If we just stop buying things

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I got this argument that if everyone would just stop buying products capitalism would fall by itself.
I would like to know if there is truth in that and if not why?

What I responded was that in an economic crisis people buy less, but the millionaires have gotten more rich, and capitalism certainely hasn't collapsed.
He said that since capitalism is based on buying and selling, it would collapse if we didn't do that.

I hope someone can shed some light on this.

[Let's Get Free]

I think there's truth in that. 70% of the U.S. economy is consumerism. Present day corporate capitalism is parasitically dependent on us as consumers and employees for its existence. It's like a cancer that in killing its human host, it kills itself.

[Zealot]

That is simply stupid. How are you going to get enough people to go along with that? Mass austerity as a clear result of the contradictions of capitalism is one thing but austerity by choice? No thanks. And I doubt anyone else is going to either. Boycotts and so on have limited effectiveness and at no time in history has this method been able to bring down the ruling classes. I mean, there is probably a certain amount of truth to it but how likely is this method to work? Not very, in my opinion.

[Thirsty Crow]

I got this argument that if everyone would just stop buying products capitalism would fall by itself.
I would like to know if there is truth in that and if not why?

That would amount to a collective suicide. Since the alst time I checked, food must be bought, and my body doesn't let me go without it (unless I can master that technique of sungazing - all the energy and nutrients you need simply from staring at the sun!).

So yeah, capitalism would collapse as our bodies would also.

But ok, I get it, the person is referring to non-essential products.
In that case, good luck in convincing masses of working people that they should submit themselves to an ascetic life, something that goes against our basic self-interest. It's ridiculous even to assume that such an ideological campaign could produce some effect on scale massive enough.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Bear in mind that he isn't a communist.
He says both communism and capitalism are bad.
I also responded that the means of production are still not in the hands of the Proletariat, and even if this would work there would still be needed a revolution to take that.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

That would amount to a collective suicide. Since the alst time I checked, food must be bought, and my body doesn't let me go without it (unless I can master that technique of sungazing - all the energy and nutrients you need simply from staring at the sun!).

So yeah, capitalism would collapse as our bodies would also.

But ok, I get it, the person is referring to non-essential products.
In that case, good luck in convincing masses of working people that they should submit themselves to an ascetic life, something that goes against our basic self-interest. It's ridiculous even to assume that such an ideological campaign could produce some effect on scale massive enough.

Then again, if we would still buy essential products then the whole point of not buying doesn't work, because you still buy.

[Althusser]

Hypothetically yes, but that's impossible.

[helot]

Aiming for consumer action as a method to abolishing capitalism is foolish due to the working class being weaker as consumers than as producers of all social wealth. It is in our role as producers that not only our strength lies but that the possibility of creating a society free of exploitation is anywhere near feasible.

[ComradeOfJoplin]

I believe that 'stop buying things' can destroy capitalism, but at the same time a movement to replace what purchasing can provide must be put in place.

Such as, instead of buying a blanket just crochet. Instead of getting groceries just garden.

Further more, it needs to be organized so individuals can rely on one another for where they lack.

My guess is that village communes would be the best to do that. Any other suggestions on how to implement this?

[Misanthrope]

A total halt in consumerism is improbable and it would not shift the ownership of the means of production.

[The Jay]

market =/= capitalism, it is only one part
I need food to eat, gas to get food, medicine, clothes, electricity, ect
you would need a vast structure to accomplish that could accomplish this kind of subsistence living, a return to the ancient class structure or a communal living structure. What could build such a thing other than a mass movement? Then what would be the point in politely asking for change with a simple boycott at that point? Why not have the cake and eat it too?

[Ostrinski]

It might send capitalism into a crisis, but that doesn't necessarily get the communist undertaking to where it needs to be. If the bourgeoisie still have political power, and the working classes do not wish to take it from them, then whelp.

[Thirsty Crow]

It might send capitalism into a crisis, but that doesn't necessarily get the communist undertaking to where it needs to be. If the bourgeoisie still have political power, and the working classes do not wish to take it from them, then whelp.
But is it not true that the efficiency of bourgeois political power rests on the smooth working of the system of exploitation? In other words, is it somehow irrational to expect that with one kind, or another, of social crisis there will also appear a tangible opportunity for workers' power?

