Tourism: a strange form of imperialism?

[El Rojo]

Tourism can be pretty fucked up. When I was a kid, I used to go on holiday in Tenerife lots. Whole parts of the island are entirely devoted to serving tourists, everybody speaks english, the local culture has ceased to exist and the workers live in slum-condition housing in the less desirable parts of town.

This year I went to Venezuela, and some German friends dragged me on a package trip "safari" in Barinas state, a giant swamp. An entire village had put itself at the services of tourists, thier entire culture becomming another part of the attraction to westerners. We drove around in a petrol engined boat chasing fresh water dolphins, the germans banging on the hull and shouting to scare it into comming to the surface.


What im trying to get at from my personal experiences is that tourism may be a form of imperialism,no? Its profit driven, pimping peoples and places out for money. It reduces entire areas to commodities up for sales and irrevocably alters them with mushrooming hotels ect ect

your thoughts conrades?

[AK]

To be perfectly honest I laughed really hard at the thread title before I read the OP.

[bailey_187]

If Imperialism was about culture, but it isnt.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Imperialist or not, I find certain aspects of the tourism industry to be revoltingly crass.

But then again, I haven't left the UK for over a decade, so I may be getting the wrong impression.

[Quail]

I've not been abroad for a while, but I think if I do, I'll probably go to a quiet French-speaking resort in France or something. There's something about English tourists and popular resorts that I really dislike. I don't understand why people go on holiday somewhere different and then eat English food, drink in English or Irish pubs, and hang out with other English people. Large tourist resorts are also damaging to local wildlife, and if I'm honest, I would really hate to live or work in one. Tourists in general aren't particularly bothered about making noise, etc., and serving a group of ignorant people who expected me to speak their language, but made no effort to speak mine would not really be my cup of tea (or anyone's, for that matter).

[The Grey Blur]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2010/sep/06/gap-year-thailand-full-moon-party

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/24/backpacker-travel-benefit-poor-countries

Two interesting Guardian (a liberal-left paper in Britain) articles on this subject. It's evident that tourism, in terms of going to poor areas like Africa/South America/Asia/even working-class areas in the West, is a form of post-modern cultural imperialism. It is a quite terrifying vision of the capitalist future - like your own personal experience - well-off children of the middle and upper classes travelling around the world, destroying the environment and local culture, and believing they are undertaking some sort of cultural experience.

My own personal experience is that it is incredibly uncomfortable to be in that position of a tourist and interacting with local people. I just don't see how it can't be a patronising interaction demeaning to both sides.

ps- lol at the idiots on this board who can't have an abstract discussion "OMG CULTURE IS NOTHING TO DO WITH IMPERIALISM". You are the people who produce despair in any intelligent leftist. Good thread.

[bricolage]

Two interesting Guardian (a liberal-left paper in Britain) articles on this subject. It's evident that tourism, in terms of going to poor areas like Africa/South America/Asia/even working-class areas in the West, is a form of post-modern cultural imperialism.
To be fair most people that go on holiday aren't on a gap year.

[Devrim]

To be fair most people that go on holiday aren't on a gap year.

No they are not. The vast majority of people who come on holiday to this country, which is 7th in the world for the amount of tourists who visit, are ordinary working class people, who want to relax and maybe drink a little too much in a country which has dependably good weather.


I don't understand why people go on holiday somewhere different and then eat English food, drink in English or Irish pubs, and hang out with other English people.

Why shouldn't they?

Devrim

[ed miliband]

No they are not. The vast majority of people who come on holiday to this country, which is 7th in the world for the amount of tourists who visit, are ordinary working class people, who want to relax and maybe drink a little too much in a country which has dependably good weather.


To expand on this, I read an article about anti-tourist sentiment in Barcelona, and local politicians complained about 'rough northern Europeans who want to drink all day', or something to that effect. It was essentially snobbery, in my opinion.

[bailey_187]

damn lager lout scum.....

[the last donut of the night]

My position on this:

Yeah, tourism can create some pretty fucked up resort places, but the struggle against it isn't about culture, it's about class struggle.

[Magón]

Not for me it's not. When I got out of town/the US, I usually find myself not at some resort or place where there's a bunch of other tourists. I'm pretty sure that I stay away from major Tourist Traps in places too, but have been to them once or twice just to revisit and see what they're all about.

I don't see Tourism being Imperialistic. If you went to Venezuela this year, I'd suggest just sticking to the more "colorful" parts of the cities or towns like Caracas or somewhere if you go again. I do.

[Devrim]

Not for me it's not. When I got out of town/the US, I usually find myself not at some resort or place where there's a bunch of other tourists. I'm pretty sure that I stay away from major Tourist Traps in places too, but have been to them once or twice just to revisit and see what they're all about.

I don't see Tourism being Imperialistic. If you went to Venezuela this year, I'd suggest just sticking to the more "colorful" parts of the cities or towns like Caracas or somewhere if you go again. I do.

It is down to what you personally like though. I haven't been able to afford to go on holiday this year, and only managed to get a long weekend last year, so it has been two years since I have had a real holiday. When I go though I like to lie on the beech and relax. That is my idea of a good holiday.

Devrim

[Quail]

Why shouldn't they?


I just don't see the point in going away somewhere different if you're just going to act like you're at home, but with hotter weather. If I'm in another country, I prefer to see/eat/do things that I wouldn't at home. Maybe that's personal preference though.

[Devrim]

I just don't see the point in going away somewhere different if you're just going to act like you're at home, but with hotter weather. If I'm in another country, I prefer to see/eat/do things that I wouldn't at home. Maybe that's personal preference though.

If I go abroad I like to eat foreign food. It is only a personal preference though, and I don't think that there is anything wrong with going abroad and eating food you like or are used to.

Devrim

[ContrarianLemming]

Tourism can be pretty fucked up. When I was a kid, I used to go on holiday in Tenerife lots. Whole parts of the island are entirely devoted to serving tourists, everybody speaks english, the local culture has ceased to exist and the workers live in slum-condition housing in the less desirable parts of town.

This year I went to Venezuela, and some German friends dragged me on a package trip "safari" in Barinas state, a giant swamp. An entire village had put itself at the services of tourists, thier entire culture becomming another part of the attraction to westerners. We drove around in a petrol engined boat chasing fresh water dolphins, the germans banging on the hull and shouting to scare it into comming to the surface.


What im trying to get at from my personal experiences is that tourism may be a form of imperialism,no? Its profit driven, pimping peoples and places out for money. It reduces entire areas to commodities up for sales and irrevocably alters them with mushrooming hotels ect ect

your thoughts conrades?

