Is Smoking pro-corporatist?

[W1N5T0N]

Hey'all

I was wondering whether smoking could be classified as a pro-corporatist/pro-exploitant act, because by smoking, you A)enable the grand tobacco corporations to build up profit surplus that is B) generated mostly by workers in 3rd world countries who dont get paid shit and whose children can't go to school and have to work on the fields in dangerous and toxic conditions? to make tobacco for the corporations ->generates profit -> end-product reaches smoker. So, by smoking, aren't you supporting exploitation of 3rd world workers? :redstar2000:

Cheers,

an eco-socalist.

[Broletariat]

No, smoking is a personal choice. Politics is not about personal choices.

[PhoenixAsh]

bwahahaha... WTF? Are you for real?


Let me go through the list:

= Is buying food at the grocery market pro-corporatist? Because you know...big corporations make a profit...

= Is buying bananna's pro-corporatist? Because...depending on where you live they are mostly produced by wage laborers in lesser or least developed countries. ...(there is only ONE fucking world) who work in unhealthy conditions and deal with toxic and chemical materials to plant, protect, and harvest banaba's for the corporations....and who also do not get paid shit.


fuck...what about clothes? Or what about...well..basically anything.

[EdgyandOriginal]

Couldn't you make that argument regarding any business? At what point is exploitation too much?

[GPDP]

Hey'all

I was wondering whether smoking could be classified as a pro-corporatist/pro-exploitant act, because by smoking, you A)enable the grand tobacco corporations to build up profit surplus that is B) generated mostly by workers in 3rd world countries who dont get paid shit and whose children can't go to school and have to work on the fields in dangerous and toxic conditions? to make tobacco for the corporations ->generates profit -> end-product reaches smoker. So, by smoking, aren't you supporting exploitation of 3rd world workers? :redstar2000:

Cheers,

an eco-socalist.

Just about every product we use today fits the above definition of "pro-corporatist/pro-exploitant," you know. Tobacco is but one such product. If what you're implying is that we should stop using such products, then the only logical conclusion is to go live in the woods and off the grid, because, surprise surprise, every worker is exploited, and using any product supports that exploitation.

The point of revolutionary socialism isn't to change consumption habits, but to change production relations. Only then will exploitation end.

[thesadmafioso]

A good number of Bolsheviks smoked, so unless the Bolshevik revolution was pro-corporatist then I don't think smoking itself can be said to hold that title.

[L.A.P.]

What does any of this have to do with corporatism?

[W1N5T0N]

bwahahaha... WTF? Are you for real?


Let me go through the list:

= Is buying food at the grocery market pro-corporatist? Because you know...big corporations make a profit...

= Is buying bananna's pro-corporatist? Because...depending on where you live they are mostly produced by wage laborers in lesser or least developed countries. ...(there is only ONE fucking world) who work in unhealthy conditions and deal with toxic and chemical materials to plant, protect, and harvest banaba's for the corporations....and who also do not get paid shit.


fuck...what about clothes? Or what about...well..basically anything.
well isn't exactly that the point of anarchy? ;) Not relying on big corporations?
and yes, I know theres only one world, thank you.

GPDP cleared the issue for me, thanks very much for helping :). Helped set my mind on ease, now i can smoke again without qualms...and yeah, if you look at it from the perspective that everything nowadays is pro-corporatism...It's a by product of capitalism, so we have to battle the roots of it, and ensure the freedom and equality of all people.

Ps: do you think it's good that bananas are flown all over the world about 5 times only to get them harvested, cleaned, boxed and sold? I mean, bananas are good but doing this much for some fruit?

Okay, so point made, smoking ain't pro corporatist, we gotta change the means of production. Merci :)

[W1N5T0N]

What does any of this have to do with corporatism?
well, corporations own the means of production...of everything.

[hatzel]

Buying smokes is (pretty much) no different than buying anything else. Some prefer to buy some hipster tobacco and roll their own, and think that's better, which it might be. Vegans seem to have a problem with cigarette companies, but that's more based on stuff about animals, rather than about supporting corporations. As an eco-socialist, you might have been floating around these vegans who are just trying desperately to add more ideas to their list of reasons why smoking's bad...

