Westfield shopping centres - subversive ideas please?

[Donna Ferentes]

George Monbiot, deary fucking me

In Bloom v George Monbiot. Which of them has more to contribute? You decide.

 

[In Bloom]

Donna Ferentes vs. Don Quixote, which has the closer relationship to reality, etc.

 

[Jonezy]

Leaving aside who's read what books, the biggest problem with your argument is that by focussing on "consumerism" and "materialism", you miss the point entirely.

People aren't going to die on the barricades for the right to have less stuff, regardless of what Monbiot might think, social change can only be acheived by mass movements, which by necessity are driven by the desire for more, not less (just ask your man DeBord). It's entirely right and fair that we should expect the best of everything, that's not the problem, the trouble is how things are produced.

I agree with you. Can social movements be driven by a desire for more of a say, by a desire to protect the planet which sustains life, by a desire to have improved physical and mental health?

I feel that we should be consulted more regarding decisions affecting our lives and communities and have more of a say regarding the shape of our cities and where public money is spent and how it is spent.

I beleive that if people knew more about the damaging affects of their consumption habits and the destructive nature of those corporations who breed those habits then IF given a say we wouldn't necessarily ask for more shops in a city that already has more than enough shops.

That space and money might be used to build parks, communities centres, social spaces, education zones, bowling alleys, participatory Art buildings, Youth Clubs, whatever you can think of that you feel is lacking that you'd like to see rather than the usual sights of shop, shop, shop, bank, pub, shop, pub, shop, shop, bank, pub, etc.

I think it's important to join the dots and raise awareness regarding the many negative affects of consumerist society. The amount of hype and propaganda surrounding the opening of the Westfield centre is huge. Isn't it important to try and counter that somehow and push the problems that result from excessive consumption in peoples faces as much as their having Westfields perspective pushed in their faces?

What do you think?

Jonezy x

 

[nino_savatte]

I love consumerism, almost as much as I love materialism actually.

But that's because I'm a socialist and not some halfwit hippy.

What a curious position. How does consumerism serve the interests of socialism?

 

[In Bloom]

What a curious position. How does consumerism serve the interests of socialism?

It doesn't, any more than digital radio serves the interests of Central American populism.

 

[In Bloom]

I agree with you. Can social movements be driven by a desire for more of a say, by a desire to protect the planet which sustains life, by a desire to have improved physical and mental health?

But none of that necessarily contradicts with the easy availability of luxury goods. Indeed, the two work together quite well.

Which is why I think you have it arse about face with this focus on "consumption habits". The problem isn't that people have iPods or mobile phones or DVD players, the problem is that these things are produced within a capitalist framework. The problem is built in obselescence, the problem is that we live in a world where it's cheaper to produce things in a way that is completely unsustainable, that requires us to spend a huge portion of our waking lives in boredom and misery.

If I might borrow from Peggy Hopper, I don't want to change my lifestyle, I want to change my life.

 

[nino_savatte]

It doesn't, any more than digital radio serves the interests of Central American populism.

So how does your 'socialism' square with consumerism? It seems to me that you're caught in something of a paradox. Oh and what does "Central American populism" have to do with anything or is it the case that you're being obscure for the sake of wanting to look clever?

 

[Steve Booth]

Jonezy - the spoof newspaper campaign messages sound quite good. I think it really boils down to practical political and social questions.

Part of the problem with the big shopping centres is that the shops inside them are all the same big chain stores you get everywhere. In general the people who work in them are paid low wages and don't have any job security or trade union protection. If high street sales take a downturn staff are laid off.

The harm it does to the smaller local traders is also a good angle.

The goods sold in the chain store shops are manufactured by sweatshop labour in China or in the Third World. So there is the moral question about the working conditions and the wages there. Do people working in Chinese toy factories have health and safety when the products they are making have lead in the paint and dangerous chemicals in the plastics?

As well as the low wages, the fire safety precautions in the Bangladesh garment factories is another question that could be looked into.

Electronic goods use up a lot of dangerous chemicals in their manufacture. I believe that a lot of water is used in the manufacture of silicon chips. This water is then contaminated and where is it released to? What rivers or the environment near the factory? And what about the effect of this water consumption on the water table?

