The Nordic model may be as close to heaven as we are going to get. Soviet-style communism is not. — BC

We can dream. Anyhow, I saw something cool today that's a propos. Some graffiti downtown read "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?'' Someone had written on a post-it note stuck up next to it ''Because I'm smart.''

:love:

Weight is a perplexing issue. Once one has ratcheted up one's weight from a slim BMI to an overweight/obese BMI, it can be really very difficult for most people to lose it, without some sort of event like surgery, injury, illness, or all three intervenes. Dieting ad exercise should, theoretically, work until you realize how much a body can do without surrendering it's fat stores.

Cancer surgery and covid helped me lose weight I was happy to be rid of, but I can't really recommend either one of those options. Those sorts of things can lead to one's weight being reduced to a couple pounds of ashes.

It's especially perplexing where people have access to, and can afford healthy food; where they have access to pleasant outdoor spaces, and where they can exercise; where they have access to and can afford information and medical care. There are all sorts of groups and products to help. But losing the weight--and not regaining it--remains damned difficult.

To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism? — Judaka

They should be free to make those choices, but it is an unfortunate fact that consumers are heavily exploited for commercial gain.

The problem is a philosophical one. There is no countervailing ideology to consumerism, because there's no philosophical or social framework that recognises anything other than consumption and material goods. There have been many such cultures and probably still are in some pockets of society, but the overwhelming ethos of consumer capitalism is - well - consumption. And it's going to take a lot more than political persuasion or good intentions to change that. Perhaps something like having to adapt to global shortages and wide-scale resource depletion. 'The beasts', saith Heraclitus, 'are driven to the pasture by blows'.

Right on, brother!

It's a cultural issue, and removing the root problem from one's life is challenging in the West. Even if one is determined to remove the processed junk and sugar from their life, they're surrounded by it, and it's what they're used to, and it's addictive.

The problem is a philosophical one. There is no countervailing ideology to consumerism, because there's no philosophical or social framework that recognises anything other than consumption and material goods. — Wayfarer

Wow, I'm not usually one to be outdone in cynicism. What do you mean by this? Surely, consumerism is a large part of Western culture but how can there be no philosophical or social frameworks outside of it? Are you approaching this from an anti-capitalist perspective?

Surely, consumerism is a large part of Western culture but how can there be no philosophical or social frameworks outside of it? — Judaka

Got any examples in mind? Any particular cultural forms you can point to?

To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism

They should be 100% free to make choices about what products and services they consume for the simple reason it is no one else’s choice. Not only that but it invariably raises the question of who should decide, and those answers are always undesirable.

The idea of someone else coming into their lives and telling them what they can & can't do can trigger frustration. — Judaka

It's funny how this principle works to prevent regulation of companies, but somehow doesn't do the same for women's pregnant bodies, for example. In practice it always seems to protect companies, and never seems to protect individual humans at all.

There is no countervailing ideology to consumerism, because there's no philosophical or social framework that recognises anything other than consumption and material goods. — Wayfarer

Minimalism is growing in scope. It's generally secular and tends to eschew consumerism and owning lots of objects. I have been an informal and not very focused minimalist for many years. I am currently working to get rid of my car - I lived without heating and cooling for many years and own few appliances. I have noticed over decades that many people who profess spirituality are curiously tied to consumerism and seem to love their creature comfort - pools, cars, clothes, appliances, holiday homes, overseas trips, interior decoration, etc.

Yes I am going to have to do likewise. But what I was getting at was more philosophical and political. I mean, liberal market economics are based around economic growth and consumption. Whilst it might be virtuous and practical to pursue minimalism and a frugal lifestyle, there’s nothing much in the public sphere that encourages it, and there’s no philosophical rationale for it on the cultural level.