[W1N5T0N]

Well smoking is a personal choice, and I realize that ain't the problem. The problem = bad treatment of workers making tobacco. But we want to change that, right? Not smoking itself.

[bailey_187]

maybe, but people just cant get enough of that smooth lucky strike taste

[DDR]

Then buy cuban tobacco.

[IndependentCitizen]

Oh come on....

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

No, smoking is a personal choice. Politics is not about personal choices.

Though the general thing of this thread is quite strange and so on, don't be daft, of course personal choices are politics. Everything is political.

[GPDP]

Well smoking is a personal choice, and I realize that ain't the problem. The problem = bad treatment of workers making tobacco. But we want to change that, right? Not smoking itself.

Precisely. If our goal is to end exploitation, then something has to be done about the conditions that lead to it. The left-liberal approach is to boycott companies that exploit workers (their idea of exploitation here being terrible working conditions and starvation wages, unlike the far more concrete Marxist definition, which sees exploitation as the creation of surplus value inherent in capitalist production relations). The socialist approach is for workers to take over the means of production and use it to satiate their needs rather than the bottom line of a corporate fat cat.

[KurtFF8]

bwahahaha... WTF? Are you for real?


Let me go through the list:

= Is buying food at the grocery market pro-corporatist? Because you know...big corporations make a profit...

= Is buying bananna's pro-corporatist? Because...depending on where you live they are mostly produced by wage laborers in lesser or least developed countries. ...(there is only ONE fucking world) who work in unhealthy conditions and deal with toxic and chemical materials to plant, protect, and harvest banaba's for the corporations....and who also do not get paid shit.


fuck...what about clothes? Or what about...well..basically anything.

No need to condascend to someone asking a question in the Learning Forum.

As was pointed out earlier, buying cigarettes is no different than buying any other commodity per say. It's difficult to "shop ethically" but that kind of logic quickly devolves into things like "Green Consumerism" that assume that your personal shopping habits are what change the world.

That line of thought is flawed for a host of reasons, but the basic notion that Leftists agree is wrong with it is that the "masses" or "people" make history (or even the relations of production and how they change). Personal shopping habits have a very limited kind of habit, and even many of what are promoted as "ethical shopping choices" contain a very exploitative practices.

I suggest looking up "green washing" for an environmental example of this.

And the corporatism that the Left refers to is usually what the Wikipedia article is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism not "rule by corporations"

[Die Rote Fahne]

Does smoking promote class cooperation?

I don't think so.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I would agree with the points made that buying almost anything in the current economy supports corporations in some way. You can hardly avoid funding large corporations in some way no matter what you buy, unless you make everything you need yourself from materials you got outside the mainstream economy. Needless to say, that would prove extraordinarily difficult in the current economy. You would probably have to resort to an almost primitive standard of living, relying entirely on home-grown food, clothes stitched from animal hides, and so forth.

That said, tobacco differs notably from much of what we buy in the sense that we don't really need it to survive or satisfy our needs and indeed it actually lessens our chances of survival in the long run. I would consider it foolish and counterproductive to smoke for that reason and certainly don't recommend that you take up smoking. But in the grand scheme of things, it probably won't make much difference for the economy whether you choose to smoke or not. It bears noting anyway that the same corporation that makes your cigarettes probably makes plenty of other products through subsidiaries and so forth.

[Zav]

I suppose it depends WHAT one is smoking. Yes, buying tobacco supports corporations, so make yourself feel better about it by defacing the cigarette ads outside the store at which you buy your smokes, or better yet plant a dozen trees. It'll make both you and the environment a little healthier.:)

[bailey_187]

I suppose it depends WHAT one is smoking. Yes, buying tobacco supports corporations, so make yourself feel better about it by defacing the cigarette ads outside the store at which you buy your smokes, or better yet plant a dozen trees. It'll make both you and the environment a little healthier.:)

why u fucking with the ad's man, people need to see what cigaretes are avaliable at the shop

[Zav]

why u fucking with the ad's man, people need to see what cigaretes are avaliable at the shop
Because they are too Capitalist? Besides, one wouldn't destroy them, just make them a bit more humorous.

