19
Should communists be minimalists as a way to not partake in pointless consumerism and as a way to help save the planet?
(lemmygrad.ml)
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
19 points (82.8% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
809 readers
1 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pointless consumerism? Maybe. But much of consumerism isn't pointless, and I think first and foremost, we must always remember to maintain a materialistic outlook- if not for ourselves, ideologically, because that is the reality people live in, and it is what holds the broadest appeal. IMO communism will not prevail through celebrating austerity, through telling the masses who already are deprived of so much to "consume less," and providing less goods and services than the capitalists.
There's nothing wrong with minimalism, exactly... as an individual choice. But the mainstream idea of it in itself strikes me as bourgeois- having a quaint few things sounds nice on paper, but it's not realistic for most. And when we're talking about "saving the planet"- similarly, the notion that individual minimalism and a denouncement of consumerism is going to do much more than make someone feel better about themselves, is once again a capitalist scam, gaslighting as far as I'm concerned- it's going about these very real issues in an entirely wrong way- what we need is systemic change from the top down to save the planet, or rather the biosphere as we know it- not to mention that people's immediate needs should always take first priority over some notion of the "planet."
I agree, and when talking about consumerism, I'm always reminded of these two great essays on it:
https://redsails.org/women-and-the-myth-of-consumerism/
https://redsails.org/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/
Also, Marx's own view of consumption is that it's a real social need which capitalism itself restricts only to the bourgeoisie (we could also add the labour aristocracy) while the vast majority cannot engage in consumption like they need to. Of course, the goal here isn't a form of bourgeois luxury, but the ability of everyone to live a fulfilling life.
Exactly, and there was quite a big debate around this in the early years after the October revolution and the founding of the USSR (as there seems to be every time a revolution manages to survive the initial time of great crisis and then needs to build up the forces of production and increase quality of life). After the horrors of WW1 and the civil war, both caused by capitalism, there was a long period of crisis which meant that no one really had a lot, and the little that people had, they had to all share equally. It was a sort of rationing program that was necessary during the wars. This, however, cannot be continued forever, and both Lenin and Stalin (and others) understood this. It's why the NEP was necessary, but these decisions caused outcry from some Soviet and even Wester European socialists who didn't understand the actual situation, but clung on to an abstract principle.
From Losurdo's 'Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend':