13/10/12 George Osborne's austerity is costing an extra £76bn, says IMF [The Guardian] 01/10/12 Just 50 months to tackle climate change [The Guardian] 13/09/12 Don't target this HBOS banker - the real enemy is the system that made him [The Guardian]

End the Big Six Fix

Plan B: sign the petition

In the public interest

The Good Banking Forum

Mailing list

Events

Join Compass


News filter
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo
  • Photo

Neal Lawson - Why is the left silent on the scourge of consumerism?

Thursday, November 29 2012

Did you do it – by accident or design? Did you manage to buy nothing on Buy Nothing Day last Saturday? What do you mean you didn’t know you it was Buy Nothing Day? Too busy Xmas shopping?

The idea that an issue can only be raised by dedicating one day out of 365 to it is just one indication of how we have become a consumer society.  Being a consumer society doesn’t mean that all we do is shop,  rather it suggests that knowing ourselves and others by what we consume is the prime way in which society now reproduces itself.  It is the dominant way of being, just as work once was, when we knew ourselves, and others, primarily as producers. We were what we did. Now we are what we buy.

I don’t know the ‘Buy Nothing Day’ people but I’m guessing the problem isn’t consumption per se. We have to consume to live. The problem is one of balance. What is the damage being done to us, our society and the planet by consuming too much? And the issue is not the inability of capitalism to balance its need for expanding profit and our individual, collective and environmental needs, capitalism can’t do balance. The problem is that our politicians have given up trying to secure that balance through regulation.

At one level who can blame them for not trying. Why would you even want to get people to vote against the seductive powers of shopping and the thrill of the till? The answer, when it’s the only form of compensation currently on offer, is not to tell them it's bad but to come up with a more seductive offer. If we tried that it might touch a chord. People know the rewards of turbo-consumption are only fleeting and ultimately unfulfilling. If they don’t, then Selfridges kindly remind them every year with their sale slogan "you want it, you buy it, you forget it". How kind of them to let us in on the joke, which is on us.

Even when you come up with what you hope to be a telling insight, to help people liberate them themselves from the high street of hell, the market cleverly co-opts it and comes with its own response – as it must if it is to successfully reproduce itself. So, when you offer the idea of the time to read a child a bed time story as a moment of non-commercialised freedom you have to contend with the company called Nursery Rhymes who offers an iPad app to read "with a child" so that you can be in the office or anywhere around the world. So you work, to earn, to buy the products to assuage the guilt because you are always working and never with your children. This is why capitalism is winning.

And then you try this clincher as an argument to stop shopping; no one dies wishing they had more things but that they had more time with the people they loved. Trump that capitalism! And of course they do. We go back to the iPad or rather the iTomb which gets placed in your headstone so that messages and memories can be eternally communicated.  Another pleasure you, of course, have to work for.  We don’t stand a chance.

Interestingly, the right seems more willing to act on the spread of at least the worst aspects of our consumer society than the left. Just this week, the government proposed a minimum alcohol price to restrict drink consumption, although the floor of 45p per unit is seen by many campaigners as too low. And it was Cameron, while in in opposition, who at least piped up about chocolate being sold at the counter of supermarkets to maximise child pester power and high street stores selling sexualized clothing to young girls, an issue I brought up last week. Small beer, I know, but it at least raises the issue.

The left is pretty silent on consumption. Social democracy is the politics of more – and the more in question is money and therefore spending power. Today ‘Labour’ is not about dignity or craft but raw consumption. Jobs, any jobs, are what matter. For many on the left, it seems enough is never enough, no matter how much consumerism tears society apart and threatens the basis of social democratic dreams.

Of course, in a time of austerity the fixation is growth, as we saw with the figures this week on the two million jump in those who are in work but feel underemployed and therefore are under-spending. But that desire to return to pre-crash ‘business as usual’ is misguided. Many of us have more clothes than we can wear and more food than we can eat – but work too hard and have too little time to do what we really want. Instead, the emphasis should be on two things; first sharing work more equally and therefore the material benefits and time that go with it. And second, help each other recognise that the good life cannot be bought off a shelf but created in our imagination and our mutual endeavours. There are many visions of the good society, said J.K.Galbraith, the treadmill is no one of them.   

So if you can, work less, so others can work more, on some days buy nothing – expect the New Statesman, of course. Otherwise buy less, buy better, but buy time, love, care, compassion, freedom and some control over your life and your society the only way you can – by doing it not as a consumer but as a citizen.

Neal Lawson's column appears weekly on The Staggers blog at http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/neal_lawson

Share using AddThis AddThis

Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.

To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.

