed on people and exploit their insecurities, so for some products, people are convinced that they need something that they don't.

[Vanguard1917]

Just as an example, there are actually quite a few products that don't do anything, such as weight-loss pills (which mostly don't work and are often harmful), which are pushed on people and exploit their insecurities, so for some products, people are convinced that they need something that they don't.

I agree that there are examples like that. I don't underestimate the power of marketing, culture, etc. in shaping people's consumption. The organic food craze, for example, shows how wider political and social trends -- middle class anti-industrialism, snobbery, nature worship, etc. -- can and do influence what people buy.

What i disagree with is the idea that opposing mass consumption itself is in any way radical, when the reality is that the problem for the majority of humanity is an inadequate access to the products of their labour. In other words, underconsumption.

[Quail]

I agree that there are examples like that. I don't underestimate the power of marketing, culture, etc. in shaping people's consumption. The organic food craze, for example, shows how wider political and social trends -- middle class anti-industrialism, snobbery, nature worship, etc. -- can and do influence what people buy.

What i disagree with is the idea that opposing mass consumption itself is in any way radical, when the reality is that the problem for the majority of humanity is an inadequate access to the products of their labour. In other words, underconsumption.

I think people's consumption habits may change in a communist society, for example, (I hope, at least) there will be better public transport so personal cars will not be needed as much. People will always want the best that they can get so that they can enjoy a good quality of life, but there are some products/services that are pure exploitation.

[black magick hustla]

What i disagree with is the idea that opposing mass consumption itself is in any way radical, when the reality is that the problem for the majority of humanity is an inadequate access to the products of their labour. In other words, underconsumption.

i think there is a different between mass consumption and consumerism. i think you think i am arguing for an ascetic society. what i argue is that things like gold grills and really expensive cars are certainly engineered to be seen as this sort of weird fetish. i dont really care about the enviorment, but i think that worthless and useless commodities are a way capital tries to appease discontent by numbing it with shit commodities.i dont get what is your whole admiration with mass consumerist society, which is not, i repeat, people having stuff, but people working horrible hours at shitjobs to be gifted with a carefully engineered leisure time.

[bcbm]

I agree that there are examples like that. I don't underestimate the power of marketing, culture, etc. in shaping people's consumption. The organic food craze, for example, shows how wider political and social trends -- middle class anti-industrialism, snobbery, nature worship, etc. -- can and do influence what people buy.

i love your ability to turn everything into an excuse to rant against "environmentalists"

[Pawn Power]

vanguard's rants against environmentalism remind me of glenn beck's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6mHZjxIRK8&feature=related
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w&feature=related)

[ZeroNowhere]

Your comparison reminds me of Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chair.


“What is the difference between Lomborg’s view of humanity and Hitler’s? [...] If you were to accept Lomborgs way of thinking, then maybe what Hitler did was the right thing”.

[Vanguard1917]

i think there is a different between mass consumption and consumerism.

I agree. It's the first one that i advocate increasing.