[Ostrinski]

But is it not true that the efficiency of bourgeois political power rests on the smooth working of the system of exploitation? In other words, is it somehow irrational to expect that with one kind, or another, of social crisis there will also appear a tangible opportunity for workers' power?It would create an opportunity certainly, but I'd say the prospect of worker's power is less a matter of opportunity and more a matter of conscious initiative by the working class toward toward emancipation.

[Thirsty Crow]

It would create an opportunity certainly, but I'd say the prospect of worker's power is less a matter of opportunity and more a matter of conscious initiative by the working class toward toward emancipation.
Why? And doesn't this smack of idealism of sorts, that only what is needed is a more effective hammering in of ideas into people's thick heads? And what exactly do you mean with "conscious initiative"? A verbally expressed agreement among groupings of workers with a party program? But how is this more compelling than a livelihood without a confrontation with the murderous power of the state?

[Ostrinski]

Why? And doesn't this smack of idealism of sorts, that only what is needed is a more effective hammering in of ideas into people's thick heads?I don't think it's idealism, but if it is then let me be an "idealist" (as if that slur holds any weight anymore around here anyway). It is nothing short of ridiculous to suppose that communism will magically take form in the consciousness of the workers in the event of an economic catastrophe. Being a communist is a matter of understanding communism as a movement and as a theory for how to organize a postcapitalist society. Of course, the same goes for most other flavors of political identification.

Of course, the proper material conditions have to be present to legitimize the communist movement. Communism must address the existing interests of the proletariat in relation to their standing in capitalist society. But those material conditions have existed ever since the industrially advanced countries have developed a sizable proletariat.

So what role does the "idea" play? Well, it reflects the material relationships at play in a way that people can easily understand and it can provide us with some direction and some sense of where we are going, what we are working toward, and we have to do. If we were all robots and always responded in a preconditioned way to certain stimuli then ideology wouldn't exist.

Now, I think the way you phrased your representation of my views was a bit dishonest, i.e. "hammering ideas into people's thick heads" because it implies that I'm some Stalinist that thinks the proletariat needs to be disciplined into shape or something. What we do need however is a voluntarily associated formation of class conscious workers to spread revolutionary ideas among the proletariat.

Without something like this, in the event of a crisis the non-class conscious body of people are going to turn toward a political alternative that best expresses an allegiance to their interests. This means that communism isn't an option because there is nothing resembling a proper communist party in existence, just random, small bureaucratic Leninist sects.


And what exactly do you mean with "conscious initiative"? A verbally expressed agreement among groupings of workers with a party program? But how is this more compelling than a livelihood without a confrontation with the murderous power of the state?I dunno, how is any revolutionary proposition more compelling than a livelihood without a confrontation with the murderous power of the state? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're implying here.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't think it's idealism, but if it is then let me be an "idealist" (as if that slur holds any weight anymore around here anyway). It is nothing short of ridiculous to suppose that communism will magically take form in the consciousness of the workers in the event of an economic catastrophe. Being a communist is a matter of understanding communism as a movement and as a theory for how to organize a postcapitalist society. Of course, the same goes for most other flavors of political identification.In this case, "idealism" would amount to a position that the adherence to the idea of communism is an absolute prerequisite of escalating class struggle, in stead of a position that would claim that the idea can take hold once the practice of the class itself spreads (usually with reference to class struggle being propelled by the basic structural relationship between capital and wage labour, which is organized so as to necessitate the growth of class anatagnonism - capital is driven to accumulate against the needs of its essential component, wage labour; so here there is no need for a generalized consciousness of communism as a prerequisite of the destruction of capital as a social relation of production). Furthermore, such a position, or let's say a conglomeration of thoughts, would maintain that communists don't "make the revolution" and that communist consciousness is only possible, and indeed necessary, on a mass level once the conditions produced by the capitalist base have been destroyed.

