Monbiot wants a recession

[William of Walworth]

As ancient thread exhumations that have zero excuse applicable for a bump, this one's got to be right at the top of the list

 

[platinumsage]

Well the Tories are encouraging shopping for the sake of the economy, not because people need things. I think there's a difference. GM is saying dont do the first, dont shop for shoppings sake. Fair enough

It's always other people who are lapdogs of consumerism and buy stuff they don't need, but I doubt Monbiot's home(s) have less stuff in than anyone else's. It's just sneering at the proles.

People visiting the non-essential shops that are opening today are buying clothes, shoes etc..

 

[platinumsage]

As ancient thread exhumations that have zero excuse applicable for a bump, this one's got to be right at the top of the list

I wanted a recent Monbiot thread, but they're all old. Perhaps a reflection of his relevance to public discourse.

 

[ska invita]

It's always other people who are lapdogs of consumerism and buy stuff they don't need, but I doubt Monbiot's home(s) have less stuff in than anyone else's. It's just sneering at the proles.

People visiting the non-essential shops that are opening today are buying clothes, shoes etc..

I don't massively disagree but people do shop for the sake of it, as something to do, there are people with clothes in their wardrobes never worn. Shop For Britain is balls really. If people need something they'll get it.

 

[ska invita]

I wanted a recent Monbiot thread, but they're all old. Perhaps a reflection of his relevance to public discourse.

This tweet of his hasn't changed that tbh

 

[nogojones]

As ancient thread exhumations that have zero excuse applicable for a bump, this one's got to be right at the top of the list

WoW - the anti-pogo

 

[NoXion]

Personally I'm staying the fuck away from the shops, because fuck catching a novel virus for the sake of consumer tat. But I think it is obvious that there is a segment of the population who desperately want things to return to normal, to the point where they're willing to queue in front of Primark for hours, as if they were waiting on the release of the latest iPhone.

That speaks to a great hunger for stability that is not being well-served by the current order of things. I think that's something that the Left needs to keep in mind.

 

[bellaozzydog]

Reading this article, it’s basically what that who dares wins SBS arsehole managed to say in a tweet and got roundly panned for

it’s as tone deaf as Attenborough’s Neo-Malthusian stance

 

[killer b]

I don't get it. what's the problem with Monbiot's tweet? Consumerism is bullshit and should be criticised - this doesn't mean people shouldn't buy knickers when they need them.

 

[bellaozzydog]

Fuck I thought he looked younger in that photo

 

[platinumsage]

I don't get it. what's the problem with Monbiot's tweet? Consumerism is bullshit and should be criticised - this doesn't mean people shouldn't buy knickers when they need them.

He isn't criticising "consumerism" though, he's criticising people buying clothes:



It's "them with their flat-screen tellies" territory.

 

[killer b]

He isn't criticising "consumerism" though, he's criticising people buying clothes:

View attachment 217853

It's "them with their flat-screen tellies" territory.

that wasn't the tweet you quoted though, the one you bumped the thread with was this one:



which seems pretty reasonable to me.

I don't give a shit about people queuing outside sports direct and primark (which are surely not the only shops with queues, but are for some reason the only queues people are posting pictures of. funny that) - but I think it's reasonable - necessary even - to be critical of consumerism at a point where the government & media are actively encouraging it.

 

[platinumsage]

that wasn't the tweet you quoted though, the one you bumped the thread with was this one:

View attachment 217857

which seems pretty reasonable to me.

I don't give a shit about people queuing outside sports direct and primark (which are surely not the only shops with queues, but are for some reason the only queues people are posting pictures of. funny that) - but I think it's reasonable - necessary even - to be critical of consumerism at a point where the government & media are actively encouraging it.

I am not taking any of his comments in isolation, but anyone who wants to criticise consumerism should probably have a more solid footing than shops reopening after a pandemic.

The government & media are encouraging people to return to shops, sure. But no one ever decided to go to a shop and buy stuff in order to support the economy did they? No one is "shopping for Britain".

