Consumption

Consuming less is an act of rebellion. Consuming the minimum is revolutionary. 

In Marx's view, 150 years ago, the economic contribution of working people was their labour. Sometimes called "the labour theory of value". 

Marx was not prescient. He could not have envisaged was how capitalism would define (or redefine) the contribution of working people in terms of the goods and services they consume. It is out consumption that drives demand, which drives profit. And profit is the raison d'etre of capitalism. 

Our desire to consume is ignited and fanned by constant and intense propaganda (aka advertising). We have never been exposed to more advertising than right now. 

Capitalists see labour as an overhead, not a contribution. We are supposed to "work hard" because that keeps overheads low and maximises profit for the capitalists. Lets face it, working hard has no benefits to us since they don't pay us extra for working hard and it leaves us with no energy for, e.g., our families. The exception is those who have been shouldered into the so-called "gig economy" (formerly known as "piece work" an unfair and outdated system that unions managed to virtually eliminate 100 years ago). 

Since consuming is our great contribution to society, it makes sense that products have a limited lifespan and have to be replaced often. People with money will tell you it's better to buy quality because it lasts. But if you don't have money you don't have the choice. The poor are stuck with the shoddy ersatz knockoffs that breaks as soon as you get them home. Low quality goods drive ongoing consumption.

There is no more working class or middle class. Everyone is "consumer class" now. And we are now further from the levers of power than we have been since our ancestors were serfs in a feudal state. The main parties in Britain all have the same economic view, the only view that is taught in universities. It literally does not matter who we vote for in the UK anymore. 

And yet over-consumption and planned obsolescence seem likely to make the earth unfit for human habitation in our lifetimes. 

Consuming less is an act of rebellion. Consuming the minimum is revolutionary. 

And if you consume less, you don't need to work hard. You can put energy into what matters to you. 

So... Grow your own and make your own. Do without. Recycle. Reuse. Buy second hand. 

Liberal Values Part of the Problem

A big part of the problem in the USA seems to be that US liberals believe their views on morality are absolute and universal. There are parallels in the UK as well, though they are generally less clear because of class, history, and other local factors.

Liberals seem to think, "we love diversity, so everyone must love diversity (eventually)". We just need to enforce diversity and they will see how great it is and fall into line. But people are not falling into line, are they? Instead they are abandoning democracy and following dictators.

At least 1/3 of any population does not love diversity and never will. They crave sameness (conformity) and oneness (group authority).

And this is not a moral or philosophical stance. It's not a reasoned position. They haven't thought about it and in all likelihood they cannot think clearly about it. It's a cognitive limit. Authoritarians lack the cognitive capacity to cope with diversity. They find diversity confusing, frustrating, overwhelming, etc. And no amount of talking about it, or rubbing their noses in it, will change this about them.

The authoritarian personality is something you are born with. While certain things can mitigate this personality type—e.g. urban setting, education—this is not something authoritarians can be expected to change.

This means that liberal arguments in favour of diversity apply. If you are born that way, if it is genetic, then you cannot be expected to change. Yes?

This is a powerful argument for acceptance, but it should be applied evenly. If someone cannot substantially change their personality, then (according to liberals themselves) we have an obligation to embrace those people as they are.

This also means that political correctness applies. Insulting and mocking people who lack a capacity we value is not politically correct. Yes? Maybe MAGA are stupid. How does pointing this out help? Have you ever responded positively to be labelled "stupid"? Has anyone?

If we accept this argument, and I do, then we should also apply it to people with the authoritarian personality. Because this is the right thing to do, by our values. And if that is not enough motivation, then consider that the alternative is that they feel an existential threat and start promoting authoritarian parties and leaders. And this allows them to impose their values on us without compromise.

So while the idea that we make peace with authoritarians is likely to a be very unpopular opinion, I cannot see any way to avoid fascism if we don't listen to them and find a compromise.

And after all, not all of the authoritarians' complaints are wackadoodle. Things are genuinely shitty for working people under neoliberalism. And billionaires are a cancer on our societies. So why not address these complaints?

Standards of living have been declining for 50 years. So why not address this problem?

Communities have been disrupted and in places gutted by unnecessary economic changes such as exporting jobs to the third world. So why not address this problem?

Politicians seem not only to lack vision, but also to lack a moral compass that prioritizes people. This is what happens when the business community take control of the apparatus of state. So why not address this problem?

No, the Authoritarians are not the most articulate people. Yes, sometimes their ideas seem silly, naive, etc. Yes, they sometimes express themselves in ways we find offensive. And yes, sometimes it does seem awfully personal and it makes me angry. So what? Demonising them doesn't help. And arguing doesn't change anything.

The only thing that will help is that their needs are met to the extent that they do not believe it is necessary abandon democracy to get what they need.

Politics is the art of compromise. And, folks, we have to compromise or we're going to lose it all.

Capitalism: The Bottom Line.

Either something replaces capitalism or we’re all dead in the medium term. 

Capitalists are like locusts. They see a resource, use violence to claim it as individual property, exploit it until it is exhausted, and then move on to the next resource, benefitting only themselves.

Capitalists are currently committed to:

• heating up the atmosphere with disastrous consequences for global climate/weather, including rising sea levels.
• poisoning land, water, and air with toxins, carcinogens, and mutagens.
• killing off all the pollinating insects with pesticides, destroying our ability to grow food to feed billions.
• burning down all the world’s forests and replacing them with monocrops.
• emptying the oceans of fish
• encouraging us all to adopt fascism (citizens serve the state).
• profiting from war, famine, drought, and plague
• destroying democracy

While there is a profit to be made, they won’t stop.

Unless we take power away from the wealthy, we’re doomed.

Eat the rich, before the rich eat you.