Moralism and Individual Choices Re: [lbo-talk] Re: Dispiriting Suburbs?

Chuck chuck at mutualaid.org
Mon Oct 30 11:36:20 PST 2006


Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> Carrol:
>
> No! There is no political or ecological or moral aspect to where we
> choose to live! I have engaged in this argument over and over again
> since the late 1960s. There is no political constraint on idividual
> consumption choices UNLESS there is an organized mass struggle (as
> exhibited in pickets, full-page ads, leaflettings, demonstrations, etc)
> around the the choice at issue. Attempts to make individual consumption
> choices a matter subject to moral or political judgment absent such mass
> decisions are victious and devisive.
>
>
> [WS:] I have to agree with Carrol on that for a change. Politicization of
> individual consumption in the absence of a larger social movement is not
> only politically ineffective but quite annoying and patronizing. At best,
> it is a manifestation of tokenism, or creating a face saving illusion of
> doing something "for the cause" while in fact doing nothing. It is like
> those Catholics who "sin" every day and then go to a confession once a year
> to "save their souls" (whatever that is.) But oftentimes is taking a
> moralizing, patronizing and guilt tripping attitude toward others, which
> immediately begs the "fuck off" response.
>
> Another point - consumer choices seldom make any difference, because the
> very raison d'etre of large corporations is hedging against market
> fluctuations. Boycotting a firm is nothing but a market fluctuation for
> that firm, and a rather insignificant one. Corporations are usually well
> equipped to handle this. The only businesses that are likely to be
> significantly affected by such boycotts are small businesses - but
> boycotting these is like kicking the family dog to "get back" at the boss at
> work. Pretty ineffective and contemptible.
>
> A much effective way of changing corporate practices is government
> regulation - but one of the most widely shared cultural norms and beliefs in
> the US - regardless of one's political orientation - is suspicion of
> government and government regulations. Consequently, any action that does
> not call for effective government regulation is likely to gain more public
> support across all political spectrum that one that call for such
> regulation, even if such action is merely a token with zero political or
> social impact.

More government regulation is not the answer. At best, government regulation mitigates some of the worse problems. Mostly government regulation gives the false impression that something is being done about corporate malfeasance. If you are an anti-capitalist like some of us, putting a band aid or a muzzle on a corporation is simply not enough.

Personal consumer choices are indeed important. The personal is political. One of the large failures of the Left is their inability to understand this. I blame this on the culture of traditional leftism, which thinks that subscribing to the right political line is more important than actually practicing what you preach. This myopic hypocrisy reminds me of Lutherans, so that's why I'm an anarchist. Anarchists are more focused on the process of social change, so we correctly understand that if you aren't practicing what you preach, you ain't exactly setting any kind of example for the social change you are preaching. The traditional left is known for its foot-dragging on praxis, such as the long held opposition to gay rights (see the RCP) or the old idea that women's rights could wait until after the revolution. The radical feminist movement of the 1970s was in part a response to this abdication of praxis.

I agree with Carrol and Woj that a broader, confrontational social movement is needed in addition to politicizing individual lifestyle choices. Without that mass movement, we get Whole Foods and Utne Reader.

The politics of everyday life recuperated into organic produce and pages of body lotion ads. See my essay "Why Vegetarianism Won't Save the Planet."

At the same time, leftists who don't practice what they preach are hypocritical fools at best, armchair academics living in nice college towns at worst. These are the people who go listen to Amy Goodman talk and Iris Dement perform, but can't lift a finger to help out local independent media or even visit a small struggling bookstore. Hey! We have the correct line! Let's march around in circles and feel self-righteous that we know that the war is a joke, but let's not spend any effort to build an alternative. Gotta run to Whole Foods to buy some cheese for that soiree tonight where we are going to deconstruct post-feminist Kantian literary theory. Or whatever academic nonsense is fashionable at the moment.

Boycotts do have their limitations, but boycotts do work. The problem with boycotts is that the people who should follow them are just not into practicing what they preach. When you have a significant number of leftists who stop supporting food co-ops and easily march over to Whole Foods, you don't exactly have a movement of principled people who are ready to make a daily commitment to living their ideas.

Corporations do pay attention to boycotts. They spend large sums of money keeping tabs on activism and consumer opinion. Small campaigns can have a significant impact--see the article Infoshop News published today on the Coalition of Imokaleee Workers.

What's wrong with boycotting a small business? Small businesses can be worse than corporations.

Chuck

-------------------------- Bread and Roses Web Design serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list