[L.A.P.]

well, corporations own the means of production...of everything.

That has nothing to do with corporatism.

[W1N5T0N]

Yep, i know that know. I meant "exploitative corporation practises", the subject of which has been indepth explained to me here by Kurt and GPDP. I get it now ;) i'll take heed next time i post something. learning process, right?

i think this thread's pretty much been chewed through now. Thanks everybody for clearing this (albeit admittedly trivial) issue.

[ellipsis]

Corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) is something completely different from what you're talking about. Just saying.

Edit: Sorry just saw that I was not the only one to point this out. I won't delete it so people know I am smart.

Edit2: This first word in this song is discorporate... it means to leave your body.

[W1N5T0N]

hm so apparently corporatism is associated also with syndicalism and socialism...

damn it, english is so ambigous (*not guilty :rolleyes:*)

i'll say it again: i meant exploitation by corporations.

[MisanthropicSocialist]

hm so apparently corporatism is associated also with syndicalism and socialism...

damn it, english is so ambigous (*not guilty :rolleyes:*)

i'll say it again: i meant exploitation by corporations.

Corporatism has a lot to do with fascism actually. I'm pretty sure it's when the state heavily regulates the economy and keeps the classes in line. Everyone pretty much works for the government's nationalistic agenda. It usually results in a sickeningly intertwined relationship between the state and the upper-class.

[xub3rn00dlex]

I suppose it depends WHAT one is smoking. Yes, buying tobacco supports corporations, so make yourself feel better about it by defacing the cigarette ads outside the store at which you buy your smokes, or better yet plant a dozen trees. It'll make both you and the environment a little healthier.:)

Hmmm, what about those e-cigs nowadays? They contain no tobacco whatsoever, so you wouldn't be supporting tobacco corporations, but I guess you'd be trading one type of exploitation for another by exploiting the proletariat producing the parts for the e-cigs. :( And I would agree with you about defacing the cigarette ads, but would that include the ones with the pictures about the damage it causes? ie. the black lungs, missing fingers/toes?

[W1N5T0N]

The proletariat is being exploited by producing (amongst many other things) consumer objects (like e-cigs), and those are a lot nowadays...and we gotta change the means of production. to be honest with ya, im not a regular smoker, but some of my friends are, so that's why i was wondering about this.

[Thirsty Crow]

A good number of Bolsheviks smoked, so unless the Bolshevik revolution was pro-corporatist then I don't think smoking itself can be said to hold that title.
Oh you are so ingorant.
Don't you know that every Bolshevik smoker had his/her own miniscule tobacco plantation and worked on it himself/herself?
Jeez.

[W1N5T0N]

That is actually a good idea. Providing you own land, and know how to cultivate tobacco. ;)

[bailey_187]

That is actually a good idea. Providing you own land, and know how to cultivate tobacco. ;)

then u will be throwing out of the work the exploited tobacco growers in the first place :O

[RED DAVE]

[N]ow i can smoke again without qualms. I wouldn't do that if you plan on living to see the revolution. Cancer is a dirty way to die.

RED DAVE

[Jazzratt]

I wouldn't do that if you plan on living to see the revolution. Cancer is a dirty way to die.

RED DAVE On average smoking regularly knocks five or so years off the end of your life so it's not like someone who died thanks to smoking would have much of the glorious post revolutionary society to look forward to.

