Too much consumerism might be dangerous but the the absence of consumerism is definitely dangerous. The question should be refined a bit. I would say that the level of consumerism in the United States and Europe is a bad thing but not consumerism over all.
Consumerism is a good thing. It adds money to the economy and creates jobs, as is also indicative of a free and prosperous society. So long as there are regulations (to prevent illegal sweat shops etc.) it will remain possibly the worst reason to ignore holidays like Christmas and Mother's Day.
It's not about the jobs, or the economy, it's about society. A "free" society that practices capitalism and consumerism is not free. It enslaves people to want things that they don't need. It's essentially training people from young age to pay attention to advertising and purchase what they are trying to sell. For a lot of people, it works. To the rest of us, just hearing an advert makes us cringe. It sounds more like a dinner bell to us, every time they say "sale", we hear the bell ringing, and the cattle running to the fence to eat their oats and hay, only to be slaughtered and enjoyed by the higher class people... the ones with the dinner bells. Consumerism cheap and not in the best interest for the individual, and then only by association with other individuals, the whole group.
The arrogance in assuming one knows what is best for the individual (less society as a whole) is unmeasurable. "A "free" society that practices capitalism and consumerism is not free." On the contrary. A capitalist society allows people to run businesses and make profit. In any modern society currency is necessary to personal freedom (just for transportation purposes even) and relative to how bad one wants something, they must work for it. That sounds free to me. Now, in a society where everything is handed to you,I believe is a society that breads passivity, boredom, and slaves to the state. There is no freedom there; no expression of the individual whatsoever. It's why the individualists of our day have been anarcho-capitalists and laissez faire advocates. Moreover, in a capitalist society like America one can manage easily to afford all the necessities that Rousseau talked about. Part of the problem is something you hinted at. People in the 21st century don't live within their means. 70 years ago select people owned cars. Now most people "need" to have one or two. Until recently select people flew air planes, had TVs, computers, big houses, and so on. In other words, even the poor are richer than they ever have been, but they just don't know it. If people lived within their means they'd have sufficient money from minimum wage to afford all actual necessities (like heath care for instance) and some luxuries too.
The concern over consumerism is often more about intangibles such as how it affects our social relationships and habits. It's tough to pinpoint where consumerism is dangerous if, indeed, it is dangerous at all. Consumerism can create a culture of need. You have to have this new gadget or this new style, when in reality you don't. The danger in that, I suspect, is when we use our possessions to define ourselves, because that is a never ending cycle of perpetual buying, and it's never enough. Advertisers know this, and they prey off it. Everyone is different, but I imagine there are a lot of people who would feel a lot more content if they didn't feel like they constantly needed bigger and better possessions.
As improbable and sensationalist as your prediction is (that people will enter a vicious circle of buying and upgrading) it doesn't actually qualify as dangerous, unless you plan on explaining why. Of course if we took what you say completely literally, than it is dangerous, because 1 person could end up hoarding the world's leather supply to perpetuate his so-called "need." This isn't physically possible though. In short, what is "dangerous" about having ourselves defined by processions, and can you prove that it wasn't like that in the past? The oldest civilizations use to plate their cities in gold as a form of showing off. Jewelry has existed just as long if not longer. It seems, therefore, that expressing ourselves or our status or our niche with processions is in fact fairly human. And of course we don't "need" it. We don't "need" most of what we own, and what we do need (food) is often embellished beyond necessity. If you truly are advocating "needs" over "wants" then disposable income comes off as a kind of immoral tender. If you are truly advocating needs, and think excess is dangerous, than leave all your processions, become self sufficient inside your mountain cave, and keep telling yourself that adequacy is the spice of life (only if you need to, of course).
Well, again, as Rousseau explained, consumerism breads selfishness. Items of possession, especially of that which is not necessary for your survival (food, water, shelter, and technology that helps you maintain food, water, and shelter) are often used to symbolize social status. It's competitive in nature, and rather than bettering yourself out of pure and untainted self-love, it will be out of selfishness, which corrupts people and causes them to do things (such as break social pacts, etc.) in order to maintain their socially established class order.
