Middle class radicalism, peti-bourgeoisie, et al.

[CynicalIdealist]

...and how to fight it.

Ugh. Today, I got into a minor argument with my mom about the whole eat local movement. I like it (emphasis on the italics), but it's far from revolutionary. My mom disagrees, as she thinks that somehow if we all learn to be self-sustaining, the need for centralized government will go away. I tried to explain to her that globalization as it currently exists is an offshoot of capitalism, that we are alienated from the labor of those in third world countries and that such is the issue that needs to be addressed.

Besides, doesn't an obsession with local consumerism cut into the profits of bigger corporations, and yet the working class suffers the lower wages and the layoffs as opposed to the corporations themselves? Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole "anti-globalization" movement seems way too limited in its scope.

Then I talked with my sister's boyfriend about how much shit sucks, capitalism, etc. He gave me the whole, "We should go back to the way things used to be where people interacted more with each other and were more self-reliant."

=\

[Blake's Baby]

Well, I agree with you to a large extent. Eating local and organic is 'better' (I like it too), but it won't cause fundamental changes to the system. It uses fewer resources, especially in transportation, it probably uses more labour (and therefore in theory should mean that it employs more people, because of lower investment in technology - I think the argument about the profits of big companies is a false one); but it's still capitalism.

In the end companies do what is profitable. While there is a profit margin in exploiting middle-class hippie guilt (buy local eco-friendly fair-trade kind-to-dolphins hand-picked-by-grateful-peasants strawberries, not those souless corporate mechanically-recovered pesticide-covered strawberries that kill baby pandas and despoil the Amazonian rainforests blah blah), then companies will cover that angle. If, as is happening at the moment the narrative is mostly about 'we all have to make sacrifices' then the baby pandas, Amazon rainforests and all the rest will just be swept up in the race to maximise profits.

We should also move to a situation where we interact more and are more self-reliant, as well as being more reliant on our communities. Capitalism is a very atomising system, we're taught to fear and distrust our fellow-beings, to compete without mercy, because they'll take advantage of us if they get the chance. That's something we have to overcome.

I'm not sure the Middle Ages (or whatever) would necessarily have been better in that regard though, with their crusades and witch-trials and pogroms. Unless your sisters' boyfriend just means the 1950s. Not sure they were better either, with their lynchings and McCarthyism and whatnot...

So, yeah, I don't believe consumer boycots have really any purpose than to make those of us who do ther boycotting feel good (hell, I don't buy Gillette, Nestle or bank at Barclays, and haven't for 25, 16 and 24 years respectively); but I'm not naive enough to think that any of those companies care.

[Rowan Duffy]

I think the thread title should have mentioned localism.

I think localism is popular because of general weakness. Not only are people looking at reformism, but they're looking at incredibly small scale reformism since they can't even imagine minor large scale reforms because of the total routing of the working class.

First, localism is not good for the working class. We want to reduce the cost of things and reduce the time it takes us to produce things - not increase it by chauvinistic favouratism regards who produces it. Specialisation of production is good since it gives us a wider variety produced at greater quality and with less labour.

In addition, it's simply wrong that it's more environmentally friendly - It can be, but sometimes it isn't at all. The amount of energy used to ship something over sea can be radically less than over-land to such an extent that it's often the case that locally produced will not have any energy advantage. If you're growing high water use vegetables in the desert, you could be really environmentally damaging as opposed to shipping them in. These sorts of things could only useful be solved with a global eye to assessment of externalities.

In addition, we shouldn't expect to produce everything locally because resources are not evenly distributed. This is a serious problem if we actually take the localist notion to its logical conclusion. Certain areas will become monopolists of various materials - which they'll also be unable to use effectively because they don't have other materials.

The worst is when all of this stuff is mixed up with the collapsist ideas about the fall of major governance structures. It's essentially looking forward to a future of warlordism. Feudalism sucked the first time around, but it is what occurs when you have relatively extreme localism. You need to protect yourself from relatively larger neighbors who can make use of your resources.

"Think globally, act locally" really needs to be part of our movement. We can't deal with the problems of world capital on the local scale - but we have to act locally towards a global movement for solving our global problems. The solutions can only be global to the question of global capital, global militarism and global environmental problems.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

1. '...and how to fight it.'
There is no need for prolier than you arguments. As even though one may be 'Middle Class' per say they may also be invested in the Class Struggle for the Proletariat based on their own thoughts. An example of this would be Narodism which was founded by Cherynshevky and even though being somewhat Middle Class based, was committed to empowering the peasantry against the Russian Nobility.
2.) ' Ugh. Today, I got into a minor argument with my mom about the whole eat local movement. I like it (emphasis on the italics), but it's far from revolutionary. My mom disagrees, as she thinks that somehow if we all learn to be self-sustaining, the need for centralized government will go away. I tried to explain to her that globalization as it currently exists is an offshoot of capitalism, that we are alienated from the labor of those in third world countries and that such is the issue that needs to be addressed.'
I'm unsure what shes suffering to by being 'self sustaining' as it is impossible to be self-determined and to be fully 'self-sustained' while the mode of production remains Capitalist. As one can't be 'self-sustained' when there exists a Capitalist mode of production that goes from top-down and consolidates the means of production among the Bourgeois.
3.) 'Besides, doesn't an obsession with local consumerism cut into the profits of bigger corporations, and yet the working class suffers the lower wages and the layoffs as opposed to the corporations themselves? Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole "anti-globalization" movement seems way too limited in its scope.'
Part One: Local Consumerism is simply Petit-Bourgeois, feeling that once the 'large' companies aren't funded anymore that suddenly everything is to 'change'. Even though due to the existence of Capitalism, the 'small' companies will still be exploitative and then grow into larger companies. As well, simply due to a business being 'small' it doesn't stop the means of production still being consolidated among the Bourgeois.
Part Two: These layoffs and lower wages are inherent to Capitalism, whether or not it is occurring in this manner or in another, it will always be inherent to Capitalism-- As Capitalism is built off of for profit interests as opposed to being based on the collective interest of the Working Class. If anything, understanding this should lead to class consciousness being raised.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think the thread title should have mentioned localism.