I'm Irish, and we Irish have made livings selling our culture to, er, Americans, and to be frank, it doesn't bother me one bit: we get te money, they get to see us doing funny dancing and we fake rural accents. I've been to places in my country which are devoted almost wholly to British and Americans and they've gotten more prosperious for it, most of those stereoypical Irish towns city folks go to were dirt poor fishing villages before people realised we were a fun lot.

[Oswy]

Tourism can be pretty fucked up. When I was a kid, I used to go on holiday in Tenerife lots. Whole parts of the island are entirely devoted to serving tourists, everybody speaks english, the local culture has ceased to exist and the workers live in slum-condition housing in the less desirable parts of town.

This year I went to Venezuela, and some German friends dragged me on a package trip "safari" in Barinas state, a giant swamp. An entire village had put itself at the services of tourists, thier entire culture becomming another part of the attraction to westerners. We drove around in a petrol engined boat chasing fresh water dolphins, the germans banging on the hull and shouting to scare it into comming to the surface.


What im trying to get at from my personal experiences is that tourism may be a form of imperialism,no? Its profit driven, pimping peoples and places out for money. It reduces entire areas to commodities up for sales and irrevocably alters them with mushrooming hotels ect ect

your thoughts conrades?

Capitalism colonises all forms of human activity and tourism has become especially colonised. Yes, I think we can think of tourism as often having an imperialistic function in that it opens up and transforms new geographies for capitalist exploitation and which render them docile to the needs, interests and values of the tourist. I wouldn't suggest that being a tourist makes you an imperialist as an individual - I like to visit different places myself - but when looked at as a global industry I think we can say tourism is in its most dominant form an imperialist instrument of capitalism.

[Oswy]

I just don't see the point in going away somewhere different if you're just going to act like you're at home, but with hotter weather. If I'm in another country, I prefer to see/eat/do things that I wouldn't at home. Maybe that's personal preference though.

Yeah, me too. I like to visit the Greek islands (I'm English) and a big part of my pleasure is eating Greek food and drinking Greek wine in the local tavernas. I'd even go so far as to say that if I couldn't spend my evenings in tavernas when in Greece it would much reduce my interest; just going somewhere because it's warm doesn't have the same level of attraction.

[Devrim]

Yeah, me too. I like to visit the Greek islands (I'm English) and a big part of my pleasure is eating Greek food and drinking Greek wine in the local tavernas.I'd even go so far as to say that if I couldn't spend my evenings in tavernas when in Greece it would much reduce my interest; just going somewhere because it's warm doesn't have the same level of attraction.

But would you say it is wrong for others to do that?

Devrim

[gorillafuck]

The "why would you want to do that?" argument is ridiculous. Why does it matter what food someone eats, etc.?

On the other hand, tourist areas (in "developing countries" at least) are a bit sickening in my opinion, at least in the context of the capitalist system. Obviously there's something very wrong with having a place, like Jamaica, where the whole island is in extreme poverty and yet the only development that is paid attention to is building areas for tourists to go on vacation while local residents have no food or shelter.

[Oswy]

But would you say it is wrong for others to do that?

Devrim

No, I wouldn't say it was wrong for others to do that at all, just not something I'd personally be satisfied with. When I go off to a distant land I want to see something of it, something of the people, sample their food, their drink, and so on.

[The Grey Blur]

The "why would you want to do that?" argument is ridiculous. Why does it matter what food someone eats, etc.?

On the other hand, tourist areas (in "developing countries" at least) are a bit sickening in my opinion, at least in the context of the capitalist system. Obviously there's something very wrong with having a place, like Jamaica, where the whole island is in extreme poverty and yet the only development that is paid attention to is building areas for tourists to go on vacation while local residents have no food or shelter.
Exactly. This is what marxist geographers, especially Harvey, criticise, the way geography follows the same general principles of 'combined and uneven development' under capitalism. In west Belfast, an area famous for economic and military op/de/pression for the past 100 or so years, the the nationalist petit-bourgeoisie (my dad is one of the main guys behind this drive so I know all about it) can outline as a plan for development is tourism - they were incapable of salvaging a Ford plant which closed recently (even though Sinn Féin are in government and could have pushed for nationalisation) yet believe that focussing on a 'city of quarters' - the 'titanic quarter' (why we're supposed to be proud of a ship that sunk is another good question), a 'gaelic' quarter (in the west, where people barely get a decent education in english never mind irish) etcetc. The supreme irony of post-modern capitalism is embodied in plans like these - for example the ship-building industry is dead, there are no jobs for local people, yet there will be jobs as tour guides around the areas where ships were once built. This is the logic of globalised capitalism - you have to provide a service to the market (tourism, raw materials, etcetc) and in return you are rewarded with (basic) infrastructural improvements, a level of business for the small business owners, a modicum of employment etcetc.

PS- The empty Ford plant that closed down in west Belfast is now used as a hang-out by 'anti-social' youths who go there and start fires, drink, do drugs etc...another example of poetic-if-it-wasn't-tragic neo-liberal irony.

Okay the above is a bit of a ramble but I hope people can get where I'm coming from. I certainly don't doubt that tourism is a form of neo-imperialism, it's about opening up markets and altering the economic and physical geography of un(der)developed areas (Jamaica in your example, Belfast in mine). That doesn't mean people should be ashamed of travelling or anything like that, nor that I criticise working-class people for taking a deserved break. (The negative 'cultural' impact of travel in a capitalist context will always generate debate amongst leftists, as certain marxists refuse to see any independent value to 'culture' (in terms of language, customs etc), Devrim in this thread being a perfect example). Personally I do think there is something intrinsically worthwhile to native/obscure cultures, languages, etc- and I think it would be an extremely boring world to live in if we all communicated in one language, or didn't share different cultures, not to mention the artistic loss this would involve. I think it's a bit scary that people twist/interpret Marx in this way to approve of cultural globalisation/americanisation/anglicsization...I don't think Marx wanted a grey world of humanity united in boredom...but anyway, a seperate debate.

[Devrim]

(The negative 'cultural' impact of travel in a capitalist context will always generate debate amongst leftists, as certain marxists refuse to see any independent value to 'culture' (in terms of language, customs etc), Devrim in this thread being a perfect example). Personally I do think there is something intrinsically worthwhile to native/obscure cultures, languages, etc- and I think it would be an extremely boring world to live in if we all communicated in one language, or didn't share different cultures, not to mention the artistic loss this would involve.

There is a separate question about culture, but that is not my point here.

What I was asking here is what is wrong with people going on holiday, eating food that they are used to, and speaking to people who speak their own language if that is what they want to do?