As important Rousseau and other philosophers are, they exhibit what can be called a "folk psychology" wherein they come up with reasons, motives, etc. that explain certain social phenomenon without much empirical basis. It was admittedly the best Rousseau could do in his time. However, because of that, one must always take the diagnosis of enlightenment philosophers with a grain of salt. What Rousseau describes as "superfluous needs" are in many cases important for a persons mental health (friends for instance) and if one ever took Rousseau seriously they would lead a lonely, abstracted existence, and certainly wouldn't be posting on the internet, nor reading Rouseau in the first place. Indeed, Rouseau's theory of need paints him as a hypocrite, unless you contend Rouseau's writing was necessary for his survival and reproduction. Ultimately Rouseau commits a naturalistic fallacy in saying it is a bad thing to be luxurious and pursue innovation and technology. I would further disagree that one becomes a slave to their goods, insofar as they don't just become familiar to them. Do I need the newest Ipod? No, of course not; I don't need music in general to survive. But I earn a living and have the freedom to buy one if I wish, which is the system America's economy runs on (and has the fruits to prove it). Also, I don't think you have sufficiently proven that rational selfishness is a bad thing. You say that they become corrupt, but that is a bit of circular logic when you implicitly define corrupt as selfishness. ("The problem with selfishness is that you become selfish...") Even if it causes them to break social pacts (which I doubt. It hasn't happened to me, and if it is common it would still be no matter what the case as humans are competitive innately) it would still be a matter of choice and personal responsibility, the kind of which I don't think social engineering should have a hand in.
Okay, first of all let's cover where consumerism can be dangerous. Would you consider plastic surgery and botox to be a possession? If you don't we can dispute that, but for the purpose of my example I'll assume that we agree that people buy plastic surgery just as they buy rims for their sports cars. A woman looks forlorn in a mirror, unhappy with what she sees. The magazines in the super market, the ads on billboards and the stars on television saturate her fragile self-esteem with images of tall, skinny beautiful women. She's ready to make an upgrade and goes to seen a surgeon about having her tummy tucked. Grand! It works, she's skinny like she hasn't been since she was seventeen. But of course that mirror still reveals well wrinkled skin, so off she goes to get a botox injection. Hmm . . . those lips just aren't red enough, let's fix that too, she thinks. Six months later her botox injections wear off, but at this point she will feel too self conscious without them, back to the doctor . . . oh, that'll be another $500 every 6 months on top of all the other procedures she's had, and more procedures just keep coming. Buy this point she spends so much money that she's missed opportunities to go back to school, or perhaps buy a new more spacious house for her growing family, or invest a whole lot more money into that formerly healthy retirement fund. Is she happy? Is she happy as she becomes so desperate for a younger face and body that she attempts procedures that are dangerous to her health? Consumerism can blind us. Low, low prices are the easiest way to the consumer's heart and kept loyal to your company. Wal-mart knows this, as do many, many other companies (even one's with decent corporate track records). Of course no one is paying attention to why prices are so low, or what kind of effect those low prices have at home or abroad. From sweat shops to poor environmental practices, these are quite often overlooked when the average person wants a new lime-green dish set to complement their new pastel painted kitchen, and Wal-mart is selling them for $30. Moving on. Is it dangerous to have things we don't need . . . ? No. Should I live in a cave because any excess in material possession is a potential consumerist nuclear bomb set to explode greed and self loathing in my innocent face? If I were so narrow minded, possibly, after all, civilizations have been lining cities with gold for centuries, and what's wrong with that? I mean, aside from the slaves who died building these gold cities? Yes, Mr. Cheese, you are correct, expressing ourselves with possession as a status symbol is in fact fairly human. Killing is also very human, war is especially (and exclusively) human. So what's the difference between war and consumerism? Well, we know better of course! We know war is not a positive thing. We know that war is not glorious, it is about suffering, much, much suffering. I was on an airplane heading to the UK for the first time and I had the pleasure of sitting next to a very nice lady who lived in Dubai. Dubai, of course, is the modern gold city. It is so lavish, with indoor ski hills, custom shaped islands, and skyscrapers that tower beyond any other man-made structure. I had the opportunity to pick her brain about what was going on over there and she spent some time lamenting the horrible working conditions of the workers who came over from India. It makes you feel sad, because really, by now we should know better.
