Ethical Consumerism

[bellyscratch]

didnt really know where to put this, but this section seems good enough

anyway, what are everyone's thoughts on ethical consumerism i.e. should we start buying organic, fair trade and/or local where possible as well as boycotting all the monster coorporations, who are well known for being screwing people over (for want of a better term) such as coca cola, nestle, mcdonalds, kfc, primark, wal mart etc.?

or do you see no point in this for whatever reason?

just want to know everyones thoughts on this because im pretty confused on it at the moment. I try to be an ethical consumer but i know people around me with the same political views dont seem to be too botherd about it

[black magick hustla]

fuck those hippie retards. I am still going to buy my milkshakes from mcdonalds and eat moomoos from factory farms.

Communism is not some "lifestyle choice", its a political choice meant to be held by normal people.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Buying ethical certainly doesn't hurt, but it doesn't do a world of good either!

There are a number of reasons to buy "ethical": environmental reasons and resisting the market control of monster transnational corporations as you noted above.

The important thing to remember is that ethical consumerism can no way come close to helping solve our problems and furthering our movement and our focus must be on workers action and intensifying the class struggle.

[to the bearricades]

The problem with ethical consumerism is that it creates the illusion that the consumer can actually control anything about this dreadful system. We as individuals and consumers are not responsible for eco-devastation and exploitation. And buying eco-friendly and worker-friendly products from those who perpetuate the problem certainly won't solve anything.

[RNK]

Ethical consumerism is made implausible by the nature of the monopoly.

[piet11111]

why pay more ?

i do not have the money to waste on nonsensical notions like "ethics"

[bellyscratch]

I know the world will not change buy trying be an ethical consumer, but surely it is another way of resistance?

I just dont understand people who go on about these massive coorporations controlling the world while drinking coca cola. It just doesnt make sense to me at all.

[RNK]

So we'll resist capitalism by buying from capitalists who aren't as rich?

GG.

[Hit The North]

I buy ethically when I can. The Co-op sells some really nice fair trade chocolate! I also sponsor a child in Africa. I do these things to make myself feel good and because, perhaps, it makes a tiny difference to some poor fuck who's getting shafted with a sharper blade than the one that's shafting me.

But I want to live in a world where none of this bullshit is necessary.

It's important not to confuse the two and important not to see the former as the solution to the latter.

[Hit The North]

why pay more ?

i do not have the money to waste on nonsensical notions like "ethics"

And your revolution is to create what kind of world?

[Dros]

And your revolution is to create what kind of world?

A classless one. Communism is about materialism, not idealism. We define a communist society through material conditions.

We must NOT simply assert that Communism is more ethical and a communist society will be awesome and there will be rivers of chocolate running down the sugar plum hills into the candy-cane forest where oceans of daisies grow...

[bellyscratch]

I buy ethically when I can. The Co-op sells some really nice fair trade chocolate! I also sponsor a child in Africa. I do these things to make myself feel good and because, perhaps, it makes a tiny difference to some poor fuck who's getting shafted with a sharper blade than the one that's shafting me.

But I want to live in a world where none of this bullshit is necessary.

It's important not to confuse the two and important not to see the former as the solution to the latter.

I totally agree with you on what you're saying here. But im getting pretty disillusioned with alot of the people who are supposed to have similar politics as me. I want to change the world not for myself (as i could live a perfectly satisfactory life in the current society), but for all the people around the world who are getting totally fucked over through war, poverty, curable disease etc and to improve the environment for everything that lives in it. But it seems that alot of people on the left have some other more selfish reasons for wanting change.

I see ethical consumerism as a small way of helping a few people improve their lives somehow and also being slightly better for the environment. Im not expecting a massive change, but its still, however small, an improvement on buying coca cola etc. Surely if people cared and wanted a better world they would do something as simple as trying to buy ehtically where they can. I mean, you have to buy stuff anyway so why not just slightly change what you buy?