Consider the Kumbh Mela festival in India. It celebrates renunciation and draws literally millions (I think I read the last was the largest assembly of humans in history, but then, there’s no shortage of people in India.) But the point here is that in Indian culture, renunciation is recognised as a virtue and not just on a personal or individual level. May not be a very practical example, but it represents a very different kind of social philosophy.

Whilst it might be virtuous and practical to pursue minimalism and a frugal lifestyle, there’s nothing much in the public sphere that encourages it, and there’s no philosophical rationale for it. — Wayfarer

Yes. I think the more recent interest in Epicureanism is heading in this direction. It seems capitalism and marketing rule the world - not just in terms of consumerism, but models of reality and human behaviour. I recall a huge movement of countercultural, anti-consumerist philosophy back in the 1970's, some of it was not aligned with Eastern beliefs, it was just anti 'the man' and anti spending on 'rat race' nonsense. Much of this seems to be aligned with aesthetics and oppositional world views.

What would you consider to be an example of a robust philosophical foundation for a frugal lifestyle (as opposed to religious asceticism)?

Well, some of the counter cultural sources you mentioned are examples. E F Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful was one, and there is still a foundation with his name on it. One of my oldest friends has just bought into the Narara Eco-village, which has been made along those lines. (Did you ever encounter Theodore Roszak’s books, particularly Making of a Counter-Culture and Where the Wasteland Ends? Don’t know how they would hold up now, but they a made a big impression on me at the time.) So I agree, I think that counter-cultural meme was a step in that direction, but it kind of fizzled, or became incorporated (although it’s still had huge consequences - Steve Jobs arguably being one.)

But it needs something much more profound than a counter-cultural movement, although maybe I’m speaking out what I myself most need to do :halo:

It's funny how this principle works to prevent regulation of companies, but somehow doesn't do the same for women's pregnant bodies, for example. In practice it always seems to protect companies, and never seems to protect individual humans at all. — unenlightened

Bingo. :100:

Aren't there political, moral, cultural, economic, social and personal views and ideologies that fall outside the scope of consumerism? Don't people value being able to spend more time with their family, their physical & mental well-being and having free time to spend on hobbies etc? It's possible I misunderstood you, so feel free to clarify if that is the case.

Also, I'd say that some of these industries I've mentioned aren't simply about consumerism, such as gambling and social media, or at least, they seem more complicated than that. These industries control our social sphere and entertainment, and I'd imagine even those opposed to consumerism culture might use social media or consume addictive food.

Isn't the underlying argument not societal but individual, that really pain and conflict are prerequisites to our taking life seriously? Labels like 'neo-liberal,' 'consumerist,' etc. are just used as stand-ins meaning effectively, 'existentially docile.' One has only the illusory choice whether or not to see the pain and suffering of the world, but in pain and death the re-framing of the opposition is presented immediately.

Got any examples in mind? Any particular cultural forms you can point to? — Wayfarer

The only western institutional practice of asceticism of which I am aware is the practice of poverty among some religious. Most nuns and monks may have little personal property, but collectively they have access to substantial material resources. There are a few monastic communities who are poor by choice, poor in resources, poor in food, clothing, and shelter. Their lives are quite restricted, mostly spent in prayer. A related institution might be the Catholic Worker Movement which was/is, in some ways, monastic but was deeply engaged in working with the poor and does not involve any profession of vocation.

There are also the occasional preachers of voluntary poverty (which can be entirely secular) and simple living. Voluntary poverty, if embraced fully, involves operating on really pretty marginal resources. The problem with this approach is that in cold climates, shelter and heat are required. Paying rent and heat (and other fixed expenses) requires some level of income. The requirements of employment for income run counter to the practice of poverty, so it's a difficult act to pull off, particularly individually.

Some religious groups practice counter-cultural lifestyles -- the Amish and maybe some Mennonites. But the Amish aren't trying to be poor. They're trying to live at their preferred level of modernity which is roughly what prevailed 150 years ago in rural America.

In sum, I agree -- there are damned few alternatives to consumerism.