The best examples against consumerism are indeed anything that can be addictive or habit forming, from drugs to any kind of self improvement. However, if liberty is something you value, we have to trust people to be responsible for their own decisions, even if it can be detrimental in excess. That is a simple fact of a free society. Should people eat so much junk? Should they try altering their body because of a low self esteem? Probably not, but it would be fascistic to stop them. The best we can do is educate and offer practical and safe alternatives. We can also prepare physicians to recognize addiction (as they're suppose to) and recommend counseling, or based on their profession opinion of the consumer's mental health, to bar them from further surgery all together. You also continue the arrogance of knowing what other people want and should have. You also show little faith in humanity and our ability to discern, which historically has always been an implicit tenet of socialism. You are right about sweat shops though. There is a reason why they're illegal in the west, and in undeveloped countries where it's practiced most, understand that people there, if it wasn't for the 3 cents an hour, would have 0 cents an hour. I agree it's deplorable, but it isn't inherently evil. Your point about war being fairly human is pointing out a naturalistic fallacy that didn't actually exist in the post you were replying. When I said competition is fairly human, I wasn't saying it was right (though I don't think it's wrong). I was saying that is was unavoidable and would continue to manifest no matter the economic system. Competition is good, I believe, because it sparks innovation and creates affordability. We are talking specifically consumerism right now though, so lets keep it on topic. Further, I don't think socialism is inherently worse than capitalism. I think it depends on the circumstances of the country. For instance, I think much of devastated Latin America has suffered under U.S. imposed neoliberal policies, and would benefit from massive wealth distribution (only because they are living on a dollar a day in some places, with no real employment opportunities). But in America where opportunities exist, and even the poor are sustainable, radical wealth distribution is redundant. Also many of these countries economies depend on the United States for revenue. Communist China for example has some of the worst working conditions, but its increasingly thriving economy is entirely dependent on US consumerism (cross boarders capital flow).
If we're trying to stay on topic I'm not really sure why we're talking about wealth redistribution. I think, maybe you are misinterpreting my motives for believing consumerism can be dangerous. Consumerism is not addressed by taking money from high incomer earners and giving it to the low. I'm at a loss to figure out what that would do, exactly. The point in comparing war to consumerism was to give some perspective as to what other human activities (aside from consumerism) are decidedly natural throughout history. I chose war, obviously, because it is an act that we already vehemently view a deplorable and we're intelligent enough to recognize that and protest war, especially when it is particularly unjust. Consumerism, again, is something that we can recognize as being negative, and know better than to let it continue contributing negatively to society. I won't continue to debate whether it has a negative impact or not, as per your first paragraph we agree that it does. Consumerism has helped contribute to the use of sweatshop labour overseas, we seem to agree on that much, because rabid demand for inexpensive products has companies looking to countries with softer labour laws to produce their goods on the cheap. Yes, it's great that China has a booming economy, but no one should have to work for less than what is a fair wage. The fact that in the western world we have better labour laws excuses nothing when our companies just outsource their labour to places that don't. As stated before, our consumerist eye is often blind to these kinds of injustices, and there simply isn't a loud enough voice out there saying "this is wrong!"
The assumption that consumerism is dangerous because of low wages in countries with soft labor laws is a non-sequitur. The only thing that follows from that assumption is: "soft labor laws are dangerous." It also presupposes that they would have higher wages without consumerism. Do you have any evidence that that would be the case?
No, you're right, I can sight no evidence that if consumerism were curbed that the wages would be higher. I can only theorize that if weren't such rabid consumers we might pay more attention to where our goods are coming from, putting pressure through protest on our government to either demand the out sourced countries pay their employee fair wages, or punish companies a home who outsource to the third world.
I can certainly concede the point that if not for heavy consumerism it is possible that countries like China could be worse off than they are. Of course we can't say that for sure, because it is uncertain the path that the country would have taken if not for large manufacturing contracts. They are still a very large country and money and job could and can come from other places. On a side note, I'd like to point out that globalization is not a bad thing, globalization is inevitable. I don't necessarily view consumerism and globalization in the same breath. I'd be interested in understanding how you view the two overlap? Honest question, not snarky remark.
