Stumped during debate - "People are too consumerist to accept communism"

[Molts]

Hello Revleft,
After sporadic debate about communism/ capitalism etc in my history classes this week, I recieved an email from a capitalist:

It is unlikely that Communism will spread worldwide because we live in a very consumerist, ambitious society where most people believe in democracy and would be against communism because it would go against their ideas of a competitive world where working hard gives reward rather than in the idea that everybody shares, no matter how much work each person has done. The main flaw of communism is therefore greed.

How do I respond to this? Im usually quite good at rebuking statements, but as the title suggests this one stumpped me.

[ArrowLance]

Well of course Communism encompasses democracy and the society it creates is actually more able to express itself democratically than a Capitalist society. The economic system shares its product instead of allowing power to accumulate in the hands of a few.

Greed is not so much a problem as it isn't an overriding instinct. Many communal societies get along fine as greed is not something that is encouraged and extracted from the human being as some virtue. A terrific example would be the family, although there are quite often greedy persons in the family it rarely ends up with one member accumulating all the power and resources.

It is true that many people would oppose communism due to their ideas of how the world should work, but this is exactly what revolutionaries work to change, both before and during the revolution. Even what you said about hard work and rewards is an incorrect view of how a communist revolution will shape the world. Nothing prevents rewards in a society which has no private property. Rewards simply can not take monetary or commodified form. Social rewards can be great, prestige and social standing as well as personal feelings of accomplishment all reward hard work.

You say that communism's main flaw is greed, however from the same perspective it can be said that the main flaw of capitalism is humanity as well. People work together, share victories and defeats, prefer to cooperate towards common goals rather than compete and desire many things due to their usefulness and not simply their ability to make them a profit. So it seems that humanity is more adapted to this communal system.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

People are not greedy or too consumerist, they are exposed to too much bourgeois propaganda which brainwashes them into believing that the more things they have the better off they will be.

Greed is a state of mind,not a genetic disposition.

[graymouser]

Working hard does not give you reward in capitalism. The poor work harder and longer, and earn less; the rich work very little or not at all, but earn a great amount. The idea that capitalism somehow rewards hard work is a carefully constructed myth with little or no actual substance.

As for consumerism, it's a response to the complete cultural bankruptcy of the modern world. Not particularly an ideology, but a behavior. The new world will be stamped with the birthmarks of the old, but this is a phenomenon of late capitalism that can be overcome by the process of living through a revolution.

Greed is not a motivator in the modern capitalist world for the vast bulk of humanity; it is primarily a question of getting by. However, the capitalist class shapes the ruling narrative and it writes its venality, greed and corruption onto the world as a whole. Some people choose to live up to this but it is less than they would have you believe.

[scarletghoul]

In socialism the working class owns the means of production, meaning that they get the full wealth that they create through their labour, unlike in capitalism where the capitalists own the means of production, make someone else work for them, and give them only a fraction of the wealth created, enough to keep them alive and working the next day.

In other words, people would have far more wealth in exchange for the work they do under socialism than under capitalism. so if you want more stuff then owning the means of production is a big help. Not to mention the fact that peoples ideology under capitalism makes them want to buy useless shit to fill in the gaping void of alien meaninglessness in their lives due to their wretched n servile state

[ZeroNowhere]

Ask how content these 'consumerists' are with economic crises. It's not like communists have any particular animosity towards people consuming things, nor does socialism imply any particular mode of distribution where everybody consumes the same things; people want different things, after all, which are generally incommensurable in concrete terms. Capitalism, though, certainly doesn't imply a mode of distribution where one gets wealthy by working hard.

I'm not certain what problems socialism is supposed to have with 'greed', given that socialism will hardly lead by default to a lowered productive capacity (and will probably increase it by doing away with the unemployment formed by capitalist crises and incorporating the many workers in poor countries currently excluded by capitalism, as well as eliminating some forms of unproductive labour necessitated by the framework of the capitalist economy), and as such will not face any more problems with greed than, well, capitalism. And, capitalism certainly will face some problems with 'greed' in the future; that's certainly what the Daily Mail will call it, anyway.