To what extent should consumers be free to make choices about what products and services they consume in the context of neoliberal capitalism? — Judaka

The standard for overriding personal choice is usually public safety (as in the limits of the right to privacy) or the public good. This begs the question of who decides what is the public good. No matter what regulatory policy is put in place, it is guaranteed that some group will reject it. Some people feel that it is inherently safer to open-carry firearms than to restrict them. So asking "should people be free to open-carry firearms" is a loaded question, so to speak, since it is really about having a fundamentally different standard of reason.

Isn't it the same in other countries? Basically, if there's no choice but poverty, then consumerism is unimportant, but if it's an option, it's always chosen. Nations such as South Korea, Japan, Singapore, China & many eastern European nations all show the same thing.

"I measure my success by what I own" by country

"I feel under pressure to make a lot of money" by country

These were some very quick examples I found, but I'm confident that they're not misrepresentative, this phenomenon is real. Western nations aren't particularly materialistic, the countries are just generally richer and people can afford more stuff. Isn't that correct?

The only western institutional practice of asceticism of which I am aware is the practice of poverty among some religious. Most nuns and monks may have little personal property, but collectively they have access to substantial material resources. There are a few monastic communities who are poor by choice, poor in resources, poor in food, clothing, and shelter. — BC

Yes. I am close to a couple of Catholic sisters and for each of them, everything they own fits into one suitcase. They essentially have a couple of changes of clothing and a few personal items. Of course the church helps with accommodation. Both have jobs in the community which help pay for the order's running costs.

I am envious of anyone who can fit all they own into a suitcase. All my stuff would fit into a small room, but I still have much to learn about minimalism.

Aren't there political, moral, cultural, economic, social and personal views and ideologies that fall outside the scope of consumerism? Don't people value being able to spend more time with their family, their physical & mental well-being and having free time to spend on hobbies etc? It's possible I misunderstood you, so feel free to clarify if that is the case. — Judaka

Sorry I hadn't noticed this question. See below.

Western nations aren't particularly materialistic, the countries are just generally richer and people can afford more stuff. Isn't that correct? — Judaka

It's not specific to any country - I was referring to modern liberal democratic cultures generally. I'm not anti-democratic or anti-scientific, but at a deep level, liberal democracy is predicated on the idea that material well-being and economic growth is the only meaningful political aim. And in some ways that is true - modernity has lifted massive populations out of agrarian subsistence into relative affluence. India, for example (and also China, although that is not a democracy, but has absorbed many of the aspects of industrial capitalism under single-party control.)

But the fact is that we are moving into a resource-constrained, over-populated world, where it isn't possible that whole populations can consume at the level that the developed world has been taking for granted. But there's no cultural rationale for anything other than that. This is what counter-cultural economics and philosophy has been saying for a long while, but it hasn't really sunk in. In a secular culture, it is difficult to envisage a philosophical rationale for renunciation, which was traditionally associated with ascetic spirituality.

A couple of books on the subject - Prosperity Without Growth Tim Jackson

The Value of Nothing Raj Patel

We don't seem to be gaining any ground against @Wayfarer's statement that "there is no countervailing ideology to consumerism".

Okay, I understand now. These issues occur within capitalism and government policies such as ones characteristic of neoliberal capitalism. Businesses are motivated by profit and are incentivised to prioritise it, focusing on their own survival and success over the common good. To prevent practices that go against some greater good, the state would need to regulate their behaviour, unless they owned the industries.

People do care about things like climate change, they care about their health and mental wellbeing. Businesses talk like they're going to act responsibly, they always say the right things, because what people want from them. They just don't follow through. They're too concerned about their competitors gaining an edge over them.

The businesses that succeed, and those who make it to the top within those businesses, aren't representative of the culture overall. They're being selected by their ability to generate profit and grow. A moral way of doing business means not choosing the optimal path to profit, and will thus be outperformed by competitors.