 

[killer b]

But that's the rhetoric coming from Downing Street, and splashed across the papers. Monbiot is responding to that.

 

[platinumsage]

But that's the rhetoric coming from Downing Street, and splashed across the papers. Monbiot is responding to that.

View attachment 217861

The "Shop for Britain" thing isn't about buying tat you don't need though.

This is what the government said:

"As non-essential stores reopen in England next week – marking the latest milestone on the UK's slow creep back to normality – we are urging people to make a conscious decision about where you shop and what you buy, in a bid to help businesses across Britain in tough times. That means supporting shops in your local area, as many people do already. It means backing independents and chain stores, as a healthy mixture of both makes for a successful high street. And it means buying British-made products and services when you can."
(www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-backs-mirrors-shop-22172156)

What part of this does Monbiot disagree with I wonder?

 

[killer b]

The model that the current high street (just about) survives on isn't people carefully and frugally buying their essentials from a range of shops, it survives on consumerism. The high street coming back from this unchanged as people return to their previous shopping habits would not be a desirable outcome to Monbiot, as it would result in a continuation of an economically and environmentally unsustainable system. I don't disagree with him.

 

[platinumsage]

The model that the current high street (just about) survives on isn't people carefully and frugally buying their essentials from a range of shops, it survives on consumerism. The high street coming back from this unchanged as people return to their previous shopping habits would not be a desirable outcome to Monbiot, as it would result in a continuation of an economically and environmentally unsustainable system. I don't disagree with him.

Well, I do. He's just sneering at the working class for not subscribing to his ecofascist outlook. This is from the Guardian article in the OP in which he wished for a recession:

"I now live in one of the poorest places in Britain. The teenagers here have expensive haircuts, fashionable clothes and mobile phones. Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. Their fuel bills must be astronomical."

 

[ska invita]

"I now live in one of the poorest places in Britain. The teenagers here have expensive haircuts, fashionable clothes and mobile phones. Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. Their fuel bills must be astronomical."

thats brilliantly shit writing! Sounds like a probably not inexpensive second bottle of red talking. Can you imagine the Monbiots dinner party at 1am....

Leaving aside Monbiot and the witterings of Johnson a minute, when was the last time you heard any meaningful criticism of consumerism? Its gone out of fashion I think. And what does a criticism of consumerism look like today?

70s anarchism painted a picture of a deep reducing of consumption and even comfort. This is from Coin Wards Anarchy in Action (1973):

"The editor of The Ecologist summed up the argument thus: 'affluence for everybody is an impossible dream: the world simply does not contain sufficient resources, nor could it absorb the heat and other waste generated by the immense amount of energy required. Indeed, the most important thing to realise, when we plan our future, is that affluence is both a local and a temporary phenomenon. Unfortunately it is the principal, if not the only, goal our industrial society gives us.'

also

Years ago George Orwell remarked:
" If one considers the probabilities one is driven to the conclusion that anarchism implies a low standard of living. It need not imply a hungry or uncomfortable world, but it rules out the kind of air-conditioned, chromium-plated, gadget-ridden existence which is now considered desirable and enlightened. The processes involved in making, say, an aeroplane are so complex as to be only possible in a planned, centralised society , with all the repressive apparatus that that implies. Unless there is some unpredictable change in human nature, liberty and efficiency must pull in opposite directions. "

This, from Orwell's point of view (he was not a lover of luxury) is not in itself a criticism of anarchism, and he is certainly right in thinking that an anarchist society would never build Concorde or land men on the moon. But were either of these technological triumphs efficient in terms of the resources poured into them and the results for the ordinary inhabitant of this planet? Size and resources are to the technologist what power is to the politician: he can never have too much of them. A different kind of society, with different priorities, would evolve a different technology: its bases already exist and in terms of the tasks to be performed it would be far more ' efficient' than either Western capitalism or Soviet state-capitalism. Not only technology but also economics would have to be redefined.

