“F*ck you, I won’t do what you tell me”. So said, the anarchistic rock group Rage Against the Machine as there single “killing in the name of” spiralled to number 1 in the UK Christmas charts. Wow. People really must really hate being told what to do. You think it was a grass-roots facebook group that made this happen? Think again!
In response to previous blogs I have had a variety of chats with different friends and family. Some highlights have been…Vegetarianism = “you can’t tell me what to eat”, Climate change = “you can’t tell me how to act” and BNP = “you can’t stop me waffling on for hours about something I know nothing about”. People just do not like being told what to do, whether it is for their own detriment or benefit.
Why is it then that we unquestionably will jump through loop holes to serve the every command of the corporation (Yes this includes the music industry). We will do anything to buy our latest products. George Monbiot (Ok, I am slightly in love with the man) recently commented that even anti-consumption consumption is rife in our markets; for example the lucrative books on how to live without money(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/04/standard-of-living-spending-consumerism) . Or, closer to home an “anti-establishment” Christmas number 1. You must be able to see the irony here!
I am personally holding out for the “Teach yourself anarchism series”.
From fashion, to food; from travel to clothing; from holidays to houses we are dictated to buy whatever it is that corporations wish us to. Yet, as soon as someone points out a very good reason to act in a certain way, we go crazy about our liberal right to act as we wish! If someone tells you that if you change your behaviour today you could help save countless lives in the future, people are put off. Yet, if someone tells you that you might contribute to Rage getting to number one you jump at the opportunity. You can see the contradiction here.
The corporation does not always work in the interest of people. Remember the badly placed fuel tanks that Ford designed (the ones that blew up upon impact). Ford deemed it cheaper to cover the legal costs than to redesign the car. It took a high court ruling to stop that one. What’s the similarity between this and Rage? Both actions are motivated by the pursuit of money.
Our conservative friends over at The Economist commented that, ‘Like all psychopaths, the firm is singularly self-interested: its purpose is to create wealth for its shareholders. And, like all psychopaths, the firm is irresponsible, because it puts others at risk to satisfy its profit-maximising goal, harming employees and customers, and damaging the environment. The corporation manipulates everything. It is grandiose, always insisting that it is the best, or number one. It has no empathy, refuses to accept responsibility for its actions and feels no remorse. It relates to others only superficially, via make-believe versions of itself manufactured by public-relations consultants and marketing men. In short, if the metaphor of the firm is a valid one, then the corporation is clinically insane’. (Economist, 6 May 2004). There nothing inherent about making money and harming people. More, the corporation will not stop if this is the consequence. This is highlighted in terms of climate change, labor conditions and warfare to name but a few consequences.
We judge our governments by how much money they can move, not how satisfied they make people. Have our government succeeded in satisfying our annual GDP growth? Is it any wonder then that we can see governments working for the good of corporations rather than its people? Derek Wall coined the phrase of “corporation welfare”, where a government taxes its citizens to then re-distribute this wealth to the poor and needy corporations! Ring any bells? This is surely backwards. The corporation, has grown to such power that it dominates every aspect of lives, from our universities through to government (See Monbiot’s book “Captive State”).
We have to remember, that making money is not the same thing as making things better for me and you. When GDP goes up or down, do you feel happier? Do you smile every time you think about the stock markets ticking over? There has to be more to life than this. The sad thing is that I think we all already know this. We all already know that the material excess of everyday life is not what makes us happy or sad. Yet, it is this throw away consumerism that makes our economy tick.
Jose Bove, Farmer who demolished a McDonalds in Protest. Thanks to Desfilhejm (Flickr)
So what can we do? Do we have to recreate Jose Bove’s demolition of McDonalds? Do we have to all start using freeware on our computers to break the Microsoft monopoly? How about buying fair-trade coke (it does exist, http://www.fairtradevending.co.uk/fairtrade-vending-ubunto-cola-vendor.htm) instead of our branded coca-cola? Well, perhaps the latter two are not a bad idea. We can all start by being aware of the branded nature of the world we live in. Klien’s “No logo”, Alissa Quart’s “Branded” and Monbiots “Captive State” are all worth reading. If you are an economics buff have a look at Derek Wall’s book “Babylon and Beyond”. Is this enough though, to learn and to think… or should we be doing something? Let’s first understand the devil we are fighting.
Without realising, we are all singing from the neo-liberal hymn sheet that is forcing millions into destitution, causing wars, famine and destruction. We are sponsoring child-labour and sponsoring entrenched inequality. You think this has nothing to do with you? Check the label in your t-shirt, the packaging on your food and the brands that are all around your house. Take the ultimate step of defiance and think before you buy!
Hynd's Blog 
New World watch report out on how consumerism is affecting the environment…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/12/climate-change-greed-environment-threat
LikeLike
Rusty,
You fail to distinguish between individual actions (shall I buy item x or item y) and trends. Trends (fashions) tend to get influenced by a whole swathe of issues (like the ones previously mentioned). While a single action holds onto the illusion of choice!
In your opening paragraph you reiterate that you did mean to use the word SOLELY (definition: Entirely; exclusively) and yet you go onto say “yes, that judgement can be swayed by other factors”.
Which is it? Is the “consumer” a neo-liberal wet-dream with perfect rational decision making power, or is the consumer influenced by highly sophisticated corporations and other influences? It is obviously somewhere in-between. What we are arguing about here is based on the experience of the predominantly western consumer. Few people would doubt, in terms of standard of life (happiness is another question), that rampant consumerism has made life better for them. What I have tried to question here however, is whether it has made life for us as good as we (they) think it has.