There's also a strong geopolitical aspect, a strong economy means a strong country. A model of non-economic growth would require a less competitive view of geopolitics.

There are many factors involved in this, but it seems like a global phenomenon, and culture hasn't been a key factor behind it. Do you think consumerism is the primary factor, a primary factor or a motivating influence for these other factors, or just generally, where does it fit in for you?

For me, concerns about climate change, pollution and other environmental factors, as well as issues such as worker pay, home affordability, wealth equality and issues such as my OP, are all examples against the idea of "progress at any cost". It's a bit more nuanced than being "against" consumerism, but could you explain how such ideas fit into your perspective?

We don't seem to be gaining any ground against Wayfarer's statement that "there is no countervailing ideology to consumerism". — BC

As I wrote earlier, minimalism (simple living) is defiantly one example. It's a significant, worldwide anti-consumerist philosophy and I know quite a few folk who follow this practice. I met one person recently who refuses to own more than 150 objects - including clothing. She is a successful writer. YouTube has many videos on minimalism, from personal journeys in anti-consumerism, to lengthy documentaries on the benefits of minimalism. Some of it is virtue signalling tosh, but you'll find this anywhere. I've been a minimalist myself in a modest way for many years.

I mainly agree with your analysis.

For me, concerns about climate change, pollution and other environmental factors, as well as issues such as worker pay, home affordability, wealth equality and issues such as my OP, are all examples against the idea of "progress at any cost". It's a bit more nuanced than being "against" consumerism, but could you explain how such ideas fit into your perspective? — Judaka

I think business, politics and science all need to involve themselves in this. It's something deeper than culture - it's an ethos, a life philosophy which recognises an alternative to constant entertainment and consumerism. I'm sure that's not necessarily an easy thing to pursue. And to be totally upfront, I'm no advertisement for such qualities, I'm a retirement-age boomer not particularly frugal in my ways. I think the younger generations, the Greta Thalburgs and her ilk, are the ones who will be driving it. And you can probably find examples of corporations attempting to embody such an ethos. (After all, Steve Jobs, who founded Apple Computer, has been described as a 'billion-dollar hippie'.) But there are also plenty who don't. Reminds me of one of those great 1960's slogans, 'be the change you want to see in the world.'

YouTube has many videos on minimalism, from personal journeys in anti-consumerism, to lengthy documentaries on the benefits of minimalism. — Tom Storm

Good tip, I'm going to look into that. I'm ideally placed to do it, really, just got to find the enthusiasm for it.

I see. I got it wrong, I'm as usual, indeed the cynical one here.

For me, the effectiveness of culture, morality, law and other corrective influences inversely correlate with power. Though the unpleasantness of the truth leads us instinctively to reject it, the systemic mechanisms that distribute and manage power define our societies. The majority views aren't that relevant. There must be some combination of incentivising, influencing and forcing of the government to regulate businesses, and of businesses to act responsibly, if it is to happen.

Billionaires like Steve Jobs, and more recently Sam Bankman-Fried, may not be concerned about owning fancy things, but they're definitely keen on power, and no less keen on it than any of the others. If our hopes are pinned on the goodwill of such people, we're screwed.

If our system incentivises and rewards actions that lead us down a path to unsustainability and economic inequality and whatever else, then that's where we'll go. Although I'm not saying that you argued against this, I just cringe whenever non-enforced measures, such as what businesses "should" do or "need" to do are emphasised. All such hopes should be abandoned, there is no cause for it. :cry:

150 objects — Tom Storm

1 fork, 1 spoon, 1 knife, 1 bowl, 1 cup, 1 left shoe, 1 right shoe, 1 shirt, 1 pant, 1 hat, 1 house, 1 car, 1 computer, 1 towel, 1 tooth brush, 1 light bulb, 1 chair, 1 blanket, 1 pillow, 1 roll of toilet paper... Hell! it adds up quickly!