There might also be a good line of enquiry in exposing the links between the companies who build these mega-malls and the local council / individual councillors / the chamber of commerce. Who owned the land the place is being built on, and how much did they make on the deal?

In Lancaster there is a project to build a new shopping centre area, and there was a lot of local opposition to it by residents. The issue cost several Labour party councillors their seats in the May local elections, to the gain of the Green Party.

 

[In Bloom]

Aren't you that mental case who supported Aum Shirinkyo a while back?

Edit: Here we are

http://libcom.org/thought/anarcho-primitivism-anti-civilisation-criticism
In December 1997 the US publication Earth First wrote that "the AIDS epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population."[22] Around the same period in Britain Steve Booth, one of the editors of a magazine called 'Green Anarchist ', wrote that

"The Oklahoma bombers had the right idea. The pity was that they did not blast any more government offices. Even so, they did all they could and now there are at least 200 government automatons that are no longer capable of oppression. The Tokyo sarin cult had the right idea. The pity was that in testing the gas a year prior to the attack, they gave themselves away. They were not secretive enough. They had the technology to produce the gas but the method of delivery was ineffective. One day the groups will be totally secretive and their methods of fumigation will be completely effective."[23]

 

[In Bloom]

Jonezy - the spoof newspaper campaign messages sound quite good. I think it really boils down to practical political and social questions.

Part of the problem with the big shopping centres is that the shops inside them are all the same big chain stores you get everywhere. In general the people who work in them are paid low wages and don't have any job security or trade union protection. If high street sales take a downturn staff are laid off.

Whereas small businesses care for nothing as much as the welfare of their employees and regularly hand out candy treats and money to random people walking past.

 

[In Bloom]

So how does your 'socialism' square with consumerism? It seems to me that you're caught in something of a paradox.

It doesn't need to "square" with consumerism, because consumerism is apolitical, I like it (as forms of capitalism go), because it means I have access to cheap consumer goods, which I wouldn't if I lived in, say, Belarus.

Hence my example about digital radio, there's no particular reason a Central American populist (the first example that popped into my head, don't ask me why) should support digital radio, but there's no logical reason he/she should oppose it.

 

[Wilf]

If you'd actually understood anything you'd read of Marx, you'd know that his critique of capitalism focussed not on the point of consumption (which is largely irrelevant and ultimately apolitical), but on the point of production, which is actually one of my biggest problems with the Situs.

No, he focussed on the relations of production - not the point of production. And how can you understand the commodity form if you don't understand what is sold, how it is sold and who controls that process?

Anyway, systems of production imply systems of consumption. Fordism, for example can be understood narrowly as a form of work organisation - but it was also about the production of certain types of goods for certain markets. The shift to a certain form of mass consumption had clear social consequences. Equally, today, the victory of neo-liberalism and the WTO model directly links forms of consumption to the exploitation of workers in developing countries (as well as in the west).

 

[nino_savatte]

It doesn't need to "square" with consumerism, because consumerism is apolitical, I like it (as forms of capitalism go), because it means I have access to cheap consumer goods, which I wouldn't if I lived in, say, Belarus.

Hence my example about digital radio, there's no particular reason a Central American populist (the first example that popped into my head, don't ask me why) should support digital radio, but there's no logical reason he/she should oppose it.

Just to repeat: how does your alleged socialism square/sit/stand/exist with your desire to consume as you want? Your access to cheap consumer goods comes at a cost: someone somewhere is being exploited to give you cheap consumer goods. That isn't very socialistic, if you ask me and it seems that you are caught in a paradox and as a 'socialist' you are supporting the continued exploitation of workers, all of whom earn a fraction of what you earn in a week.

 

[In Bloom]

Just to repeat: how does your alleged socialism square/sit/stand/exist with your desire to consume as you want? Your access to cheap consumer goods comes at a cost: someone somewhere is being exploited to give you cheap consumer goods. That isn't very socialistic, if you ask me and it seems that you are caught in a paradox and as a 'socialist' you are supporting the continued exploitation of workers, all of whom earn a fraction of what you earn in a week.