If your idea of a good holiday is going somewhere, learning a bit of the language, eating local food, exploring the country, and getting to know local people, good on you. That is what you enjoy.

The idea that ordinary working class people should be criticised for doing what they enjoy doing on their two weeks away from work is what I am objecting too here.

Devrim

[Bright Banana Beard]

What I was asking here is what is wrong with people going on holiday, eating food that they are used to, and speaking to people who speak their own language if that is what they want to do? Just because where they come from already have this form, why put more burden on other vacation spot's working class that have to catering to the tourist working class that only come for a few weeks?


The idea that ordinary working class people should be criticised for doing what they enjoy doing on their two weeks away from work is what I am objecting too here.They should be criticised for being chauvinism on their vacation spot.

[Vanguard1917]

As Devrim and a couple of others have essentially pointed towards, there is a very clear and unpleasant streak of middle-class snobbery involved in banging on about how working class people (let's be honest, that's who is being targeted here) choose to enjoy their holidays abroad. In Britain, everyone from the Daily Mail right, to the Guardianista left, seems to agree that workers are too uncouth to travel abroad and that everyone and the planet (what with those cheap airlines for 'chavs' apparently destroying the earth) would be better off if the masses stayed put in their own communities or, at most, raised their aspirations no higher than a holiday resort in Devon or some other rain-ridden part of England where they can be more easily kept in check.

[bcbm]

i have to agree that i'm not sure why the focus is on how tourists act while on holiday instead of the effects of the tourist industry on the places they colonize.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the 'titanic quarter' (why we're supposed to be proud of a ship that sunk is another good question),

The Titanic didn't sink because of it's construction. It sunk because its captain was an idiot who thought the ship was invincible.

[Quail]

What I think is wrong with a lot of tourist resorts aimed at English people (or at least the ones I've visited) is that they're so focused on providing an "English" atmosphere, it's almost difficult to find any of the local culture/food/whatever. I don't have a problem with people spending their days off from work relaxing, eating food they like, getting drunk or whatever the hell the want to do. It's more of a problem with the resorts and the people building them than the tourists themselves (although I have to say, one time I went on a Club 18-30 holiday, and my friends and I were pretty horrified by some of the other tourists we met while we were there). I can imagine the local people dislike living in tourist resorts in the same way that I'm starting to hate renting a flat for me and my baby from the university next to a load of student halls. People are loud and disrespectful when they've had too much to drink and I don't much care for people shouting outside at 3am. I also personally feel a little rude if I've made no effort to understand at least some basic phrases in the language of my destination. It feels wrong to just expect other people to speak English to me if I've not tried to speak a bit of their language.

[CHEGUAVARA]

There's a difference between this mass tourist madness and simply wanting to see the world.

[Devrim]

What I think is wrong with a lot of tourist resorts aimed at English people (or at least the ones I've visited) is that they're so focused on providing an "English" atmosphere, it's almost difficult to find any of the local culture/food/whatever.

Well don't go to them then.


I can imagine the local people dislike living in tourist resorts in the same way that I'm starting to hate renting a flat for me and my baby from the university next to a load of student halls. People are loud and disrespectful when they've had too much to drink and I don't much care for people shouting outside at 3am.

This I can understand. I wouldn't like to live in a tourist resort either, but it wouldn't really make much difference to me if it was one of the ones full of Northern Europeans, or one of the ones that only Turkish people go to.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

I don't quite get the moral objection to the behaviour of "slob tourists" either. Pretty clear class prejudice in that kind of critique, IMO. As far as I can tell, some people like to go to warm places and party for 2 weeks straight. I don't think it's the exact same thing as back at home. How often can you celebrate for 2 weeks, without having to worry about work, bills, social control within your community, etc.? It's not the same.

Then there are others who prefer to get the "authentic" experience with backpacks, Lonely Planet guides, girls in clogs in the Netherlands and bagpipe players in Scotland, all that stuff. All especially catered to tourists who want to see some pre-packaged, "authentic culture" of the place that they're visiting. It's best when they confirm comfortable pre-existing stereotypes and prejudices. It wouldn't be so grating if these people didn't largely consider themselves superior to the above category.

There are many other ways to go about being a tourist, but these two are the most likely to lead to all kinds of strange moral outrage from leftists. I personally think the latter is a bit worse because it's quite pretentious, but if that's how people want to go on vacation, who am I to stop them? What the fuck kind of business is it of mine?

What deserves to be discussed more seriously is the impact that certain kinds of tourism have on the communities that tourists visit. All these horrors have already been mentioned in this thread. All I'd add to that is that they are a consequence of the way capitalism works. They're not a cause, and they're not some unique evil. It's just one of the many ways in which capitalism fucks us on the long term.

[Quail]

Well don't go to them then.

I think you've slightly missed my point here. What these resorts are doing is trying to appeal to English people (or any other group. I'm only really using English resorts as an example because I'm English) at the expense of the local culture. This is caused by a drive for profit, and I think it's kind of sad that a lot of popular holiday resorts are just generic "holiday places" that could be anywhere. Surely the nice thing about visiting lots of different places is that you can enjoy a variety of experiences?


This I can understand. I wouldn't like to live in a tourist resort either, but it wouldn't really make much difference to me if it was one of the ones full of Northern Europeans, or one of the ones that only Turkish people go to.
It wouldn't really make a difference to me either. If people were constantly being loud and antisocial outside my home, I'd still be pissed off.

[chegitz guevara]

I live in an area dependent on tourism (and have a job in tourism). Don't feel guilty. We need your money. You are paying us for a service and we're providing that service, because in capitalism, I don't get paid to lounge on my own beaches. But I get paid if you lounge on my beach, and then I get to eat. I like to eat, so come lounge on my beach.

[ckaihatsu]

Let's generalize this to the service sector as a whole, shall we -- ?

In lieu of a strictly blue-collar manufacturing base, where you can clearly and objectively say that *these* workers contributed to / slaved-for a *discrete*, *tangible* number of x products off the conveyor belt, we instead are stuck with the vicissitudes of "service"-oriented positions, whatever the fuck *that's* supposed to mean....

I really think that, categorically, the service sector simply feeds into a clientelist / bureaucratic kind of ruling class politics, hence my subscription to the terming of it as 'neo-feudalism'.... (See Wikipedia.)

[Achara]

Tourists are great. Try charging a local five times the usual price for some commodity. :)

[chegitz guevara]

I really think that, categorically, the service sector simply feeds into a clientelist / bureaucratic kind of ruling class politics, hence my subscription to the terming of it as 'neo-feudalism'.... (See Wikipedia.)

