Ah, so the subject had gotten out of hand here before. I can see where that could cause reticence. I hope we can improve that situation because I'd hate to think we liberals have that much trouble being tolerant of each other.
>How would you go about organizing collective action around your
> ideas?
Personal and internet discussion and sharing of ideas is my form of activism as I am fast coming to the conclusion that grass roots organizing doesn't work, or worse serves to polarize people into opposing camps, alienating them and preventing bridge building that is needed. I've spent time on rightwing lists where the hate for liberals is intense. By refusing to flame I was able to engage some very interesting discussion where I learned alot and I think others did, too.
On Saturday 26 March 2005 08:45 pm, Dwayne Monroe wrote:
>Actually, a hefty percentage of the folks in this neighborhood are,
> as the saying goes, *of modest means*.
Yes, I'm seeing that now.
>No doubt you tuned into a post by one of the apparent investment
> adepts -- perhaps Jordan hugging the curves of the housing market
> with the steely-eyed confidence of a Speed Racer -- and concluded
> that everyone was enjoying cognac at poolside by moonlight.
;) The investment posts are indeed what made me wonder. I also see that many on this list are skilled writers and have high levels of knowledge, so I wondered if I'd stumbled into a liberal elite list.
> Your idea -- if I'm understanding accurately -- that the proper
> focus of the Left is correcting its consumption habits and
> convincing others to follow, as opposed to political action, is a
> non-starter for many people.
I'm not saying that they must be mutually exclusive as just because I no longer have faith in the political process doesn't mean if others do that they shouldn't follow that direction. But yes, I am saying that I believe that voluntary action can help improve our current bad situation. I learned that from the rightwing where I've found intense hatred of anything forced.
>Not, I believe, because the idea is completely merit-free but
> because it ignores the mechanics of global capital and places our
> hope in -- if you'll forgive the simplification -- *morally
> shopping our way to freedom.*
Since its a given we must consume some, it seems to me that changing our choices of what to consume can make a real difference, as can reducing its levels in any way we can. If that must be given the disparaging label "morally shopping our way to freedom" so be it.
>This can be put another way: if I choose to only buy organic food
> (to select a popular example of correct shopping) and, going
> further, avoid major outlets such as Whole Foods and only support
> co-opts and the like, am I really altering the deep structures of
> our world by even little bit?
I think so. To argue that my little "wallet vote" doesn't matter is the same argument that my little political election vote doesn't matter. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble now with my faith in the latter.
>If so, how can this change be amplified?
IMO, by embracing it in one's own life as best as possible and by introducing and discussing it with others.
On Saturday 26 March 2005 09:51 pm, snitsnat wrote:
>:) Welcome to the LBO SNIT POLL! I'm your LBO greeter for this
>: shift! Cart?
You are a real treasure snitsnat. Yes, I'll take a cart, thanks.
>I've appended the 'poll' John spoke of. John's right that the
> unemployed are overrepresented in the poll. However, the N was
> pretty low and the poll not statistically representative. It'd be
> nice to do it again and see if we could get more participation. Bad
> weekend for it, though.
>
>Who's up for doing it again?
I don't want to try to shame people. I just want to discuss attitudes and ideas.
>So, tully, about the minimum wage: is that who constitutes the
> working class? Or are those the only people who don't have a choice
> but to consume destructive products?
Those making minimum wage are already in tough circumstances and by definition can't be consuming much. While some of these ideas might help them simplify, they aren't really in a very good position to buy the more expensive "moral" items like organic cotton. But everyone can benefit by finding ways to reduce spending.
>Do you have, as they say in corp-a-feelia land, a metric. Is there a
> theory and corresponding defintion and measurement for determining
> when you are effectively at the point of being able to afford to
> make choices that are, uh, free?
My main "metric" as it were is to do what is possible to pursue a better direction in consumption. That can develop into all kinds of interesting measurements.