Oh yes, and I honestly posed this stuff about idealism as a question, and definitely not an accusation.


Of course, the proper material conditions have to be present to legitimize the communist movement. Communism must address the existing interests of the proletariat in relation to their standing in capitalist society. But those material conditions have existed ever since the industrially advanced countries have developed a sizable proletariat.But the function of concrete material conditions is not to legitimize an idea or a movement.



So what role does the "idea" play? Well, it reflects the material relationships at play in a way that people can easily understand and it can provide us with some direction and some sense of where we are going, what we are working toward, and we have to do. If we were all robots and always responded in a preconditioned way to certain stimuli then ideology wouldn't exist.
Do you think that workers do not understand the reality of their exploitation from their own experience? Or better yet, what concrete effect could a pedagogic campaign of a scientific explanation of exploitation yield for those same workers?


Now, I think the way you phrased your representation of my views was a bit dishonest, i.e. "hammering ideas into people's thick heads" because it implies that I'm some Stalinist that thinks the proletariat needs to be disciplined into shape or something.
Okay, sorry for that.
But to be honest, more and more it seems to me that vast swathes of the revolutionary millieu unwittingly hold at least attitudes which come close to what I wrote, but I wouldn't equate that with Stalinism.

But this implication you draw out is a bit misleading.
Discipline can only occur as a mechanism of established (state) power. Or in other words, when I say "hammering ideas into workers' heads" I do not refer to any measure of discipline backed by force or the threat of it, but a specific way of relating ourselves as revolutionaries to workers in the here and now, when revolution is not on the horizon. This way would include the insistence on workers holding definite ideas as a prerequisite of them being able in the first place to act against capital. This is what I'm suspicious about (and almost all of what I write here is based on suspicion and doubt; there are no definite positions here).




What we do need however is a voluntarily associated formation of class conscious workers to spread revolutionary ideas among the proletariat.



Without something like this, in the event of a crisis the non-class conscious body of people are going to turn toward a political alternative that best expresses an allegiance to their interests. This means that communism isn't an option because there is nothing resembling a proper communist party in existence, just random, small bureaucratic Leninist sects.


So in other words, and excuse me for being blunt here, what you're saying here is that we should build up influence before those other guys do, becasue obviously our set of ideas is superior to theirs?


I dunno, how is any revolutionary proposition more compelling than a livelihood without a confrontation with the murderous power of the state? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're implying here.What I'm implying here is precisely the point. That it's not more compelling, that you can't and shouldn't ecxpect our ideas alone to have such an effect as to pit the masses of workers against the destructive power of the state (and, by extension, to place ourselves as the commanding generals of this army).

[GPDP]

From my experience, the kind of people that would actually buy into such schemes as non-consumption, or similar ideas such as dropping out of the system, lifestyleism, etc. strike me as either fanatic ideologues or well-off kids who can afford to live off the grid and play revolutionary for a while before returning to mainstream society once dad starts wondering where the trust fund money is going. Not to say this describes all such people (I also know poor people who choose to live this way despite the increased poverty that comes with it because they like it for whatever reason), but at the end of the day, most people have families to feed and would much rather not have to endure subjecting themselves to destitution if they can help it, especially if it's for the sake of a political statement or movement.

And in any case, what exactly is the alternative being proposed here? So capitalism would collapse, and... then what? Given that in this hypothetical scenario, there must have been some kind of mass organized movement to make it happen (I very much doubt every regular Joe and Jane would just up and decide to take part in not consuming in isolation to everyone else), where does it go from here? What kind of society would this organization build in the place of capitalism? I am pretty interested in what this person has to say about this. What is his alternative?

[jookyle]

It's more of an escaping capitalism scenario rather than over throwing it. If we got a mass movement like that to happen and it was marxist in nature we'd have revolution not staying at home and trying to forage for berries. Not to mention if they can outsource production they can outsource the consumption. "Hey people of the Congo, here's those light up shoes you always wanted. Those first world people don't want them anymore and we're passing the savings onto you!"