Everything in this society feeds into ruling class politics. Getting your hair cut, or having someone serve you food at a restaurant are no more exploitative and alienating than any other form of work in this society.

[Invincible Summer]

I think a heavy reliance on tourism can be detrimental - develop, and lose "the culture," keep "the culture," and stay behind.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Everything in this society feeds into ruling class politics. Getting your hair cut, or having someone serve you food at a restaurant are no more exploitative and alienating than any other form of work in this society.

I think it's noteworthy that service sector employees do the kind of stuff that mostly used to be done by servants in the bad old days. Also note the servile attitudes that service sector employers encourage in their workers.

Personally, I'm in favour of eliminating the service sector through technological means as well as an empowering culture that encourages people to do things for themselves.

[Devrim]

I think you've slightly missed my point here. What these resorts are doing is trying to appeal to English people (or any other group. I'm only really using English resorts as an example because I'm English) at the expense of the local culture. This is caused by a drive for profit, and I think it's kind of sad that a lot of popular holiday resorts are just generic "holiday places" that could be anywhere. Surely the nice thing about visiting lots of different places is that you can enjoy a variety of experiences?

It depends what you want. The last time that I went on holiday about two years ago, we went to Bodrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodrum). We didn't want to enjoy 'a variety of experiences'. We wanted to relax by the sea.

When you talk about local culture though it brings up the question of what it really is. Wanted Man gets it right:


Then there are others who prefer to get the "authentic" experience with backpacks, Lonely Planet guides, girls in clogs in the Netherlands and bagpipe players in Scotland, all that stuff. All especially catered to tourists who want to see some pre-packaged, "authentic culture" of the place that they're visiting. It's best when they confirm comfortable pre-existing stereotypes and prejudices. It wouldn't be so grating if these people didn't largely consider themselves superior to the above category.

I remember sitting in a bar once on some South coast town, and hearing some English people complaining about wanting to see the 'real Turkey'. The bar was full of young people dressed in Western clothes, and had Western pop music blaring out from the TV, and large mirrors with 'Tuborg' logos on them.

Now to me, although these are not the sort of places I go at home (I prefer somewhere a bit quieter), this is the 'real Turkey'. Ankara has loads of bars like that, and Ankara is certainly not a city influenced by tourism.

What did these people want then? I imagine that they want to see the typical things, the Turkish equivalent of bagpipes and clogs, let's say belly dancing and Fezes. Now to me what is marketed as a 'Turkish night' by restaurants in these resorts is nothing to do with a 'real Turkey'. I have never even seen a belly dancer live (I have just asked a few people who are sitting in our living room and non of them have either). the 'Fez' is actually technically illegal in Turkey, but this is ignored in Tourist resorts.

The 'authentic culture' that people want to see is not 'authentic' at all, but part of a dead culture from the past revived, repackaged, and sold to them.


There are many other ways to go about being a tourist, but these two are the most likely to lead to all kinds of strange moral outrage from leftists. I personally think the latter is a bit worse because it's quite pretentious, but if that's how people want to go on vacation, who am I to stop them? What the fuck kind of business is it of mine?

I absolutely agree.


Tourists are great. Try charging a local five times the usual price for some commodity. :)

Only five times? I remember about five years ago, we were in Kemer, a small town on the South Coast. My (now ex) wife wanted a new bag. We went into a shop. She looked at them for about ten minutes, chose one, I asked for a twenty percent discount, got ten, and we bought our bag, and left. I paid just less than the equivalent of $20. While this was going on an elderly American couple, who had been haggling since we walked into the shop, bought exactly the same bag for $200, and walked out talking about how they got a good price.

Probably the 'haggling' was part of their rich cultural experience.

Devrim

[Achara]

I'm guessing either you or your ex-wife can speak the language, and therefore you don't have a big sign on your head saying 'ATM.' :)

I met a friend here who was on vacation and he told me how a vendor tried to sell him a diamond he was willing to sell for $500 US but was really worth $3000. The vendor demonstrated how it could cut glass and other other nonsense. The vendor then said that he could even go get it examined by a jewler to determine whether it was fake... which is what he did. The jewler asked for $30 US to determine if it was real or not, and without even looking at it told him it was fake. The scheme wasn't selling a fake diamond as a real one, but getting some sucker into a jewler and charging him/her an exorbiant amount to examine it. And if someone did buy it, then well that was even better.

Also, since foreigners aren't able to own land here (in their own name), they sometimes purchase it in their girlfriends name... only to come back from their native land finding that the locks have changed and the house has new owners because she's sold it :D

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I have mixed feelings on tourism and the press that it receives.

Being someone that took a year out between School and University, I feel well qualified to comment on that particular aspect of travel (the ubiquitous 'gap year'). Of course, there are going to be positive and negative aspects of such travel:

-People go to other countries and assimilate into other cultures, learning the language and 'going native'. That is what I tried to do. In particular, in Costa Rica where I was, they have a very important focus on sustainable tourism. Being one of the hotspots of environmental conservation in the world (0.04% of the world's land mass, yet 5% of the world's biodiversity, with 25% of the country being designated as national parks!), they place huge importance on responsible tourism. That is, people who go there generally do not visit to vomit all over the country. People are encouraged (and by and large, do) learn the language, learn the culture and customs, and observe and interact. There are other nations in the Americas where they whore themselves out to tourists. As a result, natural biodiversity suffers. I have heard stories of people feeding wild monkeys to get them to come out to play, even if this messes up their digestion system and the local eco-system. Where I travelled, they had strict rules on this, and encouraged responsibility, which makes travel more rewarding.

- You do have people who get their parents to pay for them to travel first class by air all around 'exotic' destinations, so that they can down bottles of spirits, eat burgers and then come back and tell everyone about how they've 'experienced culture'. I know people who have done that. However, i'd say they are in the minority and are over-exaggerated in the media, something which annoys me. We all get tainted with this label, which is frustrating when some of us take a year out, live in poverty and work for shit wages just to finance our own investigative travels.

Oh, to answer the topic question, i'd not say there is a relation between tourism and imperialism, but it's important to recognise that there are veritable negative consequences of 'bourgeois' travel - air pollution and the defamation of peoples' local culture, customs and dignity. However, it's important to recognise that free movement and travel are consequent to better relations between people of different cultures and are extremely important pillars of a united world.

[ckaihatsu]

I remember sitting in a bar once on some South coast town, and hearing some English people complaining about wanting to see the 'real Turkey'. The bar was full of young people dressed in Western clothes, and had Western pop music blaring out from the TV, and large mirrors with 'Tuborg' logos on them.

Now to me, although these are not the sort of places I go at home (I prefer somewhere a bit quieter), this is the 'real Turkey'.