My house was built in 1918; 850 square feet on 1 level for a couple and 1 child. Much less than what some people now consider barely habitable for 1 person. No closets? Working class people once had no need for several large closets. They didn't have that many clothes.

There is a source for consumerism; it didn't just arise out of nothing. Edward Bernays and many associates developed methods of manipulating the public for the benefit of, among others, manufacturers and retailers. There has always been a desire among those with enough resources to enhance their lives with better material goods -- so that part isn't new. Over time, let's say from 1901 onward, retailers made concerted efforts to get people to buy more of newly invented, newly manufactured goods. Then, just more.

The resulting increased consumption certainly didn't feel like an evil thing. Consumption increasingly drove production (GDP) and plentiful jobs. We live in the world where consumption has been taken to its logical extreme.

Socialism or communism aren't the cure; their impulse isn't towards minimalism, it's toward equality of resources, and more.

Environmentalism can be a route to minimalism. Get rid of the car, use a bicycle or public transit; consume less; stay home (avoid air travel); get rid of the little pasture on which no cow will ever graze (the lawn).

Religion can be a route to minimalism--asceticism. 150 objects with no car, no computer, that one dim light bulb. Grim but holy. And very good for the environment and the soul.

Asceticism has a huge downside: Were it to be widely practiced, it would send the world's economies into free-fall from which there would be much chaos and many deaths. That's the whole catch to the global warming problem: Bring fossil fuel consumption to a screeching halt and the consequences are severe. Don't halt fossil fuel use, and the consequences are severe.

There are many factors involved in this, but it seems like a global phenomenon, and culture hasn't been a key factor behind it. Do you think consumerism is the primary factor, a primary factor or a motivating influence for these other factors, or just generally, where does it fit in for you?

For me, concerns about climate change, pollution and other environmental factors, as well as issues such as worker pay, home affordability, wealth equality and issues such as my OP, are all examples against the idea of "progress at any cost". — Judaka

Culture hasn't been a key factor? Au contraire! Consumerism (I am what I buy) is a key aspect of American and other cultures! No, not everybody, but it's a dominant flavor, like clove and cinnamon. We may have exported consumerism to some places; other places developed it on their own. In itself it isn't such a terrible thing -- having comfortable furniture, a nicely decorated home, a good car, a whizzy computer, a cell phone with great features, high quality food, nice clothes... but consumerism goes beyond that. It's the ever bigger house, more new and better furniture every few years, lavishly decorated homes, 2 or 3 cars, the latest whizzist computer, a new cellphone every year with ever improved great features ($1300, $1400...), extensive travel, meals at nice restaurants, more, more, more.

It's a relentless driver.

It keeps people hard at work to earn enough to at least stay even with the monthly payments on all that stuff. The ruling class was quite aware that home ownership would limit workers willingness to take risks with unions, strikes, and leftist politics. A mortgage helped the relatively powerless buy into the status quo. The 65% of workers who own their own homes have a stake in the system. The system may be less successful in keeping renters at work, but evictions remind renters that they had best get to work every day if they want to stay where they are.

Was there ever a time in human civilisation, when nice things existed, and people didn't want them? In the world over, farmers toiled the fields because they had to, they would've chosen the mansion and fine wines given a choice. Whenever it becomes available, to move to the city, make good money, and buy nice things, the cities swell. The same process is experienced by every industrialised nation.

Consumer culture was something I took more seriously until I learned that developing nations were even more materialistic than we were. Particularly in China, seeing how industrialisation resulted in the very same obsession with owning a nice car, property and owning nice things. How seamlessly everything changed to resemble what we're used to. Culture naturally shifts with the broader change.

As a facilitator, consumer culture has played its role, but culture has been a victim rather than a perpetrator. The previous culture shifts as industrialisation and urbanisation occur, to form some new brand of consumer culture. Whether a society indifferent to such things can exist, I'm dubious, but if it could, I wonder what problems it would be less likely to experience as a consequence.

