« Rational Spelling | Main | Big Mac Attack »
You first
In Does Ethics Have a Chance in a World of Consumers? Bauman, a former communist, argues that we would be better off altogether if we could control our need for “stuff”.
The longer book review is of interest. The longer book is not. In other words, Bauman has helped me control my need for "stuff."
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 6, 2008 at 06:57 PM in Books | Permalink
Comments
Is the goal of an economic system maximizing "stuff" or maximizing utility?
The mavens of Madison Avenue seem to have one perspective.
Here's another perspective, albeit from someone who was not always sympathetic to capitalism:
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pound six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery.” - Charles Dickens
Posted by: a student of economics at Sep 6, 2008 8:30:11 PM
"In other words, Bauman has helped me control my need for 'stuff.'"
clever, with a touch of snarky.
Posted by: Jonathan at Sep 6, 2008 9:28:48 PM
Zing! Good one Tyler.
Posted by: at Sep 6, 2008 11:11:43 PM
has he, or has your "stuff" purchase simply been transferred elsewhere?
student - dickens not *always* sympathetic to capitalism? i think you meant "not ever".
Posted by: shawn at Sep 6, 2008 11:13:57 PM
It is not just about stuff. If you have enough money you can buy time. You can retire early, pay someone to cut your lawn, etc.
Posted by: adam at Sep 7, 2008 12:13:21 AM
So, is "former communist" code for "communist?" I seem to see that phrase a lot.
Anywho, as one who was not always sympathathetic to communism, now that capitalism has won the material battle, is this his way of downrating the victory?
Surplus stuff, just like surplus food, presents a new set of challenges that people aren't used to dealing with. Brands are diabolical, but so easy to combat. Is a McDonald's on every corner a sign of their strength or of their knowledge that it would be really easy not to go their if they weren't ubiquitous?
I kind of wish rather than trying to convince me of this stuff, these folks would sit down and make a stuff sharing website, or come up with something that makes it easier to compare off-brand quality, or non-branded substitutes for cooking. All these things are doable, but it's easier not to do them in the absence of web tools to facilitate them.
Posted by: Andrew at Sep 7, 2008 5:37:16 AM
Andrew, a family here in the Netherlands, did prety much exactly what you describe. They had a 'Cycle-store', a second hand goods store with a philantropic element to it. They built a website where you could post for-sale ads for second hand stuff, and it became the largest shopping site in the country. Eventually it grew above their heads and they sold it to EBay - for 150 million euros or so.
This is a few years ago, and in interviews they still look completely surprised about it.
Posted by: Zamfir at Sep 7, 2008 7:36:59 AM
That's hilarious!
Posted by: Alex at Sep 7, 2008 8:47:17 AM
Would this Bauman guy be pro- or anti- eBay? Doesn't it faciliate our ability to acquire "stuff"?
Posted by: Hei Lun Chan at Sep 7, 2008 9:06:05 AM
student - dickens not *always* sympathetic to capitalism? i think you meant "not ever".
Not ever, he left the USA angry because everyonne had rad his books but almost everyone had a pirated copy.he liked capitalism when talking abot royalties
Posted by: k at Sep 7, 2008 3:53:46 PM
we would be better off altogether if we could control our need for “stuff”.
We'd be even better off if those prone to it could control their rage that somebody else has more stuff than them.
Posted by: J at Sep 7, 2008 7:33:53 PM
For more about how to avoid stuff, see Paul Graham's essay. I think I posted it here once before, but it's worth reiterating.
Posted by: Jake at Sep 7, 2008 10:09:21 PM
Andrew: "So, is "former communist" code for "communist?" I seem to see that phrase a lot."
Yup. Sort of like saying, "Don't take this the wrong way, but..."
Posted by: Jason Armstrong at Sep 8, 2008 2:12:28 AM
What the denizens of the liquid-modern world quickly find out is that nothing in the world is bound to last, let alone last forever,” he writes. “Everything is born with a brand of imminent death and emerges from the production line with a use-by date printed or presumed.”
Wasn't Buddha there about 2600 years ago?
In these essays he argues that our readiness to throw away the objects that we buy extends also to our readiness to throw away, or get rid of, “strangers” too – migrant workers or immigrants or terrorist suspects, for example – whose humanity we do not recognise.
This seems implausible. The expansion of human rights over recent centuries has been enormous. Primitive societies don't treat migrants nicely (workers or otherwise). The whole paraphanelia of modern trials designed to protect the rights of terrorist suspects is a modern development - and one of capitalist societies. Look at what happened to Guy Fawkes - tortured and then sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered (Guy Fawkes personally jumped from the scaffold, breaking his neck, before the latter parts of the operation). Furthermore, the English government then went on to deprive all Catholics, not merely the terorrist suspects, of all sorts of rights, including the right to vote.
To look at other countries, well the lack of concern of the Communist states for terrorist suspects, migrant workers or immigrants is famous.
Does Bauman offer any evidence that there is a correlation between consumerist societies and mistreatment of strangers, migrant workers or terrorist suspects, relative to non-consumerist societies?
Posted by: Tracy W at Sep 9, 2008 8:59:53 AM
Imagine waking up one morning and being two inches tall. Only being able to look up and not being able to control anything around you. That is how Bauman felt after making his transition from communist to "former communist". And what "former" communist bastard could possibly contemplate the supply and demand for "stuff" in a market economy? Not to mention the statement he made:Society promotes the act of shopping as an "appeal to forever-elusive happiness". Well congrdulations to Bauman he knows the deffinition of marketing. The fact of the matter is that society promoting the act of shopping is what keeps the heart of the American economy pumping.
Posted by: Danny at Sep 9, 2008 7:55:46 PM
