Billions are suffering so a few could live in luxury and exploit the People

hello

how are you

@the-porpoise

Ah, the TINA illusion. I mean if you described our political system to anyone living one thousands years ago they would also probably think that's highly impractical and completely unrealistic, and that it would never happen in the real world.

Sure. Give me your solution then and we'll see how well it holds up.

I'm not suggesting there is no alternative. There absolutely are many, many alternatives. The question is how well they can be carried out.

It's not that I get uncomfortable... It's that it's completely false.

That's because you're not thinking about the same things I am. I was specifically referring to the ways people shame others for not being able to support modern movements fully (the "high horse"/"no excuse") mentality.

Factory farms. Horrific conditions for animals. Astonishingly low lack of empathy.

But here's the thing. A Costco (or even generic store) sells 60 eggs at about $8. A brand that actually cares about chicken welfare (as in letting them actually touch grass, not just living in a larger space)? About $12 for a dozen. That's a huge difference if you're low-income and eggs are a regular part of your diet.

Fast fashion. Often connected with child labour and terrible working conditions.

But is the fact that the clothes are cheap the primary issue here? I've gotten Temu products that last for years and are pretty high-quality if you take care of them well. And nobody can avoid not indirectly supporting these factories without buying from small businesses only, in which case a $5 sweater becomes $50. Again, not a huge sacrifice if you are in the middle class, or close to it, but people who live in lower tax brackets would find it an uncomfortable jump.

Small businesses. I often see people say there is no excuse for not supporting them while flaunting around $150 bags and I have to say...that is pretty tone-deaf. I do try to support local as often as I can. But the reality is that it only works when people are also sensitive to what is affordable and adjust accordingly (for example, I think a small handmade bag should go for $50-80 as someone who has tried doing similar crafts in the past).

Or now even things that don't deal with consumerism. Like affirmative action. Simple yet powerful idea in theory to help those in poverty and who face systemic racism, yet who benefitted from it the most? White legacy admissions.

Time and time again, people complain that their causes are not supported, but how can they be when the lower class is repeatedly guilttripped for not being able to financially support certain causes, no matter how worthy the cause is?

Anyhow I digress. It was directed at OP and questioning what their ideas are (based on their current posts in this thread).

much more than by the alleged benevolence of the ruling upper class.

That was the undertone of what I said, was it not? That the upper class can freely suggest idealistic ways to improve society that are a whole lot easier for them to accomplish and benefit them far more than the lower class. Not to get into a lengthy class discussion here, but the above issues I mentioned basically illustrate what I meant.

Of course certain issues are easier than others. Being frugal and helping the environment are essentially one and the same. Educating oneself on racism, sexism, and the like is absolutely necessary. But they don't match the context of this thread + I did say "most" and not "all".

And blablablablablablabla.

And soforth, of course.

I know of no "factories" in the United States or any other advanced Western nation that have "slave like" conditions -- although I suppose some could be hiding in the very bushes that President Trump is trying, as hard as he can, to clean up (without much help from his adversaries).

And that's my point.

There are, indeed, some factories in the world where conditions are horrific. But it's important to consider where they're found.

In the United States, that capitalist bastion, a government agency prowls factories with some regularity. Capitalism has long been comfortable with some regulation. There's a difference between rational oversight and hidebound control by the inexpert.

An experienced, careful OSHA employee is not the same as a young Congressperson or Mayor with little pertinent experience. No matter how good looking and stylish he or she may be.

@greenteakitten thank you for clarifying. I did not understand what you were talking about.

In my opinion individual solutions to a systemic problem can only be very limited. It's when people collectively organise that a real change becomes possible.

In that view, the injonction to be a good consumer, to only buy ethical products, to take care of your carbon footprint, while defensible (it is indeed important, as much as you can, to do these things), largely misses the point. More concerningly it shifts the public attention from collective organisation to individual solutions, which might in fine make things even worse by hindering the prospect of a real change. And besides, the fact that poor people can't afford quality food precisely is the problem. So people who shame them for buying whatever they can to survive are, in my opinion, self-righteous useful idiots.

On the other hand and, like everything in life, it is not all black or all white and there is a fine line. "I can't afford to do the right thing so I'll just do X" can also be used as a convenient excuse. Let's just take the example of the fast fashion. It's a relatively new trend. I don't know the exact timeframe but I'd guess it's less than 10 years old. Now did poor people just go around naked 10 years ago? Besides I think it is probably a false debate. I don't have the figures so I'll just take a random guess that is only worth my guessing abilities, but I don't think fast fashion is primarily fueled by poor people's consumerism. I think it is mostly by middle-class people, who might ease their own conscience by making up excuses. People who genuinely can't afford to buy new clothes for a whim, as you said, take care of their clothes. When they break, they repair it. And if they really must buy new clothes, they will buy second-hand. And this should be the standard but somehow we seem to have forgotten that these things are possible.

