Buy Nothing Day

Almost as good an idea as the Internet Blackout thingy :rolleyes:

Although no one is probably going to give two shakes of a mongoose's tail, ideas like this are the brainchilds of idiots imho. I'd go as far as to say it's a noble, but dangerous idea, with no grasp of the practical economic realities we live in. Consumption isn't just the basis for a market economy, but in a sense for *all* economies. Less consumer spending potentially results in a downward confidence spiral, generally a bad day out, even for those strange "anarchists" organizing themselves into groups to support it :P

On an ideological level, I agree with CT- what is wrong with the availability of consumer goods? Price dictated by the free market allows for choice, competition and availability of everything from basic essentials, to luxury goods, which is I assume, where this protest is directed. The hilarity of the situation is, I could do my shopping on the previous day, spending like the greedy capitalist pig I am, and yet still adhere to the no-shopping day.

Now, on to the assertion that 20% of the global population consume 80% of global resources- to put things in perspective, human beings comprise less than a thousandth of the nitrogen cycle, and play a part in roughly a millionth (5 millionths if you count global warming) of oxygen and dioxide byproduct cycling. Now that isn't a lot- the world bovine population contributes more. Not to say that we shouldn't take the environment into consideration, this is where NGOs put pressure on governments to find a balance between productivity and sustainability of scarce natural resources. These "greedy 20%", while consuming a great part of global resources, are actually the only governments even considering the use of alternative sources of energy. Millions of dollars of R&D and actual investment goes into these technologies every year in California alone.

As for the idea that globalization and MNCs affect the developing world, well, that's where market protection, and sensible trading cooperation comes in. If developing countries' governments want to "sell their souls" to prosperity and consumerism to the detriment of their own people, then it is they who must reform, and they who need to look inward- not the MNCs or governments selling to them. This is a basic principle of free-market economics- if the product isn't harmful, and people purchase it, don't blame the guy who's selling it.

If I were to buy products that I knew would cause long-term destruction of the social fabric in my nation, I certainly wouldn't protest to the guy selling said products. I would merely refuse to buy them. However, the idea that I should stop spending merely because other nations' governments haven't a clue how economic development proceeds within the boundaries of a sensible international trade partnership, is a preposterous one. A well-defined multilateral trading arrangement that protects fledgling industries in a developing economy is the responsibility of those nations' governments, not of the free market agents making a quick buck on the back of corruption reaching to the highest levels of 3rd world government.

The developed world, on its part, must also make concessions- the renouncement of third world debt is one, the dismantling of ineffective conditional loans from the IMF and World Bank is another, aid should ideally be untied. It must be said, that the develped world has made far greater progress along these paths than the developing world has along its corresponding goals- which include the elimination of corruption, and the stabilization of international trade arrangements. Their power structures are simply to ridden with corruption, devoid of transparency, and void of public conscience to make the right decisions (for the most part).

The idea that the West is to blame for all these evils is a popular one in several decolonized nations, some of them have a case. But most are simply providing an excuse for "their own way of doing things" which is often to the public detriment in their societies. Blaming the corporate world for political ills is an ultra-simplified view of the so-called "evil" of globalization. The same globalization that brought about international law, the United Nations, GATT/WTO and the same globalization that allows NGOs to operate on an international scale with the freedom to express their views. If the message of anti-consumerism includes anti-globalism in its policy line, I reject it utterly, and without reservation.

Occy

Originally posted by Hobbes
If you do go ahead with this buy nothing day then some poor kids working in a sweat shop are going to get paid! :eek:

hang on, don't you mean "are not going to get paid" ?

Anyway as for the original notion its good to see people
reacting against this sort of anti-globalisation touchy-feely claptrap, which is mainly a bunch of rich western kids playing politics, ha! they'll learn...

Mike.

Nothing can be done to change the world until capitalism crumbles. Until then lefties should all go shopping to console themselves.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Although no one is probably going to give two shakes of a mongoose's tail, ideas like this are the brainchilds of idiots imho.

The plural of brainchild is perhaps brainchildren. While I don’t necessarily agree with BND, I’m not smug enough to think that the people behind it are idiotic. As with any idea that attempts to question the way things are, it will have its kneejerk detractors, people in whom the very idea of change either produces anxiety or a threat to authority. Such people are weird.

It’s asking people to question the validity of the “practical economic realities” we live in. It’s “practical economic realities” that dictate that we must consume more and faster to maintain “consumer confidence” whatever that is. Does greater consumption result in greater confidence? I was in America last year and I never saw so many fat people in my life. Fat but bloody confident. I’ll tell you what produces a downward spiral in consumer confidence – jumbo jets crashing into buildings and the carpet bombing of medieval societies that’s what, and no amount of nonsense from George W(asp) Bush (telling us we can defeat terrorism by spending more money on flash trousers, buns, flags made in china, trips to disneyworld, blah blah blah, fukk sake?) will alter that. It was consumer confidence that led to the South Sea and Dot Com bubbles. Confidence is pure bluff.