[W1N5T0N]

yep, cancer sucks. so does chainsmoking. In the end, as long as you do things in moderation, it won't be too harmful. only problem is, "in moderation" consists of arbitrarily set values. I don't even smoke enough tobacco to be classified as a regular smoker, so I guess the 5 year/ cancer thing doesn't go for me...thats for chainsmokers.;)

[Jazzratt]

yep, cancer sucks. so does chainsmoking. In the end, as long as you do things in moderation, it won't be too harmful. only problem is, "in moderation" consists of arbitrarily set values. I don't even smoke enough tobacco to be classified as a regular smoker, so I guess the 5 year/ cancer thing doesn't go for me...thats for chainsmokers.;) Don't fool yourself, mate. The 5 year/regular smoker thing is an average. Sucking down a carcinogenic fog, even occasionally is going to increase your chances of getting cancer; an irregular smoker could still die a decade or more sooner than their lifestyle would indicate if they're particularly unlucky.

Anyway, I'm a regular smoker and I don't think this means I'm any more supportive of corporations than the fact I eat junk food.

[Revolutionair]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ySCcnoo3c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ySCcnoo3c)

[Hit The North]

No, smoking is a personal choice. Politics is not about personal choices.

Since when has that been a rule? "Personal choices" don't exist in isolation from relations of power and exploitation.



The point of revolutionary socialism isn't to change consumption habits, but to change production relations. Only then will exploitation end.

Except that consumption is only the flipside of production and is a necessary moment in the circulation of capital. So that when we consume we reproduce the relations of production. Consumption should not, therefore, be uncritical. But if you argue that the choice is either "smoke or live in the woods", you deny the need to consume critically and the possibilities for organising politically around issues of consumption.

As we know, capitalism will sell any kind of poisonous shit to us if it can turn a profit. It'll slap a label on something, get a celebrity endorsement and then charge way over the real value if it can convince people of its "coolness" or some other intangible.

Corporations pay a dollar a day to some workers in Haiti and then hit other workers in North America with a 300% mark-up at the retail point. As revolutionary socialists we shouldn't stand by, watching all this and say, "Yeah, well, man, you gotta have your Nikes." The culture of over-consumption which reproduces poverty, oppression, and our own alienation, should not be a matter of indifference to us.

[Hit The North]

Anyway, I'm a regular smoker and I don't think this means I'm any more supportive of corporations than the fact I eat junk food.

Face it, Jazz, you're just a lazyass hipster. You need some exercise and a good salad. :lol:

[Zanthorus]

...when we consume we reproduce the relations of production.

This also happens when you do work for your boss. In fact, a large amount of activity within capitalism is integrated into capitalism. Perhaps I should stop going to college, after all it is training me to become productive in order to better serve capital.

[Hit The North]

This also happens when you do work for your boss. In fact, a large amount of activity within capitalism is integrated into capitalism. Perhaps I should stop going to college, after all it is training me to become productive in order to better serve capital.

Hey, maybe you should! But then many of the most productive members of society never went to college.

But, anyway, some jobs facilitate capital more than others. I assume you're hoping to select a position that does not entail being massively exploited yourself (hence going to college) or supervising the exploitation of others?

And if you're not up for doing any old shit for a job why would you not be critical of the things you consume?

Meanwhile, when you graduate and begin to serve out your wage slavery, I hope that you will not serve it in quiescence, bowing and scraping before those who exploit you? And if not in the work place, then why would you in the market place?

[W1N5T0N]

I know a guy who wants to be a CEO later in life....we had a very interesting discussion today about the wages of garbagemen.

[☭The Revolution☭]

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-nativeamerican/IndianWithPeacePipe.jpg

Erm.... no.

[Commissar Rykov]

I know a guy who wants to be a CEO later in life....we had a very interesting discussion today about the wages of garbagemen.

Wants to =/= Becoming a CEO.

[28350]

More importantly:

Is buying cannabis originating from violent drug cartels bad?
They are just the capitalists on the other side of the law, their profits are protected with the blood of workers.

[Rss]

Buying Lucky Strike, Marlboro, Kent or any of that trash is counter-revolutionary. True communist grows nicotiana rustica in backyard. Newspaper is used to roll them. And no filters, filters are bourgeois plot to make workers soft and weak.