I cant imagine the above going down very well with many people on the left today, even as a long term aspiration.
The wider context of that piece was a vision of localised manufacturing and self-sustainability.
Technological advances mean there are likely more anarcho-techno-utopian visions out there beyond ditching big technological projects completely, nonetheless, I think its an interesting sign of how much more 'consumption' we expect today.

The fact is people do shop for fun. There is consumption for the sake of it. In the USA going to the mall is a perfectly normal and regular leisure activity, not because people are in desperate need of item x, but because consuming gives people a buzz. Theres plenty of that in the UK too.

That kind of consumerism shouldn't be encouraged...however I think blaming shoppers is putting the cart before the horse. Production and consumption can be utterly transformed by the state, with a vision and political will. The C19 situation offers a golden moment for that to happen. There's of course zero sign of that coming from the Tories. Its all about resuscitating the dying model, and Keep Calm and Shop For Britain is about as good a plan as they've got.

 

[NoXion]

Anarcho-hippie anti-consumerist rhetoric has probably fallen out of fashion because we've already experienced over a decade of grinding austerity. It's fucking shit, and so the idea of becoming subsistence farmers in some eco-wank fantasy holds no appeal.

 

[William of Walworth]

Anarcho-hippie anti-consumerist rhetoric has probably fallen out of fashion because we've already experienced over a decade of grinding austerity. It's fucking shit, and so the idea of becoming subsistence farmers in some eco-wank fantasy holds no appeal.

I've encountered a few hippy smallholders in my time -- apart from being nice people, the one thing pretty much all of them were fully real and honest about, was about how much hard work was involved.
No illusions from them there even about the very small scale stuff and the sheer effort it takes.

I'd be very surprised if (almost) anyone these days thinks 'back to the land for all' is any of realisable utopia.

(I know anecdotes aren't evidence, but I think NoXion 's post above was a bit of a sweeping statement!! )

 

[ska invita]

Anarcho-hippie anti-consumerist rhetoric has probably fallen out of fashion because we've already experienced over a decade of grinding austerity. It's fucking shit, and so the idea of becoming subsistence farmers in some eco-wank fantasy holds no appeal.

Austerity for some but not all. The UK is still somewhere in the top 10 richest countries in the world. Theres a lot of wealth out there.
But that aside my memory of the late 70s and early 80s was pretty grindingly drab and poor in terms of quality of life too. I doubt 70s anarcho-visions were being conjured up in the lap of luxury.
Whether it appeals to you or not is I doubt anything to do with austerity.

 

[killer b]

Well, I do. He's just sneering at the working class for not subscribing to his ecofascist outlook. This is from the Guardian article in the OP in which he wished for a recession:

"I now live in one of the poorest places in Britain. The teenagers here have expensive haircuts, fashionable clothes and mobile phones. Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. Their fuel bills must be astronomical."

Eco Fascism. Are you angling for a column in Spiked! or something?

I think it's a bit of a stretch to superimpose an article from six years ago to a tweet written yesterday. Monbiot is a bit of a bellend who's written many silly things over the years, but he's correct in his analysis that unbridled consumer capitalism will be the death of us, and that's the urgent issue right now, not whether he wrote something sneery about the working class a bit ago. The working class aren't the only people who participate in consumer culture, and it's bullshit that a lot of the time it's the working class who bear the brunt of criticisms of it. But that doesn't mean that an unsustainable and ultimately fatal system shouldn't be criticised and resisted.

 

[LDC]

Well, I do. He's just sneering at the working class for not subscribing to his ecofascist outlook. This is from the Guardian article in the OP in which he wished for a recession:

"I now live in one of the poorest places in Britain. The teenagers here have expensive haircuts, fashionable clothes and mobile phones. Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. Their fuel bills must be astronomical."

I'm more than happy to line up to criticize Monbiot, but eco-fascist is quite a stretch I think.

That writing, while of shit quality, is kind of true isn't it? At least it is where I live.

We've been conned into constant consumption by pseudo-needs created to fulfill the need for capital to expand. Buying shit we either don't need but have been convinced we do, buying stuff we need that's of low quality as it's what we can afford so we need to replace it regularly, or just buying stuff to try a fill the void left by living alienated lives in capitalist society.