Faster television, faster computers, faster food. MTV, Microsoft, McDonalds. The “practical economic realities” mean that at present, we’re bombarded with 1300 adverts a day in ever more intrusive forms. You literally can’t take a pee without having an ad in your face. It’s self-evident that MTV, Microsoft, McDonalds and “practical economic realities” all suck massive mickey. Looking around at the rake of new books on the future of corporatism, apparently the plan is to turn goods into idols and the market into some sort of god. Advertising is being recast in ecclesiastical terms as "evangelism" and the corporation as an ecumenical organization. The next step after conferring "personality" on the corporation is its "ensouling" - a logical evolution of the concept of the corporation as an entity. “In an irreligious world, brands provide us with beliefs. They define who we are and signal our affiliations. The next big thing in brands is social responsibility”, said some corporate wacko whore in The Economist. There you have it.

BND people *might* argue that there’s nothing wrong with the availability of consumer goods per say, but rather it’s the extent to which they seek to attain the “total occupation of social life” and the impact that this is having that is the problem. As Guy Debord (raving wine guzzling situationist) wrote in Society Of The Spectacle in 1967 “Social space is invaded by a continuous superimposition of geological layers of commodities. Alienated consumption becomes for the masses a duty supplementary to alienated production.“ Or as Bruce Robinson (raving wine guzzling creator of Withnail And I and How To Get Ahead In Advertising) put it “The whole ambiance now is “Listen to that (top 40 muzak) on your fukking headphones day and night, come home and eat your Marks and Spencer’s chicken fukking tikka – there’s a luxury for you – and sit in front of Brookside (or your computer) til you die, PS with two weeks in some slob Thomas Cook Holiday. There it is, a fat-a$sed munching society with junk being shoved down it.”

For maximum efficiency, consumerism demands predictablity. Creative or innovative people are by definition unpredictable and therefore must be either co-opted or else be considered extraneous. Anyone who’s ever spent 5 minutes with muzak biz company scum will know what I mean. Why do people intuitively slag off manufactured boy bands and enthuse about (for example) Nirvana? Because they admire the spontaneity, freshness and sense of freedom Nirvana exuded. To expect any spontaneity or innovation from conveyor belt muppets like Ronan Keating or Limp Bizkit is a waste of fukking time. Why do U2 complain that they’re not considered “cool” except by people who’ve never heard rock music before, like the mulleted masses of the former eastern bloc countries? Because despite Bono’s pathetic pseudo revolutionary stance and his tiny leather jacket with the little red star on it, the people (demographic in marketing dept speak) he so desperately wants to impress, see the incredible marketing machine, the sheer calculated fukking massivity of it, driving the whole cynical laboured pompous stadium mock rock U2 brand and the considered reaction is.....“Twat.” Apologies to U2 fans.

Now, on to the assertion that 20% of the global population consume 80% of global resources- to put things in perspective, human beings comprise less than a thousandth of the nitrogen cycle, and play a part in roughly a millionth (5 millionths if you count global warming) of oxygen and dioxide byproduct cycling. Now that isn't a lot- the world bovine population contributes more.

Cows can’t drive cars. Not yet anyway. But with GM heading the way it is, there may come a time when they can drive themselves to the abattoir. Monkeys could do it I’m sure. Imagine losing your job to a monkey. It will happen!

Not to say that we shouldn't take the environment into consideration, this is where NGOs put pressure on governments to find a balance between productivity and sustainability of scarce natural resources.

This is an example of what some call the retreat from responsibility. Leave everything to pressure groups, NGOs, “experts”, anyone at all that will take care of doing awkward things like thinking or asking questions. Where was this support for the 250,000 individuals, members of NGO’s and pressure groups who showed up in Genoa and got beaten and gassed off the streets by robocops as per usual? The same 250,000 individuals, members of NGO’s and pressure groups that didn’t understand the issues at stake if I remember correctly.

The loss of the sense of personal responsibility from official culture was expressed by Thatcher's TINA principle. There Is No Alternative. Any sense of personal responsibility becomes futile; an antiquated concept which has no place in the “practical economic realities” of global capitalism. It’s part of the trend towards a self-obsessed culture of narcissism where instant personal gratification over-rides all other considerations. The human condition in the post-modern (post-liberal, post-national, post-rational, post-whatever) western world can be described as one of severe disorientation, even more so since Sept 11th. Disillusionment with the democratic political process, exemplified by the growth of the anti-globalization (pro-democratic, internationalist, whatever it’s called now) movement and record low turnouts in the Nice Treaty referendum and British general election, as well as the evaporation of the church’s influence on society, signify a time of cultural and political alienation and stagnation. Traditional left/right/centre shades of politics no longer provide any sure guide to political thinking. The reaction to ceaseless spin (as exercised by the phony Tony Blair government in Britain for example) has been irony and cynicism. We are living in cynicism so to speak.

