[PEN-L:4995] Re: Revolt of the Haves

[ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (bill mitchell)]

Peter said:

>I am all for asceticism, frugality, "more soul" and such
>for the well-to-do folks <in _both_ First and Third Worlds>
>as you know <!>, but doesn't a solution based on
>getting people to adopt moral consumption patterns
>presuppose the myth of consumer sovereignty?

well i see no inconsistency. the idea of consumer sov. (CS) is not
wrong - *if people are empowered to express choice and have
knowledge of the options available*. the fact that in practice
CS is usurped by the capitalist supply-determined demand imperative
and info is denied by the glitzy advertising is beside this point.

if
(a) we adopted a lower material plane
(b) we empowered ourselves to reject production under this "global"
imperative then surely sales books would look a bit grim.

Recently, we had a campaign on pen-l focusing on a newspaper in
California who was treating workers poorly (the details escape me).
One part of the defence of the workers was to publish the names
of the advertisers and ask people to harass these firms - via
faxes and withdrawal of purchases. I noted many advretisers
pulling out.

if you believe that Ag Demand determines sales then organised boycotts
can obviously work. and it is in the hands on the indiv. as part of
a group.

>Yes we need more asceticism, more rational consumption,
>but for that we need to tackle transnational capital
>directly, not just rely on our "marketplace freedom

I don't know how i can tackle multinational capital directly
as Bill. i can stop buying their goods (which if we all did would
have an effect) and i can lie under bulldozers (which if we all did
would have an effect) or other group actions.

also, remember chile. it is hard to take over the interests of capital.
eventually they get mean (after imposing economic hardship) and bring out
the guns. so if we are going to do it directly then maybe we should be the
ones in the militia (a point paul c. has already pointed out.

Micheal said:

>Peter takes Bill to task >for recommending asceticism.  He is both right and
>>wrong.
>
>Bill used the example of vegetarianism.  If we approach such matters by
>telling others to feel guilty about their consumption pattern we will lose.
>If we can restrict our consumption, by demonstrating alternatives that are
>more appealing than the corporate alternative we can win.
>
well how does education occur? in some cases, guilt gets people to do things.
peter (above), although he will dispute it i suppose, belongs to a global
organisation that trades on guilt and which restricts peoples behaviour
accordingly.

But in some cases, the choices are so urgent that a long term education
campaign - like nice and middle class, don't upset anyones sensitivities,
sesame street approach (everything is so much fun doing it like this kids),
will not work.

In OZ, re: aids education - the campaign has been a shock approach, as
with drinking and driving.

so michael, i see a fine line b/tw forceful lobbying to change things
and demonstrating alternatives. The major problem here (mentioned also
by peter) is dealing with a pro-capitalist media who controls information.

That is still a major role for internet.

kind regards
bill
**************************************************************************
 William F. Mitchell            Telephone: +61-49-215027      .-_|\
 Department of Economics                   +61-49-705133     /     \
 The University of Newcastle    Fax:       +61-49-216919     \.--._/*<--
 Callaghan   NSW  2308                                            v
 Australia                      Email : ecwfm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
**************************************************************************