In short, they're speaking in senseless abstractions and are incoherent.

[Black_Rose]

I tend to believe that consumerism is one reason* why the middle and upper-middle classes wouldn't be revolutionary. It is a mindset that renders one oblivious to economic phenomenon occurring outside of one's personal life, and replaces sympathy for one's fellow countryman or others around the world with venal, selfish materialist aspiration . Furthermore, it gives people the illusion that they can receive respect and appreciation and acquire social status within a capitalist system. This is a pernicious, yet integral, element of bourgeois culture that must be assailed.

Also, it is somewhat ironic that the rewards of consumerism are so meager: consumerist capitalism may have supplied that market with a rife of electronic goods such as iPads, iPads, smartphones, and game consoles and status symbols such as luxury cars, handbags, designer clothing; but we must ask ourselves whether the availability in the marketplace or the personal possession of these appurtenances has really improved our quality of life? Remember that after two decades of the triumph of neoliberalism (free trade, privatization of government assets, free movement of capital, an emphasis on the property rights of foreign investors) over world socialism that many workers (in the United States) still have to "earn" a wage to defray for their clothing, food, housing, transportation, retirement, and medical care (and also fund imperialist wars that are not in their best economic interests). Neoliberalism only made it more difficult for the working class in developed countries to earn a living since they are now competing against workers in the third world who do not have the economic power to enjoy consuming the products they manufacture, resulting in lower wages and job security, and the economic policies of their government must now capitulate to the interest of investors with mobile capital since neoliberal globalization precipitates a "race to the bottom" by dismantling the welfare state. The notion that neoliberalism is a superior economic system does not survive even a cursory examination.



* I have identified four elements of bourgeois culture that influences people do adopt economic and social positions antipathetic to socialism/communism:

1.) Consumerism
2.) The tendency to blame others/an emphasis on personal responsibility to deflect attention on the flaws of the system
3.) An anti-communist intellectual milieu
4.) The delusional belief among liberals of the inherent superiority of "liberal democracy"; the misconception that this political system can allow the working class and the bourgeoisie to exist in comity

5?.) Patriotism/nationalism: perhaps a means generating jingoist sentiment to justify imperialist wars

Note that many "reactionaries" are also anti-consumerist, but are are also anti-communist and blame others for personal misfortune. These people should not be our allies or considered friends.

[Oswy]

Hello Revleft,
After sporadic debate about communism/ capitalism etc in my history classes this week, I recieved an email from a capitalist:

It is unlikely that Communism will spread worldwide because we live in a very consumerist, ambitious society where most people believe in democracy and would be against communism because it would go against their ideas of a competitive world where working hard gives reward rather than in the idea that everybody shares, no matter how much work each person has done. The main flaw of communism is therefore greed.

How do I respond to this? Im usually quite good at rebuking statements, but as the title suggests this one stumpped me.

Consumerism is engineered by the capitalist class to keep us working for false needs - most of the crap we buy ends up in landfill pretty quick because it's not what we really want, we're tricked by unceasing adverts and promotion. Moreover, consumerism is actually a substitute for the satisfaction of our real needs and as such will never satisfy us. Humans need food, shelter, medicine, rewarding work, relationships, affection and so on, they don't need the latest colour running-shoe or game console.

Remember, the extent to which greed is manifest in human behaviour is determined by the way a society is organised, it's not an innately dominant feature any more than selflesness is - how we organise ourselves determines how far these behaviours are generated. Capitalism needs humans to be as greedy as possible and uses the ideology of consumerism to promote it. Just as a society built on greed can be built, so it can be destroyed.

[Veovis]

I must be a freak because I really don't think of myself as being motivated by greed. All I really want is to know I won't go hungry or become homeless if I lose my job, and possibly something to work at that makes me feel good about myself and what I'm doing.

What could possess someone to try to accumulate more money than they could ever possibly use in their lifetimes?

[Oswy]

I must be a freak because I really don't think of myself as being motivated by greed. All I really want is to know I won't go hungry or become homeless if I lose my job, and possibly something to work at that makes me feel good about myself and what I'm doing.