[Questionable]

I'm a little late to this one but Marx mentions this scenario in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. He basically said that if there was a stalemate between proletariat and bourgeoisie the proletariat would starve to death first.


Victory goes necessarily to the capitalist. The capitalist can live longer without the worker than can the worker without the capitalist.

Second and third sentences of the book.

[Yuppie Grinder]

So if I stop buying food and paying my rent full communism will happen? Cool.

[Robespierres Neck]

Everything I wanted to say has already been said. :(

It would probably work in theory (although it's not promising socialism/communism would form from it), but we need essentials to survive - therefore, not buying anything would be almost impossible and getting everyone to go along with it would be definitely impossible.

[Take The Long Way Home]

if we stop shopping,the finance system would break down. And we would haz communism

happy happy joy joy :laugh:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why? And doesn't this smack of idealism of sorts, that only what is needed is a more effective hammering in of ideas into people's thick heads?I don't see how the original point was necissarily idealist - I think you may be assuming that the only way class consiousness develops is through people passivly recieving the "right ideas".


And what exactly do you mean with "conscious initiative"? A verbally expressed agreement among groupings of workers with a party program? But how is this more compelling than a livelihood without a confrontation with the murderous power of the state?How do people sucessfully combat and confront the state if they do not have a sense that the state is opposed to their interests and that they should run things instead? I don't see how you can have one without the other ultimately. Some level of agreement on this sense is necissary, but it doesn't necissarily always manifest itself in the same ways or have the same organized expression. However I do think that the more first-hand experience in struggle and self-organization, generalized lessons of struggle from past experiences, and networks and organizations of radical workeres before a mass upheval give workers a head-start in those confrontations.


In this case, "idealism" would amount to a position that the adherence to the idea of communism is an absolute prerequisite of escalating class struggle, in stead of a position that would claim that the idea can take hold once the practice of the class itself spreads (usually with reference to class struggle being propelled by the basic structural relationship between capital and wage labour, which is organized so as to necessitate the growth of class anatagnonism - capital is driven to accumulate against the needs of its essential component, wage labour; so here there is no need for a generalized consciousness of communism as a prerequisite of the destruction of capital as a social relation of production).Well first I agree in the sense that in my view marxist/anarchist ideas and tactics are meaningless in the absense of class struggle. I also agree in the sense that the "deed" comes first and revolution will probably not look like a bunch of people all deciding that "Capital" was pretty spot-on - rather than in the course of struggle people will come to the conclusion that capitalism and our rulers are totally opposed to us and that we can replace them from the community and workplace level up. Aside from theorists, people will probably not be debating the usefulness of dialectic logic, but will be concerned with the immediate and fundamental issues of who has power in society and how workers can run society.

But what I think your argument overlooks is that within that struggle, people are going to be drawing conclusions and lessons and advocating different ways forward (or sometimes backward) and so within the worker's movement there will be a subjective struggle and so those coming to revolutionary conclusions either beforehand (the radical Left) or in the course of struggle are going to need to combat accomodationist ideas, middle class interestes, and so on. Workers aren't just black pages waiting for some smarty radical to tell them what to think or how to fight - but they also aren't existing in isolation in society and only develop ideas based on direct class expereinces.

The conditions you describe above for revolt are true - class antagonisms etc - but these conditions are always more or less present in capitalist society. Those are the objective causes of class struggle, but there are also subjective causes including things that are out of our control such as the actions of the ruling class or bosses, natural disasters impacting production or capitalist hegemony, fluxuations in the market. But there are also subjective things that will imporve or hinder working class chances for building a counter-force to the capitalists once those objective conditions do inevitably cause things to come to a head.


Furthermore, such a position, or let's say a conglomeration of thoughts, would maintain that communists don't "make the revolution" and that communist consciousness is only possible, and indeed necessary, on a mass level once the conditions produced by the capitalist base have been destroyed. I don't know if there's any argument here saying that communists (in the sense of people who've already drawn revolutionary class conclusions before a revolutionary upsurge) will make the revolution rather than huge numbers of workers themselves. At least there's no argument from me on the point of "working class self-emancipation".