Im only 20 and have gradually got more political and left wing since i was about 16 and only in the last few months have i got involved in any sort of left wing activism, but i am already losing faith in people who share similar ideas to me. And i dont just mean about ethical consumerism, theres alot more to it than that.

Is this just a phase that people go through when they start getting more involved? i hope it is, otherwise im going to be yet another socialist who has given up on their ideas :(

[Hit The North]

A classless one. Communism is about materialism, not idealism. We define a communist society through material conditions.


Yes. But why do you aspire to a classless society?


We must NOT simply assert that Communism is more ethical and a communist society will be awesome and there will be rivers of chocolate running down the sugar plum hills into the candy-cane forest where oceans of daisies grow...No, we must not simply assert that. People would think we were crazy. Thankfully, no one in this thread is asserting such stupidity.

But if you come across like a selfish, self-indulgent idiot like Marmot does when he states:
fuck those hippie retards. I am still going to buy my milkshakes from mcdonalds and eat moomoos from factory farms.
and then you try to convince people to put it on the line for the distant goal of a classless society, you're just gonna fail to do anything except persuade people that you're a hypocritical asshole.

[Vanguard1917]

anyway, what are everyone's thoughts on ethical consumerism


I think that it's part of a bourgeois and middle class fantasy which holds that it's possible to bring about meaningful change through small shifts in one's lifestyle. It flatters them and makes them feel better about themselves. There's also the snobbery issue: the middle class or bourgeois household which shops 'ethically' is showing that it is cultured and refined - setting themselves apart from the vulgar tastes of the proletarians and the nouveau riche.

The great irony is that, while middle class ethical shoppers like to brand and look down on the masses as being obsessed with consumption, it is actually these ethical shoppers themselves who are the ones attaching such undue significance to consumption. Working class people tend to view consumption in relatively very rational terms, and historically they have recognised that it is in the realm of production that fights for real change can be carried out. As consumers, people are atomised and passive. As producers there's scope for unity and concrete action. But that's not really something which interests the middle class consumerist crusader, who would rather lecture people about their shopping habits and moralise with people about their everyday lives.

[rouchambeau]

Marmot:

fuck those hippie retards. I am still going to buy my milkshakes from mcdonalds and eat moomoos from factory farms.

Communism is not some "lifestyle choice", its a political choice meant to be held by normal people.

Defensive much? You really need to calm down. No one said anything about ethical consumerism bringing about communism. Nor did anyone say that it was the only way to change the world. So, set down the meth pipe, and take a deep breath.

[Hit The North]

As consumers, people are atomised and passive.

Not out of some inevitability, though. I don't want to argue that workers have as much power as consumers as they do as producers, but it is still possible for workers to unite over consumer demands. Meanwhile, campaigns against corporations who prosper on the back of union-busting third world sweat shops and child labour help to highlight the disgusting nature of the system and open up the possibility for proletarian internationalism.

[Vanguard1917]

Not out of some inevitability, though. I don't want to argue that workers have as much power as consumers as they do as producers, but it is still possible for workers to unite over consumer demands. Meanwhile, campaigns against corporations who prosper on the back of union-busting third world sweat shops and child labour help to highlight the disgusting nature of the system and open up the possibility for proletarian internationalism.

Do you have any examples of this happening?

[Hit The North]

Do you have any examples of this happening?

http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/aamhist.html

[BobKKKindle$]

Buying fair-trade goods is okay for some consumers, but we should remember that "ethical" products tend to be more expensive than "ordinary" products because workers in the developing world are paid more for what they produce, and so firms needs to charge a higher price to have the same profit margins, or just to make enough profit to stay in business. As a result most workers are simply unable to afford these goods, they don't have any choice but to purchase goods that were produced in sweatshops, or goods that had an adverse impact on the natural environment - this is not indicative of any lack of concern for workers in developing countries, it's just part of the reality of working-class life. For this reason, "ethical consumerism" will always be a fad limited to the middle-class, which lets people feel as if they're doing something to help.