>I reuse coffee filters. That means it costs me .5 cts a day instead
> of 2 cts. I've figured out that I save a whopping $1.86 a year or
> sumpin'! And they're the brown kind, too! Don't tell me to buy a
> french press either. The last person that told me that -
> grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Lessee I don't flush the toilet most of the
> time when I just pee.
>
>Is that helping?
Yes. I wash ziplock bags. You may laugh and consider all these things to be inconsequential, but anything that reduces what gets consumed or what is sent to the dump is consequential, because it is all added up. An interesting metric to compare is how many garbage bags one sends out in a month. The numbers are fascinating. Some small families send out one a month, others send out 20. Why such a disparity? Those who send out one are more careful to buy less packaging, or processed food, or simply consume less. So many things can be done to reduce the waste stream and many cost nothing extra and can even save money.
>Juuuuuust pushin' your foot. But the serious question is this. Years
> ago, when the CFC thing was going on, I was involved with activists
> who were tryig to promote the understanding that it wasn't the
> underarm deodorant that was causing all the problems, it was the
> factory in town making typewriters, etc.
So does this mean we can continue to use the spray deoderant? I don't think so. It also means that we need more accountability from factories. I am very concerned about manufacturing. I was a manufacturing engineer for a few years, making cables. A potting compound we used to seal the connector ends said that pregnant women were not to go anywhere near it. Well, if that was the case, how could it be deemed safe for anyone? I made sure more hood ventilation was added, but that simply sent the noxious fumes into the atmosphere. Cleaning the flux off the connectors could have been done with isopropyl alcohol and scrubbing with brushes, but that was deemed too labor-intensive and prone to problems, so I was over ruled and in comes a 200 gallon vat of prelete, which again couldn't be breathed and needed special hoods, again into the atmosphere. But that allowed the connectors to be dipped and perfectly cleaned. Yet the vat chemicals only lasted a week (and this was a very small production run) before it needed replacement. Where did the used chemical go when it was discarded? I have no idea, but the thought of what I was responsible for pains me to this day. When I see the dancing/singing Santa Claus robots, I feel sick. My computer, my stereo, all the appliances, everything with metal in it is causing such damage.
We think recycling is the answer, but all it does is stop the raw material extraction. It doesn't stop any of the rest of the energy and material use required to reform the product. A bicycle, the epitome of green, requires massive equipment to tool it, nasty chemicals to paint it and particularly for chrome, shipping, etc. That tooling equipment had to be manufactured, with all its inherent mining, ore extraction, and downstream waste. People tend to think that the damage happens after something gets to their hands, but in the life cycle of a product, by far the most waste and energy use is associated with just getting it to us to use.
>Is there any good evidence that working on the individual level will
> change much?
Where would such evidence come from? The corporations aren't about to provide it. But there are many good indicators. The metric of garbage bags sent out is a good one.
>BUTT, seriously, I don't think moralizing, alone, is going to do
> much for the cause. For one thing, it's incorrect to say that
> "lowest price is given greater weight than ethics". First, lowest
> price *is* ethical. It *is* a moral choice -- you just don't like
> it. :) Neither do I, but I wouldn't call making decision by price
> unethical or even non-ethical.
Unfortunately too many factors that contribute to lowest price are not accounted for. Taxes levied on everyone are used for cleanup of so much of the damage caused by corporations who were supplying us with products or the military with weapons for our "protection."
> Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of
> Nations as a continuation, a companion to, his Theory of Moral
> Sentiments. His argument was that the market had a certain ethic
> and that ethic was appropriate there and there alone. By pursuing
> economic morality in the economic sphere, you would yeild the
> Greatest Wealth for the Nation. In his Theory of Moral Sentiments,
> he'd argued that another morality existed in civil society (family,
> church, etc) and that ethical system of d-making should stay in
> that sphere. If we did that, we'd have the "good society."
>
>Now, you may not like those ethics, but they are still ethics.
Then I suppose we need to claim that the devil also has ethics.
--tully