I think localism is popular because of general weakness. Not only are people looking at reformism, but they're looking at incredibly small scale reformism since they can't even imagine minor large scale reforms because of the total routing of the working class.

First, localism is not good for the working class. We want to reduce the cost of things and reduce the time it takes us to produce things - not increase it by chauvinistic favouratism regards who produces it. Specialisation of production is good since it gives us a wider variety produced at greater quality and with less labour.

In addition, it's simply wrong that it's more environmentally friendly - It can be, but sometimes it isn't at all. The amount of energy used to ship something over sea can be radically less than over-land to such an extent that it's often the case that locally produced will not have any energy advantage. If you're growing high water use vegetables in the desert, you could be really environmentally damaging as opposed to shipping them in. These sorts of things could only useful be solved with a global eye to assessment of externalities.

In addition, we shouldn't expect to produce everything locally because resources are not evenly distributed. This is a serious problem if we actually take the localist notion to its logical conclusion. Certain areas will become monopolists of various materials - which they'll also be unable to use effectively because they don't have other materials.

The worst is when all of this stuff is mixed up with the collapsist ideas about the fall of major governance structures. It's essentially looking forward to a future of warlordism. Feudalism sucked the first time around, but it is what occurs when you have relatively extreme localism. You need to protect yourself from relatively larger neighbors who can make use of your resources.

"Think globally, act locally" really needs to be part of our movement. We can't deal with the problems of world capital on the local scale - but we have to act locally towards a global movement for solving our global problems. The solutions can only be global to the question of global capital, global militarism and global environmental problems.

I would modify that slogan, comrade, to "think globally, act regionally" and even then be skeptical about this. Regions tend to be larger than localities.

[L.A.P.]

Ugh. Today, I got into a minor argument with my mom about the whole eat local movement. I like it (emphasis on the italics), but it's far from revolutionary. My mom disagrees, as she thinks that somehow if we all learn to be self-sustaining, the need for centralized government will go away.

This sounds similar to philosophical anarchism and other individualist forms of anarchism, it's all complete idealist bullshit. The fact is that no one is self-sustaining and neither are communities anymore. Communities all around the world are connected and reliant on each other and going back to local isolation would be highly reactionary and ruins this new opportunity we have of internationalism that never existed before.



I tried to explain to her that globalization as it currently exists is an offshoot of capitalism, that we are alienated from the labor of those in third world countries and that such is the issue that needs to be addressed.

The problem with the anti-globalization movement is that the rhetoric of its proponents involve "global capitalism" and avoids blaming capital and private property in general as the root of the problem. This allows many Liberals, Social Democrats, and other non-radicals to be part of the movement.


Besides, doesn't an obsession with local consumerism cut into the profits of bigger corporations, and yet the working class suffers the lower wages and the layoffs as opposed to the corporations themselves? Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole "anti-globalization" movement seems way too limited in its scope.

As I said before, the center-left proponents of the movement emphasize the favorability of small business mainly because it is in line with their petty bourgeois class interests. Of course any person fluent in elementary economics knows that if you give capital to small businesses than they eventually grow to become the large corporations that the petty bourgeois anti-globalization people tend to despise. This pattern of small businesses growing larger is inevitable unless you eliminate private property and capital and much of the anti-globalization fails to recognize this.


Then I talked with my sister's boyfriend about how much shit sucks, capitalism, etc. He gave me the whole, "We should go back to the way things used to be where people interacted more with each other and were more self-reliant."

The material conditions that existed back then in "better times" do not exist anymore therefore impossible to come back to. The best option is to move on to the future and create an even better society.

[Ocean Seal]

Besides, doesn't an obsession with local consumerism cut into the profits of bigger corporations, and yet the working class suffers the lower wages and the layoffs as opposed to the corporations themselves? Correct me if I'm wrong but the whole "anti-globalization" movement seems way too limited in its scope.

This is true, but the corporation does lose this way. The corporations are not entities that want to fire workers, but they are entities which simply don't care if they fire workers. When they fire workers they make less profit. Local consumerism isn't really better in a that it still encourages "small business and all that kind of thought," and I agree that anti-globalization does have its demerits but I would say that it empowers the working class and breaks the hegemonic power of the corporations. Bringing down large corporations, I would think, would cause them to have to compromise and do things to appease the working class to maintain growth. However I agree, middle class radicalism doesn't help too much.



Then I talked with my sister's boyfriend about how much shit sucks, capitalism, etc. He gave me the whole, "We should go back to the way things used to be where people interacted more with each other and were more self-reliant."
=\
Its a nice thought, but I don't want to go back to the times of robber barons. Life might not be great today but going back to the times where my boss could force me to work 14 hour days and fire me whenever he pleased (you know).