I just dont understand people who go on about these massive coorporations controlling the world while drinking coca cola. It just doesnt make sense to me at all.The Zapatistas drink Coca-Cola. Does that make them any less revolutionary?

[Vanguard1917]

(http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/aamhist.html)http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/aamhist.html
(http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/aamhist.html)

Which is a good example of the limits of comsumerism, and its foundations in liberalism. As the Boycott Movement itself admitted, 'The boycott is essentially a gesture'. It was gesture politics of the middle classes - it was never really seriously thought that the boycott would do anything to end apartheid (even if some activists did indeed flirt with the idea that they were helping to fight oppression in the Third World by not buying South African oranges).


For this reason, "ethical consumerism" will always be a fad limited to the middle-class, which lets people feel as if they're doing something to help.

We also have to understand that consumerist politics are rooted in ruling class ideology. Supporters of bourgeois democracy like to argue that capitalism provides each individual with the power to make significant decisions based on what they put into their shopping trolleys. Indeed, this is one of their central arguments against 'communism', which they see as the state dictating production and consumption.

The whole idea that we can 'vote with our wallets' in capitalist societies - i.e. that we can make siginificant social and economic decisions through how and what we buy - has historically played a key role in rationalising the capitalist market economy.

[Hit The North]

Van, I don't disagree with any point you make above. Yes, this is a severely limited tactic. Yes, it is rooted in ruling class ideology - although not the brand of ruling class ideology which argues that business should have the absolute freedom to exploit and despoil, regardless of the consequences. Yes, consumerism tends to appeal to the middle classes - although I wonder which section of the middle class you're referring to: lawyers and stock-brokers or teachers and social workers? During the AAM, plenty of resolutions were raised in trade union branches to adopt a principled opposition to apartheid and links were forged between trade unionists in the UK and trade unionists in South Africa.

The same objections could be leveled at reformism. Nevertheless, only ultra-lefts, cut off from the movement, would argue that we oppose reform.

Bob:
Buying fair-trade goods is okay for some consumers, but we should remember that "ethical" products tend to be more expensive than "ordinary" products because workers in the developing world are paid more for what they produce, and so firms needs to charge a higher price to have the same profit margins, or just to make enough profit to stay in business.

This isn't necessarily true. Fair trade chocolate, coffee and wine is no more expensive than the mainstream equivalents.

[Vanguard1917]

The same objections could be leveled at reformism. Nevertheless, only ultra-lefts, cut off from the movement, would argue that we oppose reform.

Not reform, but reformism - something which Marxists have always been opposed to.

--------------

Here's something to consider: there is one commodity which the bourgeois consumerist activists are not so keen on people boycotting, thus revealing their true class prejudices and conservatism. That commodity is labour power, the one commodity which can be boycotted with significant effect.

[Hit The North]

Here's something to consider: there is one commodity which the bourgeois consumerist activists are not so keen on people boycotting, thus revealing their true class prejudices and conservatism. That commodity is labour power, the one commodity which can be boycotted with significant effect.

An excellent point. However, I'd still like to know who these "bourgeois consumerist activists" are.

Meanwhile, the fair trade movement is concerned with lowering the level of exploitation of third world labour. Obviously they fall far short of calls for the abolition of capitalism. But that hardly makes them unusual.

[Vanguard1917]

However, I'd still like to know who these "bourgeois consumerist activists" are.


They're everywhere you look in the West. A prominent example in Britain is the 'buy British' campaigns of conservatives and the 'buy local' campaigns of liberal-lefty greens - both essentially reactionary middle class campaigns very similar in content, though differing slightly in form, with some campaigners able to pass themselves off as 'radicals' and sometimes even 'anti-capitalists'.