First of all: An early critic of consumerism was Thorstein Veblen. His critics along with the critics of Karl Marx not only made consumerism an actual topic of discussion, but also in a way defined what consumerism means. In fact, Thorstein coined the term "conspicuous consumption" which has come to be the modern understand of the word consumerism. Thorstein saw consumerism as leading to globalization, and that the two were inherently linked. Second of all, the anti-consumerist movement and anti-globalization movement are in many ways two sides of the same coin. They have the same leaders, the same schools of thought, and so on. Third and most relevant, if one looks at what you previously wrote one will find that you speak as if consumerism would be interchangeable with globalization, in particular your more recent arguments over under or undeveloped countries. "From sweat shops to poor environmental practices, these are quite often overlooked when the average person wants a new lime-green dish set to complement their new pastel painted kitchen..." "...he spent some time lamenting the horrible working conditions of the workers who came over from India." In other words, the things you were claiming consumerism results in, and is dangerous for, are the exact arguments one uses against globalism (as invalid as they may be). In fact, by you third reply or so, you had begun to dedicate your entire argument on effects commonly if not exclusively assimilated to globalization by those on the left: "Consumerism has helped contribute to the use of sweatshop labour overseas..." "[consumerism] has companies looking to countries with softer labour laws to produce their goods on the cheap..." In short, it is you who unearthed the globalization topic, only under a different name. Jumped backward to why I brought up redistribution: For understandable reasons, one would make the mistake that one is advocating a Marxist/Socialistic ideology, when he rejecting consumerism first, globalization second, and implicitly, therefore, capitalism third, all as dangerous. Marx, as already mentioned, is probably the reason we are discussing this, for his criticisms of consumerism were some of the first. In fact, Wikipedia classifies "Socialism" as a related social movement (Perhaps "related" is not a strong enough word: Reason magazine once called anti-consumerism "Marxism lite"). And rightly so, for as seen else where in this debate, Rousseau's views on consumerism have already been cited. You know it's official then.
Okay, I understand where my disconnect was. Mostly I look at globalization as a social and cultural phenomenon where societies the world over begin to become more homogeneous as franchises like McDonald's or Wal-Mart become ubiquitous throughout the globe. Also our ability at the individual level to communicate with people around the world makes our planet a much smaller place. That is the globalization which I believe to be inevitable. But yes, globalization involves business practices and economic impact, you are correct. And, as you so neatly pointed out with quote from my previous post, you can see that there appears to be an anti-globalization message within my words. But really, if workers in China or the construction labourers from India where given fair wages and reasonable working conditions, I would have no problem with their jobs being outsourced from other countries. I just want the people to be treated justly, not taken advantage of. I'm glad that you said it's understandable "one would make the mistake that one is advocating Marxist/Socialistic ideology" because I have yet to suggest any solutions to these problems so it would be pretty hard to make a case that I'm pushing some kind of doctrine.
yeah but do u think that consumers demands should always be met?
213 days ago | Tagged As: No. It makes jobs!
|
Cheap clothes from sweat-shops and multinationals buying off traditional shops are bad, and the pressure on shops to drive prices down is causing problems economically. Not to mention how what we waste is harming the environment...
There is not a level I can consider in which the notion of taking and returning nothing is anything but destructive, unhelpful, and unnatural. Every system on the planet is built upon the notion that one thing supports another, in some way, eventually. While there are many arguments made upon the notion that consumerism supports many other economic systems and thus, is helpful, the simply reality is that man made systems tend almost exclusively toward unsupportable, inorganic, non-sustainable patterns that require more effort and resources to support than practically any natural alternative. Consumerism is no different in this regard and the notion that it is anything other than destructive on a short or long term basis is simply delusion.
Cienna, the main problem that I find in your point is that you mention that of "taking and returning nothing". In the consumerist society we live in a world where any agreement that we participate in benefits both parties more then they had been before. For instance, the argument of how Wall-Mart is destroying everything is countered by the fact that people still shop there. If the fact that Wall-Mart was destroying what their consumers wanted then the corporation wouldn't have any consumers and thus they wouldn't be able to survive if they were harming their consumer. While you do make a good point that anything that man-made systems tend to be unsupportable, inorganic and require much more effort then the natural alternative. The thing missing with that is the standard of living that we reap from this system. We have the ability to heat our homes, obviously an improvement from even the kings and queens of old england. And we've been able to improve the efficiency of this where we work less hours in better conditions today than the elites of the past. While our system is not perfect, the benefit of consumerism is that we are constantly pushed to improve the efficiency of our products and services we provide. If it were possible to create solar panels on cars that allow them to drive for a longer period of time rather than on gas wouldn't it be in the best interest of car companies to attempt to research that technology for fear of their competitors doing that same thing for themselves?