Being critical of that is OK, it's just how it's done surely, and I agree plenty of it very quickly creeps into sneering and snobbish middle class territory, but it doesn't have to.

 

[ska invita]

That writing, while of shit quality, is kind of true isn't it? At least it is where I live.

"Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. "
This is not true.
That people own mobile phones is true
How expensive haircuts are I couldn't comment, I havent been in a barbers since 1993. I dont think cutting hair is a threat to the environment though.

 

[NoXion]

I've encountered a few hippy smallholders in my time -- apart from being nice people, the one thing pretty much all of them were fully real and honest about, was about how much hard work was involved.
No illusions from them there even about the very small scale stuff and the sheer effort it takes.

I'd be very surprised if (almost) anyone these days thinks 'back to the land for all' is any of realisable utopia.

(I know anecdotes aren't evidence, but I think NoXion 's post above was a bit of a sweeping statement!! )

I never said that there was no honesty about the hard work involved. If anything that might explain why a lot of people don't find living off the soil to be some kind of idyllic prospect worth struggling for. They're fully aware of the graft involved.

Austerity for some but not all. The UK is still somewhere in the top 10 richest countries in the world. Theres a lot of wealth out there.

It's not distributed anywhere evenly within the UK. With such wealth disparities, exhortations to consume less tend to ring hollow, especially when it's coming from middle class journos like Monbiot.

 

[platinumsage]

I'm more than happy to line up to criticize Monbiot, but eco-fascist is quite a stretch I think.

That writing, while of shit quality, is kind of true isn't it? At least it is where I live.

We've been conned into constant consumption by pseudo-needs created to fulfill the need for capital to expand. Buying shit we either don't need but have been convinced we do, buying stuff we need that's of low quality as it's what we can afford so we need to replace it regularly, or just buying stuff to try a fill the void left by living alienated lives in capitalist society.

Being critical of that is OK, it's just how it's done surely, and I agree plenty of it very quickly creeps into sneering and snobbish middle class territory, but it doesn't have to.

It does have to because the whole premise is flawed. People aren’t being conned. People are buying things they want. You can criticise global consumption without casting consumers as sheeple lusting after their desires who ought really to only buy things that the intelligent people have determined that they actually need.

 

[LDC]

"Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. "
This is not true.
That people own mobile phones is true
How expensive haircuts are I couldn't comment, I havent been in a barbers since 1993. I dont think cutting hair is a threat to the environment though.

Yeah fair enough, although there are some round here that do write off their cars quite frequently tbh! I did say kind of true to try and escape the hook I've bitten though. I think it's hyperbolic writing to make a point though, hence why I think it's shit writing.

 

[LDC]

It does have to because the whole premise is flawed. People aren’t being conned. People are buying things they want. You can criticise global consumption without casting consumers as sheeple lusting after their desires who ought really to only buy things that the intelligent people have determined that they actually need.

I'm not saying people are sheeple, nor that we're stupid, but some of what we buy isn't what we happen to want divorced from the society we live in and what we're constantly told we should have/want by capitalism is it?

Some of the shit I buy is definitely due to some nonsense need or desire that's been imposed by capitalism!

 

[chilango]

Also given the ongoing "enclosure of the commons" (i.e. the appropriation/removal of collective, social space by capital) consumerism in the form of going to town/the mall browsing round the shops, going for a coffee or something to eat etc. provides something of a hollow echo of this collective space - hence the desire by capital to privatise this space with CCTV, security guards and the individualising laws of private land (no smoking, no kids loitering/skating/playing).

Alongside the empty, yet significant, success of acquiring objects of desire (and let's not underestimate the fetish value of consumer commodities) this urge to come together (albeit separated of course in this spectacular space) is a positive one, and one that people will have felt the loss of in recent months.

 

[platinumsage]

Can anyone give examples of things that people ought not to buy? And perhaps conjecture what proportion of consumer goods fall into that category?