Religion can be a route to minimalism--asceticism. 150 objects with no car, no computer, that one dim light bulb. Grim but holy. And very good for the environment and the soul.

Asceticism has a huge downside: Were it to be widely practiced, it would send the world's economies into free-fall from which there would be much chaos and many deaths. — BC

I wouldn't take the ascetic versions of 'hard' minimalism as its only expression. I think the world can easily manage a radical drop in consumerism. Most of the people I know own way more than 150 objects and don't count their things. But they don't have cars or kitchen appliances, or many clothes or useless furniture. And for the most part they shop in thrift shops. Some of these folk are comfortable financially. I include myself in this group. They still eat out and buy coffees and travel and spend - it just isn't on 'useless' stuff. But we can find faults in any lifestyles. Nothing is perfect.

I have no kitchen appliances - no toaster, kettle, processors, etc. Just an oven and some kitchen tools like a knife, grater, cutlery. No mugs or cups, just a few heatproof glasses. No couch or sofas. No coffee tables or side tables. A couple of years ago I got rid of 2000 books - they were the only things I purchased, mainly second hand. I have about 1000 left. I still own paintings and art - some of which are my parents. These I have struggled to ditch. I still have a long way to go.

Let me take a different tack than the one I took above, where I said "Culture hasn't been a key factor? Au contraire!"

There's that Madonna song, written by Peter Brown and Robert Rans, Material Girl (1984). The chorus is...

'Cause we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl

The existing technology and industry that is available determines the sort of culture we have. Agrarian societies have agrarian cultures based on agrarian technology. It's not 'no tech' but it does tend to be low tech--the devices used to connect the horse to the plow, the plow, the crop yields, the kind of life that horse power makes possible. Not all that bad. Elsewhere, steam is harnessed to do much more work than a horse can. One day, the steam engine pulls a train out into the hinterlands and the agrarian culture is changed by the industrial technology. Now the farmers sell their crops to distant markets and and can buy things from distant warehouses, which the train will deliver. No more home-spun cloth; now they can get nicer cloth made in a factory. No more clunky locally made boots. Now their boots are made in a factory with big machines, better leather, and standard sizes. Much nicer.

Industrial capitalism has different rules than agrarian agriculture--which is what many countries, including the US, had in the past. Industrial capitalism, in the US or China, depends on the reciprocal movement of production and consumption.

Question: What leads the reciprocal process: consumption or production?

It might be production. I have the technology at hand; I can use it to make shoes. But how many shoes should I make? 1 pair per person per year in this city? My factory can do that quite easily, and it will be somewhat profitable. However, I have the capacity to make 2 pairs of shoes per person per year. At that level, I will make more profit and will get richer. But somehow, I have to convince people that they should buy an extra pair of shoes per person per year.

Fortunately, somebody just invented advertising. I can use advertising to convince people that it is actually a very good thing to have 2 pairs of shoes per person per year--a black work boot and a brown oxford. Next year the ideal will be a black work book, a brown oxford, and something new, an fancy slip-on. And so on.

The shoemaker's factory is humming, he's getting rich, and shoes have become fashion. More, more, more.

Industrial production and capitalism's need for ever-expanded markets creates and drives culture. What used to be an agrarian culture of peasants, yeomen farmers, able hard working men and sturdy resourceful women, becomes a dense urban culture of many people working together, doing all sorts of narrowly defined tasks.

In the industrialized, capitalist urban environment, buying and displaying goods has become more than a habit -- it's an economic necessity. The act of buying and having takes on values that were entirely irrelevant or unimaginable in even a prosperous agrarian society. The mountain of products that the factories produce must be bought -- whether or not people need or want them. (Or overproduction leads to a depression.)

Industrialized capitalism is a trap. Once a given culture steps onto the treadmill of production and consumption, it's very hard for it to get off without a crash. And, like all good traps, it isn't really visible until it's too late.