You are aware that taking this argument to it's logical conclusion would lead to you starving to death, right? Not that I'm saying you shouldn't try it.

 

[In Bloom]

No, he focussed on the relations of production - not the point of production.

I didn't say he focussed on the point of production though, did I? In fact that was explicitly what I was criticising.

And how can you understand the commodity form if you don't understand what is sold, how it is sold and who controls that process?

Which has what to do with my argument that abundant luxury goods are not necessarily contingent on the commodity form?

Equally, today, the victory of neo-liberalism and the WTO model directly links forms of consumption to the exploitation of workers in developing countries (as well as in the west).

There's no reason that TVs, DVD players, etc. could only be produced via that model though is there? Which might lead one to believe that it's not people consuming those things that is the problem.

 

[Wilf]

I didn't say he focussed on the point of production though, did I? In fact that was explicitly what I was criticising.

Yes you did! You said:

If you'd actually understood anything you'd read of Marx, you'd know that his critique of capitalism focussed not on the point of consumption (which is largely irrelevant and ultimately apolitical), but on the point of production, which is actually one of my biggest problems with the Situs.

 

[Wilf]

I said: "And how can you understand the commodity form if you don't understand what is sold, how it is sold and who controls that process?"

IB replied: "Which has what to do with my argument that abundant luxury goods are not necessarily contingent on the commodity form?"

But what I said wasn't anything to do with any arguments you had made about luxury goods (see next post), it was a response to your claim that the point of consumption is 'apolitical' and 'irrelevant'

 

[nino_savatte]

You are aware that taking this argument to it's logical conclusion would lead to you starving to death, right? Not that I'm saying you shouldn't try it.

Hardly, the cheap consumer goods that you refer to aren't foodstuffs - are they? I'm sure you don't eat electrical gadgets and trainers because you fancy something different inside you for a change. Fuckwit.

 

[In Bloom]

Yes you did! You said:

Edit: ah, I thought you meant Debord, took me a minute there.

Where are the relations of production, if not at the point of production?

 

[In Bloom]

Hardly, the cheap consumer goods that you refer to aren't foodstuffs - are they? I'm sure you don't eat electrical gadgets and trainers because you fancy something different inside you for a change. Fuckwit.

But foodstuff are commodities under capitalism, and their production does involve the exploitation of workers at all levels of affluence. The only distinction is some puritanical moralism about "needs" that is neither relevant nor interesting.

 

[Wilf]

There's no reason that TVs, DVD players, etc. could only be produced via that model though is there? Which might lead one to believe that it's not people consuming those things that is the problem.

In terms of current day society, those things can only be made under conditions of alienation and exploitation. That's not only generally true, but more specifically so with regard to the neo-liberal version of globalisation that produces more goods in low wage/social protection locations.

In terms of some future society? Well, without being anywhere green-primo, i'd be a bit depressed if we were still to be producing masses of stuff in some sort of techno race. All smacks of Marxist visions circa 1970 - that in some possible future we'll all be working 3 hours a day with the rest done by robots, amid some kind of high tech abundance.

Even without capitalism and the commodity form, any kind of high tech solutions imply standardisation and thus an element of factory discipline and control from above. Alienation isn't just a product of ownership, its also about what you do and how you work.

On your final sentence - well, perhaps, its not people consuming things that is the problem. I'm not into any kind of green/hair shirted moralising that rants at people because they buy stuff or take holidays. That's why its better to think about it at the level of the system. Consumer capitalism intimately ties in the exploitation of workers with modes of consumption. Consumerism isn't separate from what goes on in people's working lives. They are 2 sides of the same coin (and, incidetally, not all that great for the environment). Should people feel guilty that their own purchases or where they buy things from? Dunno really - thats up to them. Less so if they are poor and haven't got more choices. More so if they are wealthy and have. More importantly, cosumption - as a set of social relationships - is political.

 

[Wilf]

Edit: ah, I thought you meant Debord, took me a minute there.

Where are the relations of production, if not at the point of production?

The term 'relations of production' is certainly based on the workplace and surplus value, but, AFAIK, used to denote the wider pattern of social relationships that follow from that.