The whole myth of Oedipus dealt with the relationship between personal responsibility and fate. Nietzsche also re-raised the issue with his idea of Eternal Recurrence and its relationship with the individual will. But regardless of how the relationship between necessity and responsibility plays out, Oedipus and Nietzsche would seem to concur that full human potential can never be reached without acting *as if* we were personally responsible for it. It's that *as if* which separates noble from ignoble natures.

Ironically, this seems to be what neo-liberal capitalism shares with the propogators of Jihad. In neither are real human actors responsible. In the one, it’s market mechanisms and economic necessity, and in the other, it is the inexorable will of God. The exercise of personal responsibility becomes futile in both cases. What is human has no place in either.

If I were to buy products that I knew would cause long-term destruction of the social fabric in my nation, I certainly wouldn't protest to the guy selling said products. I would merely refuse to buy them.

But you couldn’t give a toss about trying to convince fellow citizens to do the same so your boycott, apart from making you feel better about yourself, would be futile. This whole don’t rock the boat attitude reminds me of Ibsen’s play An Enemy Of The People. Main protagonist discovers that the baths, the source of the town’s prosperity, are contaminated and have to be closed down for expensive repairs. For his honesty, he’s persecuted and ridiculed because “Considerations of expediency turn morality and justice upside down.”
In effect, the mechanism rules. If a mechanism is allowed to rule, personal responsibility is null and void. To be responsible means to be alert to the world around us, for whose health and well-being we feel personally responsible. With the atrophy of this sense of personal responsibility, even the desire to become conscious would atrophy as well. And certainly, democracy becomes meaningless too if the citizen loses all sense of personal responsibility for its future.

buynothingday ?

so what, we all buy nothing, and day after that ? we buy LOADSA stuff.

in fact, the day after buynothing could be the biggest sales coup ever. Image our pent up shopping hunger being forced into just one day, concatenating buynothing day and the day after into just one day.

its all a conspiricy !

Originally posted by DadaKopf
So why are you organising a Buy Nothing Day for Maynooth? It's great that you are, I doubt it will happen in my very own UCD - too many Fianna Fáilers and Commerce students!

As I said in my last post, so people will realise that they can actually go a day without buying things. Well, I sort of said that - as I made clear, I am not sleeping enough.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I'm afraid I don't quite agree with you. I don't think people can buy any of these things, it's just that they're told they can. That's part of the challenge of BND - to help people realise that you are who you are because of what you do not what you can buy.

If a person is told one concept, and that concept is drilled into them so much that they believe it, then for all intents and purposes it is real.

First, a few small points:

Cows can’t drive cars. Not yet anyway

Industrial output, automobile use and waste disposal are included in those statistics. They don't need to drive cars, they just outproduce us in harmful greenhouse gases by natural means. Spooky, huh? :P

You’re one step away from saying nig nogs can’t rule themselves.

Bullsh1t- I'm saying in simple terms, that if people leave themselves open to exploitation, if they in fact, invite such exploitation, then they're reaping what they sow. And I still stand by the argument that the western world has done a lot more on its part in waiving 3rd word debt, increasing untied aid, encouraging development programmes, than the 3rd world has done on its part to encourage sensible trade. As for corruption- there are levels, and levels, and levels of corruption Von. A nation like Nigeria is so riddled with corruption to the highest levels of office, that millions of people suffer. Can you prove to me that millions suffered for Berlusconi's transgressions, immoral as they are? We all have to live with a certain level of corruption in politics. But when corruption threatens the livelihood of three quarters of your population? This isn't uncommon in the third world, totalitarian leaderships devaluing their own currency markets for a quick buck on currency speculation, embezzling billions of dollars daily from government coffers- this isn't quite the level of corruption seen in the West, I'm sure you'll agree. There needs to be a balance Von- would you toss loose change to a homeless guy on the sidewalk? And if you did, would you expect that change to help him dig himself out of his situation? Development can't be a one-way street, globalization is an easy scapegoat for what is in actuality, a far more complex problem. There are other ludicrous arguments presented in Von's post, such as the claim that global income inequalities caused the First World War, and that economic depression and war are the inevitable outcomes of globalization- anyone who's read Steven Ambrose, Chomsky or Devine will know that there were sweeping political and economic reasons for both wars and for the depression...nowhere is globalization mentioned. I could go into further detail, but the ludicrosity of these comparisons is so self-evident, I won't bother.

