Completely irrelevant news

[sabotabby]

I've been told that today is Buy Nothing Day. I'm not normally a consumer whore or anything, but I think I will celebrate it by being one. You know, just to be contrary. Also, I've already bought a coffee -- at the Second Cup, no less! It annoys me that a lot of people think that Adbusters' notions of switching one sort of consumer capitalism to a "better" consumer capitalism is actual activism.

The magazine has very pretty pictures, though.

In other news, career criminal and whiny baby Lord Black is asking for his Canadian citizenship back. I guess maybe he shouldn't have said those nasty things about us when he renounced it in the first place. Excuse me for a sec...

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh man, I hope they give his citizenship to the poorest Haïtian refugee they can possibly find -- preferably a poor Haïtian communist refugee. Who has converted to Islam. And is gay. And drives a cab. That'd be the best thing ever.

Comments

[sabotabby]

Haven't read it; would be interested in reading it.

I don't know -- I think there's a fundamental conflict between global capitalism and environmentalism. Businesses can certainly make ecologically minded decisions and possibly profit from a certain percentage of consumers, but the average consumer, given the current economic structure, is going to go with cheap and dirty over expensive and clean. Short of massive government regulations (everywhere; it can't just be in the First World), the companies that don't give a crap about the planet will almost certainly be more profitable than those that do.

[ironed_orchid]

the average consumer, given the current economic structure, is going to go with cheap and dirty over expensive and clean

Absolutely, which makes ethical consumerism a privilege for those who can afford to spend more money. Which is fucked up, because being ethical should not be the privilege of the rich.

I do try to buy organic and fair trade products whenever I can, but often the discrepancy in price between them and 'conventional' products is simply not economically viable on a small budget. as for household recycling etc, people will do it if councils make it easy to separate recyclables, but a household doesn't produce anything near the waste that a company does.

I remember springheel_jack writing a good entry some time ago about the rift between hard core environmentalists and socialism, which was very interesting and I think drew attention to many of the ideological differences. However, to be really concerned about the welfare of human beings should include a concern for the environment because a healthy environment makes for healthier humans.

[sabotabby]

I think I made a post about that regarding air conditioning, and how the alternatives proposed by various environmental groups were all geared towards people who owned their own homes. The more money I make, the more ethical my spending habits get. It's a pretty direct correlation.

I'd like to read springheel_jack's post, if either of you could find it. If one assumes that capitalism and environmentalism are fundamentally incompatible (and that's my assumption), you'd think that socialists and environmentalists would find a bit more common ground. I tend to fault the environmentalists more on that, but I'm probably biased.

[ironed_orchid]

Here you go, this is the part I was thinking about, but the rest of the post is also very awesome:

Incidentally this is why I am not a Green. I am a Red. You can't be a Green and a Red at the same time. That doesn't mean you can't care deeply about the environment and be Red. Indeed you must: the workers have nothing to gain by shedding their chains in a ruined and filthy world. But you can't be Red and be a Malthusian, and I think that the global Green movement is exactly that. Marx's most bitter polemics were not against the Ricardians, they were against the Malthusians; the Marxist desire for justice is simply a mistake if scarcity is irremediable.

[sabotabby]

Oh yeah -- I remember reading that and not really knowing what to say other than, "Wow."

[ironed_orchid]

Me too, but it stuck with me, and I've been reminded a few times since then.

[morgoid.livejournal.com]

I agree. I think that's why anarchism wouldn't work, ultimately. If businesses could get away selling biohazardous carcinogens as shampoo, they'd do it if the payoff was good enough.

But then, I'm also of the opinion that corporations would flay babies alive as tributes to Satan if it would guarantee profits.

Actually, not just facesless corprorations. I'm pretty sure there are just plain assholes out there who would too (as long as they didn't have to do it themselves that is).

Boy, I'm sure down on peoples!

[sabotabby]

Well, that'd be anarcho-capitalism. Actual anarchism might not work for other reasons, but it'd have to entail dismantling large corporations and eliminating any sort of profit motive.

[frandroid.livejournal.com]

George Monbiot had an article recently about how some industrial leaders were more or less begging the government to introduce more environmental legislation; by levelling the playing field for everyone, companies don't get penalized for spending extra money on environmental measures.

[sabotabby]

But...but...what about the free market!