[W1N5T0N]

Buying Lucky Strike, Marlboro, Kent or any of that trash is counter-revolutionary. True communist grows nicotiana rustica in backyard. Newspaper is used to roll them. And no filters, filters are bourgeois plot to make workers soft and weak.

there ain't a bourgeois plot behind everything...i dont think some random capitalist said "hey guys, i know how to make the workers weak! lets make filters!"

i mean, smoking w/out a filter is probably gonna make you even more exposed to the shit in cigarettes.
the stuff thats in cigs, besides tobacco, thats gonna make ya weak.

[chegitz guevara]

Smoking is a form of slow suicide for which you pay the capitalists. If you want to die, throw yourself off a bridge for free.

[chegitz guevara]

there ain't a bourgeois plot behind everything...i dont think some random capitalist said "hey guys, i know how to make the workers weak! lets make filters!"

i mean, smoking w/out a filter is probably gonna make you even more exposed to the shit in cigarettes.
the stuff thats in cigs, besides tobacco, thats gonna make ya weak.

He was being sarcastic.

[W1N5T0N]

yeah, i assume i took it too serious...mainly because i have heard a lot of people say it and mean it ;)

but yeah, i guess the humor was lost on me..:o

[Rusty Shackleford]

The point of revolutionary socialism isn't to change consumption habits, but to change production relations. Only then will exploitation end.


Since when has that been a rule? "Personal choices" don't exist in isolation from relations of power and exploitation.



Except that consumption is only the flipside of production and is a necessary moment in the circulation of capital. So that when we consume we reproduce the relations of production. Consumption should not, therefore, be uncritical. But if you argue that the choice is either "smoke or live in the woods", you deny the need to consume critically and the possibilities for organising politically around issues of consumption.



No, it doesnt exist in isolation but the core issue is how people relate to eachother economically, not about what they choose to spend their wages on to consume personally.

Yes the consumption of some product legitimizes some certain industry and allows it to maintain itself or grow. But targeting some industry for what it produces over how it produces is not revolutionary.

All industry under the capitalist mode of production must be put into the hands of the workers, not that some industry that produces something that is in no way beneficial to society should be ended.

Ultimately, consumption habits will change along with the change in economic relations. Once industry is in the hands of the masses, there is truly a way to decide what to produce or not to produce. If society is against smoking, then the tobacco industry will be eliminated.

I feel like i strayed into the subject of getting rid of smoking though :lol:

[Hit The North]

No, it doesnt exist in isolation but the core issue is how people relate to each other economically, not about what they choose to spend their wages on to consume personally.


Consumption is also an economic relationship and no more personal than the job someone chooses to do or the political party they choose to vote for. That is to say, it is as equally a social activity as those others. Patterns of consumption are determined by regimes of capitalist accumulation and have a class component.

Of course, the principle power of the working class is at the point of production, not at the checkout (unless they work at the checkout), but not all members of the working class are in employment. Besides, in modern capitalist societies, essential services such as health and education are also part of the pattern of consumption, whether provided by the capitalist free market or the capitalist state. Struggles around the provision of these goods are often at the heart of our critique of existing class society.


Yes the consumption of some product legitimises some certain industry and allows it to maintain itself or grow. But targeting some industry for what it produces over how it produces is not revolutionary.

I'm not sure what you mean by "revolutionary" and how this legitimises or illegitimates a campaign. Strikes are not, in themselves, revolutionary. Does that mean we shouldn't organise them?


All industry under the capitalist mode of production must be put into the hands of the workers, not that some industry that produces something that is in no way beneficial to society should be ended.


Yes, very right and proper. But does this mean we shouldn't oppose the military-industrial complex of capitalist society?


Ultimately, consumption habits will change along with the change in economic relations. Once industry is in the hands of the masses, there is truly a way to decide what to produce or not to produce. If society is against smoking, then the tobacco industry will be eliminated.

Again, yes! Under socialism consumption, like production, will be guided by
rational decision making and not the imperatives of profitability. But whilst consumption is under the sway of the profit motive, should revolutionaries not have a critique to make?

[Cody_2ZZ]

I guess if you want to get silly with it, get silly with it.