These campaigns are marked by their parochialism and conservative disdain for modern society, for a global economy and for cosmopolitanism, for mass and large-scale production and consumption - i.e. for the progressive features of modern society. They also represent middle class snobbery against the working class: the idea that working class Westerners are greedy and vulgar 'over-consumers' is rife in these petty campaigns, even if it's not always explicitly expressed. The goal of the consumerist campaigner is, after all, to lecture ordinary people about their shopping habits and their every day practices in general. In other words, it's a typically moralistic campaign. I think that these are good reasons for why such campaigns should be resisted rather than joined.

[Hit The North]

Van,

A lot of what you say may be true about these campaigns and I'd certainly draw the line at supporting Buy British campaigns. Nevertheless, your vehement attack on these groups troubles me because you always seem to therefore assume an uncritical stance towards the corporate players in global capitalism.

So when you accuse these campaigns as being
marked by their parochialism and conservative disdain for modern society, for a global economy and for cosmopolitanism, for mass and large-scale production and consumption - i.e. for the progressive features of modern society

it's hard not see you taking an uncritical stance in support of the excesses of large scale production - i.e. savage repression of workers rights and high levels of exploitation.

Now let me reiterate my position: The fairtrade movement and all similar attempts to provide market-based solutions to the ravages of global capitalism are doomed to failure. The international proletariat - and the masses of the world poor - can only advance through the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system.

Nevertheless, I'd rather see people exercise a critical awareness of the impact of capitalist production and consumption, than act like uncritical, self-interested brats who gleefully proclaim:
fuck those hippie retards. I am still going to buy my milkshakes from mcdonalds and eat moomoos from factory farms.

[Vanguard1917]

it's hard not see you taking an uncritical stance in support of the excesses of large scale production - i.e. savage repression of workers rights and high levels of exploitation.



We have to be able to distinguish between progressive attacks on capitalism and reactionary complaints. Unfortunately, as a result of the retreat of the working class from political life, it is the latter which dominates criticisms of corporations in the West today. These need to be exposed for what they are.

For example, when middle class miserabilists start attacking Tesco for 'daring' to charge less than £2 for a whole chicken and for encouraging 'over-consumption' by the masses by making shopping more convenient than ever before, we have to be able to recognise that there is nothing progressive going on here.

[Hit The North]

Again, I agree. So what do find so reactionary about this, the principles of the fairtrade movement:
Fair trade advocates generally support the following principles and practices in trading relationships:[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade#_note-4) Creating opportunities for economically disadvantaged producers-Fair trade is a strategy for poverty alleviation and sustainable development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development). Its purpose is to create opportunities for producers who have been economically disadvantaged or marginalized by the conventional trading system.Transparency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28humanities%29) and accountability-Fair trade involves transparent management and commercial relations to deal fairly and respectfully with trading partners.Capacity building-Fair trade is a means to develop producers’ independence. Fair trade relationships provide continuity, during which producers and their marketing organizations can improve their management skills and their access to new markets.Payment of a fair price-A fair price in the regional or local context is one that has been agreed through dialogue and participation. It covers not only the costs of production but enables production which is socially just and environmentally sound. It provides fair pay to the producers and takes into account the principle of equal pay for equal work by women and men. Fairtraders ensure prompt payment to their partners and, whenever possible, help producers with access to pre-harvest or pre-production financing. They also provide money for free primary schools and health care, which really help the people who are not earning enough to send their children to school.Gender equality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalism)-Fair trade means that the work of women and men is properly valued and rewarded. Each person is always paid for their contribution to the production process and are empowered in their organizations, regardless of gender.Working conditions-Fair trade means a safe and healthy working environment for producers. The participation of children (if any) does not adversely affect their well-being, security, educational requirements and need for play and conforms to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child) as well as the law and norms in the local context.Environmental protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_protection)-Fair trade actively encourages better environmental practices and the application of responsible methods of production. Fair trade certifiers for example strictly prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), promote integrated farm management systems that improve soil fertility, and limit the use of harmful agrochemicals in favor of environmentally sustainable farming methods that protect farmers' health and preserve valuable ecosystems for future generations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade

And if their policies are so reactionary, why is the ideological assault against fair trade being made by the right wing Adam Smith Institute and Economist magazine?