Comments

  • ««
  • «
  • »
  • »»
1 to 8 of 8
Posted by  
on 05 December 2012, 12:01:08 AM
Stan’s highlighting of the consumerist frenzy for resources and the pursuit of profit implicitly shows how counterproductive the whole process is. Defragmenting for oil, be it in Alberta or Blackpool shows by definition how foolish it is to rely on declining carbon fuels. Of course Defragmenting in parts of Canada, the USA and Britain is as much about reducing the dependency on the Middle East for oil, as it is about exploiting harder to get sources of oil and gas. But in practice, every search for additional sources of oil and gas in current global political and economic circumstances inhibits the development of non-fossil renewable resources.

Part of the context of what Lewis pithily describes as the increasingly desperate greed for, “energy fixes,” is the relocation of much economic and political power in the next decades to China and India. Neal Lawson’s strain of elite consumerist politics is predicated on a post social democratic, (in my view anti socialist and anti-working class,) bourgeois liberalism. In their different ways, Chinese and Indian capitalists appear to be showing that bourgeois liberal democracy is not the inevitable outcome of global capitalist development. This being so, Neal Lawson’s interpretation of the “scourge of Consumerism,” is particularly irrelevant. His interpretation will of course appeal to some of the elite pluralists neo-liberalism has empowered. But for socialists and other progressives to fall for his arguments would be utter folly.
Posted by Lewis Parry (Elx)
on 04 December 2012, 9:41:02 PM
Stan also highlights the consumerist frenzy of the developed world for energy supplies.
Antarctica protocols forbid the exploitation of coal and oil in and adjacent to the continent for at least the next few decades.
I wonder how that will fare as retrieval technology becomes more sophisticated and the greed for short term energy fixes becomes more desperate?
And the disputes about who can claim these resouces may make the various China Sea small island arguments look petty.
Posted by Paul McLean (Leeds)
on 04 December 2012, 1:16:35 PM
It is not often that I find myself in a in a measure of agreement with Stan; still less so when he is defending Neal Lawson. But David Aaronovitch’s analysis is bitter snobbish and irrational, with all the born again arrogance of an ex Communist. At one level of course, there is a certain unavoidable delight at seeing one supporter of the neo-liberal settlement condescending towards another. Whilst Messrs Lawson and Aaronovitch have very much more in common with each other than divides them, (not least that sense of elite metropolitan entitlement,) they do illustrate that Stakeholders such as they, - who by definition owe their political and cultural emancipation to the weakening of the weakening of the working class majority in society, - represent important differences of neo-liberal opinion.

Unfortunately with Aaronovitch, there are many, (not least among his natural supporters on the Right,) towards whom he seems to have a deep animosity that is at least as much personal as it is political. This characteristic appears to be much to the fore in analysing what his fellow neo-liberal has to say. The rational core of Neal Lawson’s claim to any place he has within the neo-liberal intelligentsia is arguably his contribution over a number of years to the debate on consumerism. Within its own terms it is not irrational to work to advance the neo-liberal economy and at the same time to be critical of the intensive and pervasive model of consumerism that that economy and society has created. If nothing else it is a kind of safe and supportive ‘Leftism,’ far removed from the socialism and democracy which would see an end to the trough at which querulous ‘new labourists’ belch so insistently.

There is little in the Aaronovitch critique of Lawson’s commentary on consumerism that any Tory would have left out. Indeed as befits an admirer of Tony Blair, his tone is that of the Tory working class populist, railing against the traditional political and cultural elites. But in the end, it would appear to be nothing more politically and intellectually substantial than one self promoting rightwing egoist expressing his contempt for another self promoting rightwing egoist.

But at least in his current, Me, Me, Me, effusions for the NS, Neal Lawson has managed to avoid his trade mark reference to the ‘burning planet.’ Consumerism pervades our society and culture. But to represent it as Neal Lawson does is insulting to the burdens others in society are carrying in terms of unemployment, reduced earnings and potential and actual homelessness. It would be moderately interesting if just for once Neal Lawson were to abandon his essentially shallow addiction to consumerist politics and lifestyle politics. This addiction only serves to legitimate consumerism and to infantilise many who would otherwise act collectively and democratically in favour of greater equality; greater equality domestically and internationally.