Considering that the 'standard of living' that we insist is 'good' continues to cost more, require more, and become more complex as well, I'm not sure any of it can be defined as 'beneficial' to humanity overall. Sure, we're able to have pretty things or helpful things or fun things on demand at the local WalMart, but there are a host of costs (both tangible and intangible) that are really quite lacking in benefit that are a required component of this. We call these things progress... but over what? Is working a 70 hour week to afford to keep up on the credit debt really better than working a 30-40 hour week on the farm? WalMart can destroy entire segments of society and culture with impunity so long as they aren't doing it here, right? That does seem to be the consensus, which frankly, is shameful.... and the most egregious example of how consumerism ignores or denies the things that its hunger demands. I am reminded of the opening to a movie called 'The Gods Must Be Crazy'. Mind you, the presentation of the Bushman culture is pure fallacy, but the presentation of our 'civilized' consumerism society was, I thought, quite insightful and thought-provoking. I've linked it from Youtube.
I think consumerism is bad for society in general, especially in state that proclaims that all people are free and so on. I think people in America and states like this are too irresponsible. We all cave in to the idea that we can have what we want if we work for it (or not?). Just as Rousseau explains in *"The Social Contract and the Origin of Inequality", impulse of appetite is slavery condemning one, especially in this case, to serve your own cravings (for things) by working to have them. It's completely absurd, to have a society making and selling things for the sake of having them. What I mean is, look at how many things are being sold that are not needed by everyone. Who is working to build them for their wages? Who is buying them? Do you think people working at some sweat shop (not to be taken literally), would rather be paid in what they assemble than cash that can be spent on things that they too, do not need by necessity? This is how the old world economy functioned, and it worked well until we figured out how to mass produce things. If you were a farmer, you would take your earnings down to a market, trade and barter... Coins held value naturally, without a banking system, so that if you needed something, you could trade the metal for something that you needed, and it was universally excepted because the metal alone had value. Capitalism is a cheap trick, and will fail shortly. We can already see it buckling now, with fuel prices rising, food prices rising, the cost of living, rising. It's all about to collapse, and I don't mean some sort of huge catastrophe, but a reinvention out of some desire to remain active...
"Capitalism is a cheap trick, and will fail shortly. We can already see it buckling now, with fuel prices rising" Rising fuel prices has more to do with restricting against capitalism than capitalism. If companies were allowed to explore for oil in America we could secure enough oil to lower prices significantly, but the democrats in congress have made that out of the question. Oil companies are being forced to purchase oil second hand to meet the demand, which causes prices to soar. Other problems have to do with the instability of counties where oil is drilled. That is independent of capitalism. Oil refining regulations also add to the costs. Other issues have to do with the rise of big countries. In other words, more people can afford cars now. America's gas prices are still fairly cheap in comparison though. Gas in Europe (considerably less capitalistic) has gas prices 2.3 times higher than in America. A final problem is the Federal Reserve. So long as they keep devaluing the dollar in a very uncapitalistic way, prices will rise accordingly. Could you please (in the future) justify your assertions instead of painting them with your ignorance of complex economic problems?
But the reason for the regulation of oil prices is that oil is a finite resource, and it's not being used in a sustainable manner. Yes, extenuating circumstances in other countries contribute to oil shortages, but drilling in America will only buy time. What you describe as restrictions against it were created by shortages, and there are going to be more shortages in the future so as long as society tries to meet an exponentially growing (and capitalistic) demand with a limited supply. The rise of new countries is encouraged by capitalism; regulations and standards of oil refinement is not independent of capitalism, because market standards are vital for people to have faith in the economy. Discounting them doesn't disprove the assertion that rising fuel prices are a problem for the economy; capitalism as a system relies on being able to keep going despite these factors.
So it's capitalisms fault insofar as there is a demand and it fills the supply. The solution to that is not filling the supply, and then we begin without any refined oil as oppose to resulting in it.
.. What? Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
It certainly is. One I consumed large quantities of beer and almost died (well, it felt like I was dying.).
do you Love big dog daddy jesus ?
|