[...]

The 'authentic culture' that people want to see is not 'authentic' at all, but part of a dead culture from the past revived, repackaged, and sold to them.


Wait -- so you mean that the tourism-influenced culture *is* the real culture that tourists are *seeking out* -- ???

(head explodes)


= D

[Palingenisis]

I don't quite get the moral objection to the behaviour of "slob tourists" either. Pretty clear class prejudice in that kind of critique, IMO. As far as I can tell, some people like to go to warm places and party for 2 weeks straight.

The world can be a pretty nasty place with people doing all sorts of vicious things to each other so there are plenty of other things to get worked up about. Also life can be stressful and just because someone chooses to spend two weeks sunbathing and partying doesnt necessarily mean they are a superficial moron all the rest of the year. The objections do come across as snobbery to me aswell.

[Palingenisis]

It depends what you want. The last time that I went on holiday about two years ago, we went to Bodrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodrum). We didn't want to enjoy 'a variety of experiences'. We wanted to relax by the sea.



I dont like loud music most the time...But I do like just laying on a beach and spacing out. You know the awful grey days that make up most of the Irish summer so going somewhere really hot is invigorating. That doesnt necessarily make me a slapper (though equally it doesnt not make me a slapper). Sometimes everybody needs to be a bit stupid and just relax.

[EvilRedGuy]

Comparing Tourism to Imperialism? Maybe in some way but i think you're thinking too deep.

[El Rojo]

Comparing Tourism to Imperialism? Maybe in some way but i think you're thinking too deep.

fair enough. hows about that tourism is a capitalist money machine, and therefore transforms people, places and culture into another sell-able resource.

viz tourism as a form of imperialism, in not really sure if i can articulate that one, and im sure a sectarian rant will somehow comeabout thereof :laugh::laugh:

[Devrim]

Wait -- so you mean that the tourism-influenced culture *is* the real culture that tourists are *seeking out* -- ???

(head explodes)


= D

I am not sure what you mean here. What I am trying to say is that the 'genuine' culture that tourists come looking for is the last dying remnants of an old feudal culture, which has been mostly replaced in people's everyday lives. What people buy as 'authentic culture' isn't something living at all, but more the equivalent of an exhumed corpse, with a bit of make up put on it to give it the semblance of life.

It is not just for tourists either. Things like Michael Flatley's riverdance stir the memories of traditional Irish dancing, but the reason that it can be sold to us as a show, or experience is precisely because we don't live in villages where people dance those dances regularly anymore.

There is a Turkish equivalent, Anadolu Ateşi, which is massively popular. I have been to see it, and it is a great night out. I don't have any problem with people wanting to watch things like this. They are impressive and entertaining.

What I do have a problem with is people looking down on others, who just go on holiday to relax, lie on a beach, and drink a little more than usual, because they "go to other countries and assimilate into other cultures", particularly so when what they are consuming, and that is exactly the correct word, has nothing to do with the real culture, lived by people in that country at all, but is more akin to necrophilia.

Devrim

[ckaihatsu]

I am not sure what you mean here.


I was getting at the paradox of tourists making up a significant portion of the local population they're travelling to, thus partially *forming* the "local culture" that they're "seeking out".





What I am trying to say is that the 'genuine' culture that tourists come looking for is the last dying remnants of an old feudal culture, which has been mostly replaced in people's everyday lives. What people buy as 'authentic culture' isn't something living at all, but more the equivalent of an exhumed corpse, with a bit of make up put on it to give it the semblance of life.


This *is* a tricky issue -- it seems that humanity as a whole *might* want to preserve remnants of its cultural past, just as we do with buildings, but in so doing we become weighted-down and more accepting of *political* backwardness and retention of obsolete *social* practices. The preservation of past forms of culture can even encompass people's entire lives where they become groupies or living museums in the process of adhering to a regimented, prescribed way of living, thus annihilating their individuality completely -- the church would be an extreme example of this.

It might be *preferable* to have a more formalized, *regulated* approach to the preservation of past cultures, to displace more-dangerous *informal* adoption of the same by people, so that they *don't* wind up throwing their lives away for the sake of culture.





It is not just for tourists either. Things like Michael Flatley's riverdance stir the memories of traditional Irish dancing, but the reason that it can be sold to us as a show, or experience is precisely because we don't live in villages where people dance those dances regularly anymore.

There is a Turkish equivalent, Anadolu Ateşi, which is massively popular. I have been to see it, and it is a great night out. I don't have any problem with people wanting to watch things like this. They are impressive and entertaining.


Yeah, this sounds like a *healthier* approach -- perhaps this is where the market can actually be seen as a *positive* thing, wherein only those who are willing to *seek out* cultural experiences become the de facto *patrons* of past culture, fuelling its preservation and display to *limited* degrees (and letting the rest "fall by the wayside").





What I do have a problem with is people looking down on others, who just go on holiday to relax, lie on a beach, and drink a little more than usual, because they "go to other countries and assimilate into other cultures", particularly so when what they are consuming, and that is exactly the correct word, has nothing to do with the real culture, lived by people in that country at all, but is more akin to necrophilia.


I would extend this criticism to religious-based institutions particularly -- it's a gray area, of course, but the daily recreation of Roman- and Byzantine-based rituals seems far too demanding of people's own lives for the sake of preservation of culture.

[Vanguard1917]

I am not sure what you mean here. What I am trying to say is that the 'genuine' culture that tourists come looking for is the last dying remnants of an old feudal culture, which has been mostly replaced in people's everyday lives. What people buy as 'authentic culture' isn't something living at all, but more the equivalent of an exhumed corpse, with a bit of make up put on it to give it the semblance of life.

Well put. We could also question why it should be so gratifying for there to exist so many supposedly alien cultures in the first place. For me, it's always a pleasing and reassuring aspect of travelling abroad to find that i have much more in common with people outside Britain than i may have previously thought.

[bcbm]

yes, how could anyone possibly enjoy a world where people have differences?? of course i think difference/commonality is a false dichotomy.

[Oswy]

...

What I was asking here is what is wrong with people going on holiday, eating food that they are used to, and speaking to people who speak their own language if that is what they want to do?...

I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all but are you suggesting that we shouldn't give a shit about how our conduct on holiday might affect the locals? Maybe I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, but shouldn't we, as leftists, at least care and think about whether the way we enjoy our holiday might negatively impact on people who are often relatively poor and at the mercy of our economic power? For one example I always choose to drink locally made wine or spirits where available when I'm in Greece. Sure, this is partly because local produce is invariably cheaper, stronger ( :D ) and, for the most part, better quality, but it also means more of my money is going into the pockets of real people and not to some huge faceless drinks corporation which largely bypasses the local capital flows. I dunno, living under capitalism makes it hard to justify anything that we do, or don't do, it's all so fucked up.