This essay from Neal Lawson came graphically to mind this morning during the Today Programme. The way nursing care has declined in England as the market’s stranglehold on the NHS has become stronger, says more of real substance about consumerism than Neal Lawson has ever managed. In addition, when the head of the Scouts and Guides Association speaks unblinkingly of ‘consulting stakeholders’ about proposed changes, Neal Lawson’s handwringing about consumerism is a self indulgent nonsense in comparison.
Posted by Lewis Parry (Elx)
on 30 November 2012, 9:27:09 AM
Thanks for the references,Stan,which I've read.
At the very real risk of sounding like Cliff,
the pompous auto-didactic postman in "Cheers":-
the melting of the perma frost is a massive phenomenon
that is unlikely to have been initiated by man,and
certainly not under his control.
Liked the reference to "climate proofing" Europe though.
Desertification has occasionally been attributed to "slash and burn"
activities of indigenous peoples;tosh of course,slash and burn can
be an eco friendly micro management,and the deserts result from complex inter-actions of vast atmospheric and tidal systems.The Sahara was once bigger than it is now.
De-forestation is another matter.If humans withdrew from southern Britain(!),it would,in the short term,eventually revert to woodland.
You may be interested to know that as an early Xmas present Jon Cruddas and Dame Carol Lucas have sponsored me to continue my investigations by being buried thousands of metres at a random point in the Antarctic land mass in my submarine SKEPTIC A.L. ,on the off-chance there is a sweet water lake there!
Posted by Stan Rosenthal 
on 29 November 2012, 8:54:27 PM
Keep hoping Lewis. I'm afraid the overwhelming weight of evidence is the opposite direction. Google "Europe under threat from catastrophic climate change" followed by "UN: Methane released by melting ice could for push climate beyond tipping point" for starters.
Posted by Lewis Parry (Elx)
on 29 November 2012, 8:02:27 PM
Here is my sneering reply to Stan.
"When will you realise that global changes
in temperature have nothing to do with humans?
It is proven that over at least the last four million years
the patterns of climate across the planet have
changed dramatically many many times.
It suits a political agenda to suppress any
scientific evidence contradicting the received
wisdom on this topic.
I have high hopes that the imminent in depth
exploration of the submerged Antarctic lakes
will establish the primacy of cosmic forces
in this process,rather than man's puny impact."
Posted by Stan Rosenthal 
on 29 November 2012, 6:07:13 PM
Here is David Aaronovitch's sneering response to Neal's article in today's Times which, of course, bears little relation to what Neal said.

"Or there’s snobbish Greenery and Left Puritanism with their horror of consumerism (consumerism, in essence, is what you get when the working classes want the same things as the professional classes have enjoyed for decades). Last week the chair of the 40,000 strong Compass pressure group, Neal Lawson, used his column in the New Statesman to express horror at how rampant consumerism was now persuading girls as young as nine to have cosmetic surgery on their labia. “Today in Britain some children go hungry,” he thundered, terminally, “while others have plastic surgery performed on their genitals. It’s a sick world.”
It was nonsense, resulting from a running together of two completely different sets of research. But it fitted so well with what Mr Lawson believed the mindless masses of Britain would get up to, given a few ads and a glamour pic or two."

And here is part of my response to him in the comment thread.

"Consumerism as described by Neal Lawson is not just the working classes wanting what the other classes have enjoyed for decades. It is about the whole concept of consumption being carried to excess to a point where it is warping our values and damaging the planet.

Trusting the people in these circumstances means trusting the values that have been imposed on them by Big Business in the pursuit of profit. Sadly this will not see us through the many crises that we face."

It is a sad fact that many on the left just do not get it, seeing these issues purely in ideological or economic terms. What they don't get is that even if there was more equality of consumption there is still the distortion of values that goes with it in our kind of society (happiness is buying what you want over the counter) and the threat to the planet's life support system (the UN has just issued a report saying that we are almost at a tipping point where climate change could become irreversible). Indeed the latter threat could become even greater if there was more equality of consumption based on current expectations.
Posted by Michael Prior (MANCHESTER)
on 29 November 2012, 5:13:02 PM
The problem with this discourse, Neal, is that, over the years you have been putting it forward, it doesn't seem to go anywhere; it is a best incoherent, at worst, empty. Just what is it that you want to happen?
One path might be what can now be called the Greek-solution. I read today that they are chopping up trees rather than buying fuel. I doubt that you would see much signs of consumer-frenzy in Athens. Is this what you want, Neal?
Of course not. But let's take an example a bit closer to home: our very own born-again Keynesian, Mr Balls, advocates (so far as I interpret his often manic words) a cut in VAT to stimulate the economy. Where do you stand on that, Neal? It might boost demand, stimulate the economy, produce a few jobs. Others think it might just open the trade gap wider. But the one thing it would certainly do is help retail, boost consumption. Good thing or bad?
Or is it a regional thing? Certainly walking round Oldham recently I could see little signs of consumer frenzy though the Metro out had a fair number of shoppers with Primark bags, few with Harvey Niks.
My own view, for what it is worth, is that the problem in Britain is much more to do with inequality than with consumerism, the latter being a rather London-based example of the former. Higher taxes on the rich, income redistribution to the poor, if one wants a simplistic encapsulation. But watch Messrs Balls and Miliband run from that and it might brand one a dangerous radical.
You seem to advocate a systemic alternative to capitalism but propose not even the barest outline of this except a vague kind of lifestyle politics.
Not good enough. Try again

  • ««
  • «
  • »
  • »»
1 to 8 of 8

 

Leave a comment

About you










Your comment

Please do not use HTML tags in your comment as they will be displayed as normal text.

We take no responsibility for the content of comments posted on this website, which represent the views of their authors alone.

Please enter the two words in the image below. This is an anti-spam measure designed to prove that you are a human, not a computer.