This whole debate however, misses the crux of the original blog, which is saying that rampant consumerism is making life unbearable (literally life threatening) for about a sixth of the world (“The bottom billion”) and making life pretty shitty for another 2-4 billion. It is, at the same time, destroying our natural surroundings at such a pace that soon the impact will be felt by those who have previously benefited from this hugely unequal society. However much we get satisfaction out of our consumer choices, this has to be curtailed for these reasons…has it not?
LikeLike
I use the word SOLELY deliberately. Nobody holds a gun to the consumer’s head and forces them to buy anything – God knows, I wish that approach worked.
You have to credit the consumer with some intelligence – we’re talking about a median here, because I know there will always be some idiots who will buy ANYTHING. Even the Guardian.
The consumer is asked to make a judgment based on the value proposition in front of them. Yes, that judgment can be swayed by certain factors.
Brand loyalty: Bob’s judgment of proposition x over proposition y is based on him having a positive experience with the manufacturer of proposition x in the first (and often second or third) places, which has a positive impact on the value of proposition x.
Monopolies: The example you use is odd given that there are plenty of rivals to Windows. To avert the risk of turning this into nerd-fest, let me ask whether you feel people are turning away from the beige-box-in-the-conservatory approach to web browsing and toward the iPhone/Blackberry on-the-move approach. A portfolio of companies have presented ever-diversifying options as to best way to use computers to support the consumer’s lifestyle, perhaps in part because people were getting fed up with Windows. This is only one example but can be extrapolated to any market you choose.
Fear and advertising: Very similar to my argument for brand loyalty. You have to attribute a modicum of intelligence to the consumer. If they are convinced enough by the fear factor, often conveyed through adverts, then their judment of the value proposition will be favourable. Otherwise, it won’t. Have you bought a loan consolidation product recently? Have I bought a Jeremy Clarkson musical bog roll holder because I saw it on QVC? (actually, come to mention it…) Even if we did, does that make us “wrong”? Who decides what we “do not need”?
I do not suggest an un-critical obedience to the status quo – instead, I suggest thorough regulation and greater consumer awareness, such as is propagated by Martin Lewis’ Moneysavingexpert.com. Consumers should know their place in the value chain and should be fully aware that we are in an adversarial economic system.
If you want a small and achievable suggestion for improvement, it would be to force companies to be more up-front about the origins of their proposition and its position relative to the competition. For example, two identically packaged chickens are in Tesco: one is £3.99, one is £5.99. Bob buys the £3.99 one. Channel 4 screens a documentary about chicken welfare, Tesco start being up-front about the welfare of their birds, and suddenly Bob’s value judgment is skewed, because ethically-reared chicken tastes nicer. He makes his value judgment based on more complete information. If this was applied to every product, would we still be in a position to criticise the large enterprises?
LikeLike
Rusty,
I would question your use of the word SOLELY. Do you honestly believe that corporations create return for shareholders purely by creating value for customers or have I misunderstood you? If I have not misunderstood you, what about all aspects of economics that have no relation to customer value such as:
Brand loyalty (keeping the car analogy alive…people become attached to certain brands of cars and will often stick with that despite better or cheaper alternatives being on the market)
Monopolies – Do most people think about buying a PC with Windows on…or do they just accept it because it’s what they are used to? This way Microsoft has got away with releasing one sub-standard product after another!
Fear – Insurance companies being the classic example here. Don’t get me wrong, some aspects of insurance are worthwhile and useful. Others are pushed onto consumers through utter fear. Here I am thinking about the Virgin Cancer insurance or lots of travel insurance even!
Advertising of products (that people do not need but are convinced they want!) – This is a question of the use of the term “consumer value”. Do consumers really gain value from buying material rubbish they do not need? Just watch any shopping channel for a few seconds and you will see what I mean!
You suggest that a “Fight the corporation” message is nihilistic. This could not be further from the truth. The consequences of un-critical obedience to the current norms peddled by corporate power, is having very real and very negative consequences. I am sure you would not disagree that economic norms of today are causing chaos around the world! The “Fight the corporation” message has to be expanded and made a bit more sophisticated, but I think it holds some basic truths.
Assuming you agree that we cannot carry on with business as usual, I would be interested to hear where you would start the revolution that is needed (or to make it more palatable – how would you like to slowly change the system?)! The corporation has become the symbol and benefiter of neoliberal economics. I think attacking and highlighting the immorality that is so wide-spread of the corporation it is a reasonable place to start!
LikeLike
“The corporation does not always work in the interest of people. Remember the badly placed fuel tanks that Ford designed (the ones that blew up upon impact). Ford deemed it cheaper to cover the legal costs than to redesign the car. It took a high court ruling to stop that one. What’s the similarity between this and Rage? Both actions are motivated by the pursuit of money. ”
But a company generates shareholder return SOLELY by creating value for clients. Otherwise, in an increasingly crowded consumer marketplace, we will shop elsewhere (as you suggest). Did the Pinto (the car with the dodgy fuel tanks), make Ford rich – or did they get rich by making cars people wanted to buy, like the Fiesta, Taurus or F150?
Ethically generated shareholder return should be welcomed, both for the reason that it implies a company is producing goods that people want to buy or services they want to use, and because “shareholders”, like “motorists” and “revellers”, are not a separate species – they are a great many of us, or at least those of us who have a bank account. Because we all have to eat, drive, cover up our naughty bits (especially in this weather) and ultimately live, “Fight the corporation” will never be more than a token – and some would say nihilistic – gesture of defiance.
My chosen token – and some would say nihilistic – gesture of defiance was to buy KITN twice. I couldn’t give a shit how much Cowell earns from it, I just wanted to make that snivelling northern choirboy cry.
LikeLike