[Vanguard1917]

Aside from the fact that 'fair trade' schemes do not do anything to actually alleviate poverty and promote development, we should also point out that these schemes come with conditions attached. As your wikipedia article points out, for example, 'fair trade' is defined by its Western creditors as anti-GM, anti-pesticides, and pro-'sustainable development' - the latter being an environmentalist codeword for small-scale and localised production.

Is this really in the interests of the developing world? Mainstream Western political opinion seems to think that it is, so it seeks to impose its prejudices upon the rest of the world.

In my opinion, developing countries need rapid and large-scale industrial development, along with the freedom to determine their own economic and social policies free from Western meddling, in order to raise living standards to - at the bare minimum - those which many of us in the West currently enjoy.

How many of our ethical middle class 'fair trade' latte drinkers in the West would support this? Judging by their petty prejudices, they would probably tremble at the idea.


And if their policies are so reactionary, why is the ideological assault against fair trade being made by the right wing Adam Smith Institute and Economist magazine?

Because they see it as going against their free trade fantasies. But that's not very relevant. Many of today's 'free marketeers' may also have opposed the Nazi government's Law for the Protection of Individual Trade - a law which restricted supermarkets and other chain stores from expanding and opening new stores. Does that mean that the Nazi law was progressive in any way? Of course not.

[Hit The North]

In my opinion, developing countries need rapid and large-scale industrial development, along with the freedom to determine their own economic and social policies free from Western meddling, in order to raise living standards to - at the bare minimum - those which many of us in the West currently enjoy.

You're entitled to your opinion. But free from Western meddling. It's an inspiring phrase, but who will provide the political will and material wherewithall to kick out the imperialists and institute national industrial revolutions? The weak national bourgeoisies? The atomised workers? Or are countries supposed to magic themselves free of the world capitalist system?

What are your concrete suggestions for making this happen?

[Vanguard1917]

You're entitled to your opinion. But free from Western meddling. It's an inspiring phrase, but who will provide the political will and material wherewithall to kick out the imperialists and institute national industrial revolutions? The weak national bourgeoisies? The atomised workers? Or are countries supposed to magic themselves free of the world capitalist system?

What are your concrete suggestions for making this happen?


I think that we can start by challenging the anti-development and interventionist politics which exist in the West. You say that 'free from Western meddling' is an 'inspiring phrase', but surely it's a pretty standard and basic, if not even sober, anti-imperialist slogan. It's only come to be seen as 'radical' or 'extreme' due to the mainstream left's abandonment of the principle of national self-determination in the 1990s, when it began supporting 'humanitarian interventions' in places like Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo. The idea that Western states can play a positive role in the developing world has been accepted by the mainstream left.

We also have to challenge the anti-development attitudes which prevail in the West. Once upon a time, people used to oppose capitalism because they saw it as being unable to bring about the kind of large economic development that the world requires. Today, under the banner of 'sustainable development', mainstream Western political opinion argues that development in the non-Western world should be small-scaled and localised. Environmentalism, which is now part of ruling class ideology, argues that capitalism is giving way to too much economic development!* Western eco-schemes like Fair Trade promise small 'third world' farmers a 'fair deal', but what about the prospect of these countries not having to depend on farming in the first place, through mass industrialisation and modernisation? The latter isn't on the agenda - it's seen as neither possible nor desirable. Indeed, that's why countries like China and India, with their large-scale industrial projects and relatively dynamic growth, are so offensive to the Western environmentalists, who prefer their third worlders humble and in their place.


* This is how one leading environmentalist writer, George Monbiot, puts it in his book Heat. His honesty is striking:

'Unlike almost all the public protests which have preceded it, [environmentalism] is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves.'

[BurnTheOliveTree]

There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but most people, myself included, can no way afford it. You have to bleed out of your arse for say, free-range eggs, or fair-trade coffee, it just isn't worth it ultimately.

-Alex