[ckaihatsu]

shouldn't we, as leftists, at least care and think about whether the way we enjoy our holiday might negatively impact on people who are often relatively poor and at the mercy of our economic power?




I dunno, living under capitalism makes it hard to justify anything that we do, or don't do, it's all so fucked up.


Our (revolutionary) politics actually addresses this issue very well -- the *worst* position to be in, relative to the means of mass production, is as a consumer (or not a consumer).

"The customer is always right", but that's only to the extent of the money they're using to purchase something, within the confines of the purchase. It's more of an individualistic-oriented economic action, so one's purchasing habits are far from pace-setting on their own, and the relative luxury of consumption doesn't carry over that well into socio-political organizing, for having an impact on politics. Being closer to the *point of production* is far more powerful, on a collectively empowering, organized basis in the workplace.

From another thread's discussion and contents I created a diagram fairly recently that happens to be relevant to this issue here -- it's attached.


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://i56.tinypic.com/15eitkg.jpg

[Devrim]

For one example I always choose to drink locally made wine or spirits where available when I'm in Greece. Sure, this is partly because local produce is invariably cheaper, stronger ( :D ) and, for the most part, better quality, but it also means more of my money is going into the pockets of real people and not to some huge faceless drinks corporation which largely bypasses the local capital flows. I dunno, living under capitalism makes it hard to justify anything that we do, or don't do, it's all so fucked up.

I don't know the details about drinks but if you were to drink the cheap local spirits here in Turkey you would be putting your money into the pockets of British American Tobacco, whose Turkish subsidiary TEKEL has revenue of $3.6 billion*, a company which incidentally has just been through a massive industrial dispute in its tobacco sector.

Even if the drinks you produce are made by local companies, all it does it put money into the hands of the local capitalists.

If you look at the most popular 'local' Greek spirit 'Ouzo 12' though, you will find that it is owned by Camari group, an Italian based multinational with a revenue of just over €1 billion**.

Devrim

*2004 figure
**2009 figure

[Oswy]

I don't know the details about drinks but if you were to drink the cheap local spirits here in Turkey you would be putting your money into the pockets of British American Tobacco, whose Turkish subsidiary TEKEL has revenue of $3.6 billion*, a company which incidentally has just been through a massive industrial dispute in its tobacco sector.

Even if the drinks you produce are made by local companies, all it does it put money into the hands of the local capitalists.

If you look at the most popular 'local' Greek spirit 'Ouzo 12' though, you will find that it is owned by Camari group, an Italian based multinational with a revenue of just over €1 billion**.

Devrim

*2004 figure
**2009 figure

Well, I'm not suggesting that buying my alcohol from a small local capitalist isn't supporting capitalism at all but on the basis that the third alternative is not to drink at all on holiday I don't know what else I should do. What do you recommend? In some instances the wine and ouzo I've been given at Greek tavernas has been home-made - the ideal scenario usually (I've never been disappointed with that stuff).

[Oswy]

Our (revolutionary) politics actually addresses this issue very well -- the *worst* position to be in, relative to the means of mass production, is as a consumer (or not a consumer).

"The customer is always right", but that's only to the extent of the money they're using to purchase something, within the confines of the purchase. It's more of an individualistic-oriented economic action, so one's purchasing habits are far from pace-setting on their own, and the relative luxury of consumption doesn't carry over that well into socio-political organizing, for having an impact on politics. Being closer to the *point of production* is far more powerful, on a collectively empowering, organized basis in the workplace.

From another thread's discussion and contents I created a diagram fairly recently that happens to be relevant to this issue here -- it's attached.


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://i56.tinypic.com/15eitkg.jpg

Um, so are you suggesting that if I have to consume through capitalism, small capitalist enterprises should always be given preference? This is, intuitively, how I've been approaching the issue.

[Devrim]

Well, I'm not suggesting that buying my alcohol from a small local capitalist isn't supporting capitalism at all but on the basis that the third alternative is not to drink at all on holiday I don't know what else I should do. What do you recommend? In some instances the wine and ouzo I've been given at Greek tavernas has been home-made - the ideal scenario usually (I've never been disappointed with that stuff).

I suggest drinking what you want. Capitalism will not be overthrown by people making different consumer choices. Somebody made a good suggest earlier in the thread:


Sure, this is partly because local produce is invariably cheaper, stronger ( :D ) and, for the most part, better quality,

They were all good reasons. It was the political bit that you tacked on next that wasn't.

Devrim

[Oswy]

I suggest drinking what you want. Capitalism will not be overthrown by people making different consumer choices. Somebody made a good suggest earlier in the thread:



They were all good reasons. It was the political bit that you tacked on next that wasn't.

Devrim

Capitalism may not be overthrown by our choices as consumers, but such choices can surely represent different degrees of 'support' for different forms of capitalism, some forms, in my view, being more pernicious than others. Alongside this is the symbolic value of choosing to support relatively poor locals (little capitalists or not) above the ever accumulating corporations. Are we to engage in capitalist consumption just as the capitalist system would like or are we, however modestly, to make choices which demonstrate our alternative aims? Do you have a plan with regard to how you live under capitalism or is your attitude one which embraces capitalism with open arms until and unless the system is overthrown (by someone else, presumably)?

[ed miliband]

Capitalism may not be overthrown by our choices as consumers, but such choices can surely represent different degrees of 'support' for different forms of capitalism, some forms, in my view, being more pernicious than others. Alongside this is the symbolic value of choosing to support relatively poor locals (little capitalists or not) above the ever accumulating corporations. Are we to engage in capitalist consumption just as the capitalist system would like or are we, however modestly, to make choices which demonstrate our alternative aims? Do you have a plan with regard to how you live under capitalism or is your attitude one which embraces capitalism with open arms until and unless the system is overthrown (by someone else, presumably)?

The capitalist system isn't really concerned whether you buy cheap fruit and veg from Lidl or if you pay a fiver more for the same produce at an organic farmers market or 'local small business'. It's all very well talking about how making certain consumer choices "represents" and is "symbolic" as something, but it's essentially a pointless act (which you even admit - it won't overthrow capitalism), and one that often isn't in the material interests of working class people.

[RadioRaheem84]

A lot of private investment into planned economies starts off with tourism; Vietnam, Cuba.