Obviously "we seem to have forgotten" does a lot of heavy lifting. The culture of consumerism is pushed down on us by those who want us to buy stuff. Buying second hand or repairing one's clothes sounds vaguely shameful. But then again there is a fine line between "we've collectively been brainwashed" and using that as an excuse to divert from one's own responsibility.

"But then again there is a fine line between "we've collectively been brainwashed" and using that as an excuse to divert from one's own responsibility."

Ah. Well and artfully written by @the-porpoise , in my sometimes-humble opinion.

@the-porpoise

In my opinion individual solutions to a systemic problem can only be very limited. It's when people collectively organise that a real change becomes possible.

Yes, I agree -- the issue is that a lot of people currently aren't capable of taking effective collective action because of the polarization in modern times. Of course collective action would be the best case scenario.

And besides, the fact that poor people can't afford quality food precisely is the problem. So people who shame them for buying whatever they can to survive are, in my opinion, self-righteous useful idiots.

Exactly! Glad we're on the same page here. :)

I don't have the figures so I'll just take a random guess that is only worth my guessing abilities, but I don't think fast fashion is primarily fueled by poor people's consumerism.

I never said it was. Imho it's the lower middle class wanting to act more "rich" than they actually are that has been driving modern consumerism the most. My point was that fast fashion has made it easier to buy clothes cheaper for the lower classes, and that a lot of fast fashion isn't as single-use as people think it is; it's quite easily mendable (as you mentioned) and if people take good care of their clothes then we would be much better off in the fashion sector as a society.

I get most of my clothes second-hand thanks to having a lot of older cousins/friends, but to my knowledge most more "high-end" brands prior to fast fashion still used the same parts from the same factories. Fast fashion just allowed the factories to ignore the middle man, is all, and increased the demand.

But then again there is a fine line between "we've collectively been brainwashed" and using that as an excuse to divert from one's own responsibility.

I don't disagree with this, but I suppose just after seeing OP's post history I feel like a lot of times people refuse to unite because they aren't sensitive enough to other people's struggles, or they choose to repeat mantras without actually bothering to find out the meaning behind them.

(For reference before somebody says "but Cherry, you're rich too!" our family income is roughly $43k in a big CA city where the average is $75k, and to live comfortably you need at least $110k. Do I still live a comfortable life? Absolutely, and I'm immensely grateful for my mom's ability to turn one dollar into five. But at the end of the day, we're not exactly loaded either, so certain "solutions" to problems tend to get on my nerves. Not because the problems aren't terrible. But we shouldn't be blaming "down", we should be blaming "up" if that makes any sense.)

@Noflaps

There are, indeed, some factories in the world where conditions are horrific. But it's important to consider where they're found.

I find this stance a little naive.

Almost all of the materials and "building blocks" of things produced in America are sourced elsewhere in the world. Frequently, we buy from poorer nations throughout Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia because it's cheaper. Heck, before the tariffs, basically everything was made in China because it was far cheaper that way! Just because something is sold in America and assembled here doesn't mean it didn't have its origins in one of these child factories. In fact, we are so dependent on inhumane labour that "humane goods" tend to be 5-10x the price.

I'll give an example. Where do you think Nestle gets cocoa beans from? Do you know of their formula milk campaign that poisoned countless children?

But if we want to boycott Nestle, how many companies is that? About 2000 brands. Do you think that, as a customer, you could reasonably avoid 2000 companies? Probably not unless you want to pay a lot more money.

That's the issue behind billionaires (not millionaires, billionaires, there's an ocean of difference). Sure, some of them are kind. But many have the roots of the corporations dug into ugly, rotten soil.

But of course, there's no easy solution to fix that in a way that does not bring about drastic unintended consequences -- hence what I was saying earlier on.

Why would we blame anybody for a reasonable existence that is more comfortable, even if not luxurious, than the existence of huge numbers of people elsewhere?

As I think can be determined by resort to the internet rather quickly, the median (that is, half above, half below) yearly income of persons worldwide is apparently less than 1,000 U.S. dollars.

I know -- it would be impossible to live reasonably on that in a big American city. But if a city is too expensive, one can move in the United States. No Soviet appartchik must first give permission. It's seldom absolutely necessary to live in a state with enormous real estate values. Although the ocean IS quite nice, admittedly.

My grandfather lived, as a young man, by trapping pelts and selling them. But, over time, families can rise with discipline and effort. And now look at me -- I've been able to acquire and feed my very own spaniel.

I didn't even have to form a cooperative to own that spaniel! I just marched proudly into the spaniel store and acquired him!

And no Ferrari would give me half the pride as does that splendid spaniel!

Life tends to improve with steady discipline, effort and optimism. But it takes years, not days. And optimism and faith seem quite helpful. Although, of course, they provide no guaranty -- and bad luck CAN happen.

If bad luck DOES happen, optimism and faith don't seem to hurt -- and I believe they help us to overcome it.

But of course I could be wrong. I'm no splendid spaniel, and don't even have flaps.