 

[In Bloom]

In terms of current day society, those things can only be made under conditions of alienation and exploitation.

Which is true of virtually everything under capitalism, what's your point?

In terms of some future society? Well, without being anywhere green-primo, i'd be a bit depressed if we were still to be producing masses of stuff in some sort of techno race.

I know it's a lot to ask, but could you stop extrapolating these mental strawmen from things that I've never even said every time we disagree about something?

I'd hope that a lot less things are produced in terms of absolute quantity in a socialist/communist/anarchist/whatever society, since it means a lot less work, but a good portion of work that exists under capitalism is generated by the drive for profit, rather than realising desire, which is why you have built in obselescence and over production.

Even without capitalism and the commodity form, any kind of high tech solutions imply standardisation and thus an element of factory discipline and control from above. Alienation isn't just a product of ownership, its also about what you do and how you work.

There's nothing inherently authoritarian or top-down about factories.

What are your thoughts on the self-managed factories of Spain in the 1930s and Russia in 1917?

 

[Wilf]

Which is true of virtually everything under capitalism, what's your point?


I know it's a lot to ask, but could you stop extrapolating these mental strawmen from things that I've never even said every time we disagree about something?

Wasn't extrapolating when i mentioned the 'depressed by' bit (or even referring to your words at all) - was just offering my own view on the subject. However, you do seem to think that it is desirable to have 'luxury goods' (post 36) and high tech goods (post 45) in some future society. To be honest, that's one of the questions that falls into the 'to be decided by the people concerned' category i.e. I'd go with the usual strategy undertaken by many people from Marx onwards. However I would suggest that a commitment to such goods has consequences for the organisation of work (see stuff on 'factories' below)

I'd hope that a lot less things are produced in terms of absolute quantity in a socialist/communist/anarchist/whatever society, since it means a lot less work, but a good portion of work that exists under capitalism is generated by the drive for profit, rather than realising desire, which is why you have built in obselescence and over production.

But its not just built in obsolescence and people finding that such a product no longer physically works - and desire is the crucial issue... which takes us right back to the situationists and the Frankfurt School. Their view that we are passive victims of the Spectacle/the Manipulation of need is elitist and one that I'm uncomfortable with. However, the view that capital actively seeks to manipulate our desires and pacify is a strong one. We don't keep buying phones just because the old one is broke.

There's nothing inherently authoritarian or top-down about factories.

What are your thoughts on the self-managed factories of Spain in the 1930s and Russia in 1917?

Russian and Spanish factories? Infinitely better than under private control. In conditions of crisis they showed what people collectively can do. But still factories. Thats the issue - mass production systems require a hight division of labour - with a concentration of knowledge and control in the hands of supervisors and bureaucrats. Standardisation in turn requires repetitive tasks to ensure that 'industry wide' standards are met (which you would need to ensure with your example of dvds - even in some anarcho society). Okay, there's a whole lot of things you can do to limit the financial exploitation (by getting rid of owners); alienation (with things like job rotation) and sense of powerlessness (running the factory through committees etc) i.e. standard anarcho/lefty responses. However the labour process related to mass produced high tech goods doesn't just go away and, innevitably, retains aspects of the clock driven caitalist factory. Don't get me wrong, I think there are limits to which all that can be avoided. It would be difficult to feed a population/arrange a society of 60 million+ using pure craft production. There would be hard choices to be made - which are not really addressed by the standard calls for a workplace based on federated principles or whatever.* Anyway, I'm gonna stop derailing the thread now.

* and no, IB, I'm not accusing you of doing that, in case you were wondering.

 

[Wilf]

Fook - dp

 

[nino_savatte]

But foodstuff are commodities under capitalism, and their production does involve the exploitation of workers at all levels of affluence. The only distinction is some puritanical moralism about "needs" that is neither relevant nor interesting.

Foodstuffs are not "cheap consumer goods" though, are they? You talked of your love of such items and didn't mention foodstuffs. The production of cheap trainers and electrical goods comes at a high human and environmental cost. Eventually, the cheap goods coming from places like China will dry up.