[Oswy]

The capitalist system isn't really concerned whether you buy cheap fruit and veg from Lidl or if you pay a fiver more for the same produce at an organic farmers market or 'local small business'. It's all very well talking about how making certain consumer choices "represents" and is "symbolic" as something, but it's essentially a pointless act (which you even admit - it won't overthrow capitalism), and one that often isn't in the material interests of working class people.

But that just sounds like an abdication for any responsibility in how we act within capitalism, cos it's still capitalism. I'm still a human being interacting with other humans and if I believe that my choices in consumption more obviously benefit, say, a poor taverna owning family rather than a corporation, then I think it's the right thing to do. After all, I'm living right now, I'm not living in some future socialist or communist world.

[ed miliband]

But that just sounds like an abdication for any responsibility in how we act within capitalism, cos it's still capitalism. I'm still a human being interacting with other humans and if I believe that my choices in consumption more obviously benefit, say, a poor taverna owning family rather than a corporation, then I think it's the right thing to do. After all, I'm living right now, I'm not living in some future socialist or communist world.

... And what about the workers who work for the corporation that you don't wish to give your money to? It won't make too much of a difference (if any) if you withhold your cash, but what if a ten thousand other people have the same attitude as you? The corporation isn't going to cease to operate, it's just going to get rid of workers and streamline the company a bit.

Yeah, we're living right now and not in a future communist world, and that is precisely the point; capitalism is inescapable right now, and while your consumer choices might make you feel a little better they are hardly of benefit to the working class at large.

[ckaihatsu]

Um, so are you suggesting that if I have to consume through capitalism, small capitalist enterprises should always be given preference? This is, intuitively, how I've been approaching the issue.


No, your own personal purchases are a drop in the ocean, and who your particular suppliers are is just as insignificant, too, from any economic or political perspective.





one's purchasing habits are far from pace-setting on their own, and the relative luxury of consumption doesn't carry over that well into socio-political organizing, for having an impact on politics. Being closer to the *point of production* is far more powerful, on a collectively empowering, organized basis in the workplace.





Capitalism may not be overthrown by our choices as consumers, but such choices can surely represent different degrees of 'support' for different forms of capitalism, some forms, in my view, being more pernicious than others. Alongside this is the symbolic value of choosing to support relatively poor locals (little capitalists or not) above the ever accumulating corporations. Are we to engage in capitalist consumption just as the capitalist system would like or are we, however modestly, to make choices which demonstrate our alternative aims? Do you have a plan with regard to how you live under capitalism or is your attitude one which embraces capitalism with open arms until and unless the system is overthrown (by someone else, presumably)?


I'm taking the liberty of attaching *another* diagram, which may have some illustrative value here. Its basic idea is that civilization -- *any* civilization -- is premised on a societal surplus. We can look at this societal surplus in a before-and-after way, according to the one-way flow of time -- first, what societal inputs *led into* the surplus being created in the first place? Then, what happens to the surplus *after* it's created?

Also consider that the number of people -- workers -- who are part of the process of *manufacturing*, or creating, goods and services is necessarily (much) *smaller* than the number of *consumers* of the same goods and services, since we know that the workers' labor power is *leveraged*. So there are many more consumers than workers, and the consumers' role is far more *passive* than that of the workers, since they're only purchasing and consuming products that have *already* been pre-designed, funded, and mass produced.

The workers, however, by material-functional description, are the ones who *must* put in all of the labor that enables the capitalists' and managers' plans to become reality. Without their labor there could be neither profit-making / planning, or consumption -- in short, no societal surplus or civilization *whatsoever*.

Since this is all in the realm of economics, and *not* politics, there *is* no component of 'support', as we're used to dealing with regarding the nation-state, political parties, labor unions, etc. -- all *economic* 'support' is strictly by monetary units, and nothing else.

This, I think, is the source of some confusion around the left, where characteristics from the realm of politics are mixed up into the realm of economics. Since *profit*-seeking is what drives commodity-production -- (even product popularity and consumer preferences are *tangential* to this) -- the idea of individual consumers showing "symbolic" "support" for one kind of product or another should occur to us as being very absurd. "Symbolic" actions would *at least* need some kind of *publicity* behind them, as with public relations and marketing campaigns -- but in so *formalizing* and funding such campaigns they are, by definition, serving the purposes of those who are funding them, and thus the publicity has particular economic interests of their own behind them -- they cannot be truly 'independent' if they are to be well-funded and effective.

How we live under capitalism as individuals -- even as political people -- is completely *arbitrary*, just as for anyone else. All one can say is that we are all bounded by finite time, and so more time spent in the role of consumer is *less* time spent in revolutionary political activity....


G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

http://i48.tinypic.com/28smo9v.jpg

[Oswy]

... And what about the workers who work for the corporation that you don't wish to give your money to? It won't make too much of a difference (if any) if you withhold your cash, but what if a ten thousand other people have the same attitude as you? The corporation isn't going to cease to operate, it's just going to get rid of workers and streamline the company a bit.

Yeah, we're living right now and not in a future communist world, and that is precisely the point; capitalism is inescapable right now, and while your consumer choices might make you feel a little better they are hardly of benefit to the working class at large.

Ok, but doesn't your position thus discourage us from doing anything which hurts capitalist enterprise - because it inevitably hurts the workers who are reliant upon it?

[Oswy]

No, your own personal purchases are a drop in the ocean, and who your particular suppliers are is just as insignificant, too, from any economic or political perspective...

Sure, but all big journeys involve little steps. Well, if you're on foot that is :D

I didn't really follow the rest of your post, sorry.

[ckaihatsu]

Sure, but all big journeys involve little steps. Well, if you're on foot that is :D


Okay, but I think it's important to be effective, too, and to not waste one's own time and efforts. There's nothing wrong with taking journeys, of course, but then journeys are not necessarily *political*....





I didn't really follow the rest of your post, sorry.


The overall idea is that politics are rarely impacted from *consumer*-sided campaigns and movements -- what's needed is coordination and labor activity in the *workplace* itself, in order to be effective.

[chegitz guevara]

I think it's noteworthy that service sector employees do the kind of stuff that mostly used to be done by servants in the bad old days. Also note the servile attitudes that service sector employers encourage in their workers.

And farming is something that was done by serfs and slaves, but I like to garden.


Personally, I'm in favour of eliminating the service sector through technological means as well as an empowering culture that encourages people to do things for themselves.

Why? Don't you get any satisfaction doing something nice for people, helping them feel good. I enjoyed waiting tables.

[ckaihatsu]

Why? Don't you get any satisfaction doing something nice for people, helping them feel good. I enjoyed waiting tables.