But those large numbers of workers will need to have come to the conclusion that the working class can and should run production and society - and since this is a collective process, a vastly more participatory and collective process of decision-making is needed.


Do you think that workers do not understand the reality of their exploitation from their own experience? Or better yet, what concrete effect could a pedagogic campaign of a scientific explanation of exploitation yield for those same workers?Tons of people understand that things are shit - but a tiny tiny fraction of the class has any idea - currently - of any alternative let alone a revolutionary class alternative. Again, workers don't exist in a bubble and their are tons of other explainations for why things are shit and since the ruling class has hegemony, mostly it's ruling class-friendly explainations: human-nature, selfishness, immigrants, criminals, etc. Obviosuly since movements and revolts do happen, this is not something that is permanent, but I think it is part of the reason working class organizations and experience and poltics should be developed prior to these mass uprisings or mass class anger - otherwise the class is left to try to develop these kinds of vehicles and networks during a revolutionary moment and this puts our class in a weaker position and makes it easier for middle class poltics (which are always already organized through everything from churches, charities, NGOs, to business associations, professional guilds and organizations and so on) to present their alternative as the "realistic" alternative and be able to draw some of the class towards those ideas of reformism or whatnot.


What I'm implying here is precisely the point. That it's not more compelling, that you can't and shouldn't ecxpect our ideas alone to have such an effect as to pit the masses of workers against the destructive power of the state (and, by extension, to place ourselves as the commanding generals of this army).The capitalist system creates the objective conditions for revolt, but then what? There is still the matter of how workers subjectivly react to a crisis, or a confrontation with the system. Why is it legitimate for workers to have revolutionary ideas and strategies during a revolutionary upsurge, but somehow inherently outside the class if people draw similar conclusions before an upsurge.

Our ideas alone don't mean anything in the absense of class struggle, they are a guide and generalized lessons from the past (which radicals don't always agree on of course). So I don't think it's a case of mearly "spreading ideas" - but that our ideas are geared towards hopefully being useful in furthering working class power when the inevitable confrontations arise.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I got this argument that if everyone would just stop buying products capitalism would fall by itself.
I would like to know if there is truth in that and if not why?

What I responded was that in an economic crisis people buy less, but the millionaires have gotten more rich, and capitalism certainely hasn't collapsed.
He said that since capitalism is based on buying and selling, it would collapse if we didn't do that.

I hope someone can shed some light on this.

Well capitalism isn't based on just buying and selling, because this happens in any exchange of commodities from barter to pre-capitalist trade. Capitalism is about exchanging commodities in order to build up surplus wealth: profits. And profits come from labor and so IMO capitalism is about wage labor in a fundamental sense and this is what the "non-consumerism" ideas in society miss.

So while a boycott can be organized to a certain degree, I'd argue that it is much less effective than organizing on the production side. This is because many more people have to be organized to make a boycott effective (a strike of 1,000s of truck-drivers or dockworkers could have an immediate impact on capitalist profits whereas a boycott would need to win millions to this cause for a number of weeks for a similar impact to happen) and more importantly because it doesn't challenge the myths about the system but actually afferms the sort of invisibility of labor and myths of "supply and demand" - nor for marxist purposes does it help workers organize themselves inherently.

But for argument's sake, say that a massive boycott was established. First, atomized personal production for food and so on is just not a viable way to produce the food needed by modern societies - in short order there would be massive shortages of basic staples and while maybe people in rural areas with more land and less populations could maintain for a while, Vegas and Los Angeles would become mass-gravesites since they are cities built on deserts that could never maintain a subsitance level of persoanl production with current population sizes. So a sustained mass boycott of all commodities quickly gets into primitivist terrirritory.

But most importantly from a marxist/anarchist perspective, even if people could maintain a boycott that ends up freezing capitalist production and making the ruling class unable to rule, it doesn't necissarily mean that workers are willing and able to take over society and run production in their own interests. Then again, the person you are debating doesn't seem interested in such a society, so it may not be the best point for your particular debate - but IMO this is the most important point from a communist view.