What could possess someone to try to accumulate more money than they could ever possibly use in their lifetimes?

Indeed. And capitalism has to generate ever more absurd products for the wealthy to consume to make all that accumulation seem 'worthwhile'; hotel rooms that cost $10,000 a night, gold plated toilet seats, stupid sized TVs that you can hardly fit in a room, mobile phones encrusted with diamonds. Ironically, such excesses actually take the people who consume them further and further away from real human life and traps them in a world where having things, and having more things, is all there is.

[nowarbutclasswar]

First of all, we cannot generalize the entire human race as "greedy", "consumerist", "competitive"... especially since our values are constantly changing - 100 years ago women couldn't vote, 200 years ago Africans were slaves etc. If anything, society is becoming more and more tolerant ie. gay rights, animal rights, environmental protection and so on. Also, what kind of argument is that anyway? - "I am a capitalist and am against communism because people are greedy?" So he believes that communism is a more just system but feels it's unattainable because humans are incapable of sharing? That's a pretty bleak outlook on the future of the human race. Greed is just an infantile instinct which is easily overcome through community and education.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Though there are an array of theoretical answers to the question, if you are looking for a sharp rebuttal in a debate then just go with something along the lines of the following:

'Consumerism is about people wanting the best, the latest, the most expensive, the most popular possessions. Marxism makes a strong distinction between possessions and property. Possessions - your car, your ipod, your fashionable accessories and other luxuries - will not only be entrenched in any Socialist system (as it will be dictated over by ordinary working people!) but will be easier for ordinary people to get hold of, as they will be paid the full value of their labour as a worker, and as a consumer they will be charged the true value of the product, not the 'exchange price' (intrinsic value + variable profit).

Then point out, pre-emptively, that the lack of a consumer culture in the 20th Century 'Socialisms' was both a product of its time and a regrettable result of a system that we do not support and would oppose if it were to be implemented tomorrow.:thumbup1:

[scarletghoul]

Then point out, pre-emptively, that the lack of a consumer culture in the 20th Century 'Socialisms' was both a product of its time and a regrettable result of a system that we do not support and would oppose if it were to be implemented tomorrow.:thumbup1:
plus these countries were busy developing in the first place, because theyd been kept as backwards and undeveloped ecnomically due to imperialism both before and after the revolution... in a country like the uk or usa we wont have to worry about that so much... ( i think just blaming the system put in place is a bit simplistic. its not like mao just decided to have a great leap forward instead of everyone having nice cars and clothes and tvs etc for no reason)

[Ocean Seal]

There is nothing wrong with wanting i-phones and other shit like that. If the people are consumerist then our slogan should be workers we promise peace, land, and the latest phones, workers of the world unite.

[Sam Varriano]

Because capitalism creates a consumerist culture, which I think is why a period of socialism should happen first. Basically everything Lenin said in "State and Revolution" makes sense, the state will dissolve it's self in the absence of conflict.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Since over 99% of the world's population would benefit from Communism economically, greed could only hasten its arrival...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

plus these countries were busy developing in the first place, because theyd been kept as backwards and undeveloped ecnomically due to imperialism both before and after the revolution... in a country like the uk or usa we wont have to worry about that so much... ( i think just blaming the system put in place is a bit simplistic. its not like mao just decided to have a great leap forward instead of everyone having nice cars and clothes and tvs etc for no reason)

I guess that's a fair point in general (if we talk about the GDR, PRC and Cuba, for example), but that can fall down when you consider the incredible military-related achievements of the USSR at the same time as consumerism still hadn't taken off. The technology, it seems, was there.

[aristos]

Ask him how "consumerists" can continue consuming when every day more and more of them stop being able to purchase.

[JFB.anon]

Working hard does not give you reward in capitalism. The poor work harder and longer, and earn less; the rich work very little or not at all, but earn a great amount. The idea that capitalism somehow rewards hard work is a carefully constructed myth with little or no actual substance.


:thumbup1: Amen brother.

Fuck racists who say that blacks "don't work hard enough". All capitalists do is accrue capital to exploit others; rightists who say that's "hard work" are bullshitting reality itself.