I'm tempted to jokingly say 'Stockholm Syndrome' here, but, with all due respect, we really need to get society to a point where *everyone* is really on a more-or-less equal "co-administrative" footing over all aspects of the world -- no other species is going to do it, and, as individuals, we're all pretty much the same in terms of ability in a collective context.

[Quail]

Why? Don't you get any satisfaction doing something nice for people, helping them feel good. I enjoyed waiting tables.

I think you're in the minority. I hated waiting tables. However, there is a difference between doing something nice for someone because you want to, and doing something nice for someone because you have to. Most service sector jobs are quite demeaning, I think (or at least the ones I've worked definitely have been), and eliminating the need for them would be desirable. That's not to say that people can't do them if they want to, but most people won't want to.

[Oswy]

Okay, but I think it's important to be effective, too, and to not waste one's own time and efforts. There's nothing wrong with taking journeys, of course, but then journeys are not necessarily *political*....

You don't think every act in the world, no matter how small, is a political act?


The overall idea is that politics are rarely impacted from *consumer*-sided campaigns and movements -- what's needed is coordination and labor activity in the *workplace* itself, in order to be effective.

I see, thanks. Maybe you're right, but I suppose I'd reply by suggesting that by showing solidarity with campaigns that are at least challenging of the capitalist paradigm this helps bolster the anti-capitalist agenda in toto. In this sense environmentalism, as far as it challenges the consuming culture which capitalism is so reliant upon, is a worthy 'bedfellow' in some degree, it may even turn some environmentalists into Marxists!

[Devrim]

The overall idea is that politics are rarely impacted from *consumer*-sided campaigns and movements -- what's needed is coordination and labor activity in the *workplace* itself, in order to be effective.

Ckaihatsu, could you try using inverted commas instead of asterisks please? It makes your posts very difficult to read. For example, I really struggled with post 62.

Devrim

[chegitz guevara]

I'm tempted to jokingly say 'Stockholm Syndrome' here, but, with all due respect, we really need to get society to a point where *everyone* is really on a more-or-less equal "co-administrative" footing over all aspects of the world -- no other species is going to do it, and, as individuals, we're all pretty much the same in terms of ability in a collective context.


I think you're in the minority. I hated waiting tables.

The problem isn't waiting tables, it's the alienating conditions in which the work is done. Abolish capitalism and take control of your job and it could be fun. The same is true of most service jobs.


You don't think every act in the world, no matter how small, is a political act?

No. Individualistic acts are merely masturbation, making yourself feel better without doing anything productive.

[Quail]

The problem isn't waiting tables, it's the alienating conditions in which the work is done. Abolish capitalism and take control of your job and it could be fun. The same is true of most service jobs.

While this is partly true, I don't think it really applies to things like waiting tables, washing dishes or stacking shelves. Some jobs just aren't that fun. If you could choose to do any kind of fulfilling work, I'm not convinced that waiting tables would be high up on anyone's list.

[ckaihatsu]

You don't think every act in the world, no matter how small, is a political act?


I *will* take this kind of argument seriously, in the sense that, as conscious entities, we all have *some* kind of effect on others we come into contact with (or that our words, cultural products do, etc.).

So, in the sense that society is a political construct (in motion), and that we are all dynamic components of it, then, yes, we're all exerting *some* degree of political-like influence within it -- and being influenced by it -- in everything that we do, whether conscious or not.

*However*, the factor of *scale*, or magnitude, is remaining unaddressed by you -- I could just as easily say that I'm influencing the gaseous atmosphere with my breathing, but we all know that it's a tiny, tiny portion of the whole. Likewise, a person could be educated and not care about politics at all and go around and have *some* influence on others, and it could be called "political", but it would hardly be comparable to someone who is a *political person* -- someone who engages with political matters consciously and pro-actively.





The overall idea is that politics are rarely impacted from *consumer*-sided campaigns and movements -- what's needed is coordination and labor activity in the *workplace* itself, in order to be effective.





I see, thanks. Maybe you're right, but I suppose I'd reply by suggesting that by showing solidarity with campaigns that are at least challenging of the capitalist paradigm this helps bolster the anti-capitalist agenda in toto.


Certainly. We all do what we can....





In this sense environmentalism, as far as it challenges the consuming culture which capitalism is so reliant upon, is a worthy 'bedfellow' in some degree, it may even turn some environmentalists into Marxists!


Okay -- you're making the argument that we can all play *some* kind of role....

Two points here:

- Since you're acknowledging the distinction between an explicit anti-capitalist agenda, and that of environmentalism, why can't *you* simply be anti-capitalist, too -- ?

- If I *am* correct about workplace / labor activity being more effective than consumer-sided activities, then that means that "challenging the consuming culture" is *not* as effective as actual workplace / labor activity. I'd also question whether capitalism is "so reliant upon [the consuming culture]" -- again, it's not, because capitalism is only driven by profit-making activities, which could come from war industries, infrastructure projects, etc., and not solely from the consumer. (Our previous exchanges have been on this topic, too.)

The revolutionary leftist position is that the natural environment would be under vastly better caretaking in the hands of the world's self-liberated revolutionary proletariat. That's because there would be no objective need to run industry for the sake of the profit-making machine -- by re-focusing industrial activity to meet people's humane needs, things like people's health and nature preservation could be real parts of the overall collective mass planning and industrial policy. As things are now those are *secondary* concerns, at best, behind full-output industrial production for the sake of generating profits.

So while it's fine and all to be politically "neighborly", what's more to the point is *how best* to effect an *overhaul*, or paradigm-shift, in the way industrial implements are used. This can *only* be accomplished by revolutionizing the economic base that determines industrial usage, from that of capitalist finance to that of the world's workers, on a collective basis.

[Oswy]

...
No. Individualistic acts are merely masturbation, making yourself feel better without doing anything productive.

Masturbation is one of the few spheres of activity in which I control my means of (re)production :D

More seriously, I don't agree with such an uncompromisingly dismissive attitude to the everyday things we do in the world which can have political effects, but I won't argue any further on that point.

[ckaihatsu]

---





Ckaihatsu, could you try using inverted commas instead of asterisks please? It makes your posts very difficult to read. For example, I really struggled with post 62.





Since this is all text here I *have* to use asterisks to provide emphasis and break up the pacing of the sentence a little. If I were doing this in person you'd *hear* my emphasis (and a lot of exhorting, natch), but in text it's all about the "punctuation", so to speak....

So all of my "punctuation critics" should go and have a drink, at their own expense, watch some lava lamp videos and just find something else to do until they feel more in the mood to handle a few asterisks with their political content. I mean, hey, *****ing is fun and all, but there're more important things to do around this board. I'll see what I can do to be as *sparing* as possible with 'em -- unfortunately they're *free*!

= D