Originally posted by Von:
In effect, the mechanism rules. If a mechanism is allowed to rule, personal responsibility is null and void. To be responsible means to be alert to the world around us, for whose health and well-being we feel personally responsible. With the atrophy of this sense of personal responsibility, even the desire to become conscious would atrophy as well. And certainly, democracy becomes meaningless too if the citizen loses all sense of personal responsibility for its future.

This is the beauty of democracy you see- if you don't like the current mechanism or system of rule, vote for a different one. TINA? What a crock...if there is no party that enshrines your views, go start one! Recruit other naifs to your cause, whatever floats your boat. That, is how legitimate political views are formed Von. Want to take to the streets and be tarred with the same brush as the violent thugs looking for satisfaction at the expense of peaceful protest? That's fine too, a democratic system allows for that.

Be prepared however, to lose a substantial amount of political credibility- people don't respond to placards and slogans, except perhaps with disdain, muttering "Don't those smelly unwashed hippies have something better to do?". That's not my opinion by any means, but the halls of public opinion and "plebiscinian" credibility are the imporatant issues that need to be tackled. Because that's where your battle will be won or lost Von- not on the streets of cities where global trade conferences take place, not on the back-alleys of capitals, and certainly not on a message board. If you are advocating what in your view is sensible change, then public opinion is not going to be swayed by a few thousand people taking to the streets. Certainly not when the case the protesters are making rarely affects their way of life. Personal responsibility on a global level is not something that wins votes, public support, or political credibility. Cynical perhaps, but also a practical view, though you might snub it as expedient. Nevertheless, it is the way of things, as they stand, like it or lump it.

As for consumerism, listening to "Top 40's muzak" and eating their crappy takeaway meals- who is forcing you to do any of these things? If you consider such actions shallow or devoid of character, then no one's pointing a fukking gun at your head. Distressed that other people exercise the right of choice? Tough sh*t. Live under the blanket of prosperity and question the manner in which it is achieved? Some might call it biting the hand that feeds you, but that's a bit too cynical, even for me :P Well go live on an island commune then, grow your own fruit & veg, and get away from those evil, insidious billboards that destroy our social fabric. Oh I'm sorry, you want the change the system, not live outside it...well then return to paragraph one, start a political party that perfectly enshrines your goals, and get on with it. Or join the next best thing to get you started. It's one thing to complain about the inadequacies, lack of moral principle and personal responsibility rife in the human condition- it's another to get off your a$s and do something about it. Waving a placard around? That's the easy part- want to get real change done? Go to the houses of parliament(if people will elect you) and stake your claim.

To be honest, you accuse me of not being a*sed to convince my fellow man- well I do, just by a means that is slow, sensible and democratic in nature. I've moved petitions, lobbied for the Wildlife Fund near my hometown, written letters to my senator, that is how sensible political change is affected. "The protests of a few shall not deplete the fruits of the many", as Thurow once said. If the majority of public opinion backed your arguments, then they would be politically achievable. Seeing as the methods the left uses to make itself heard are viewed with disdain or contempt by the vast majority of the general public, you might want to try electing a few officials to make your voice heard in the corridors of power. Otherwise this is just so much pompous nattering, isn't it? Message board warriors, placard-waving masses, but no legitimate political voice. Which strangely enough, is exactly what attracts a lot of people to the left, the idea that they can be a "rebel", "a social outcase, dude!", or just an old-fashioned "Viva la Revolucion" Che-Guevara logos emblazoned revolutionary. You know, suddenly, the legitimate elected processes don't seem all that bad, do they?

The UN? Bwahahaha. The UN is utterly impotent. International law? Get up the yard.

You're taking the f*cking p1ss right? I mean, forget the millions of children saved from malnutritive death by UNICEF, the millions of refugees settled then repatriated, the millions of lives saved by UN Peacekeepers. Oh, and the erradication of smallpox by the WHO and ECOSOC? That wasn't really an achievement was it? No, no. Or the guarantee of minimum birth weight across two thirds of Africa. None of these things are significant enough to bother with, the UN's just impotent...yeeees, that's it. Scoff at international law? You don't have a clue do you? How do you think every single international treaty is negotiated, every single European treaty of note, from Maastricht to the Treaty of Rome? My dad worked in international law for over 28 years, I suppose he was just wasting his time arguing for the human rights of ethnic minorities? Be cynical, go ahead, but get down off your cynical high horse first and look around. Learn about how your rights are safeguarded under international law, at every level, read a few books, understand the legislation, and the impact the European Court of Human Rights is having on every legal system across Europe. Then tell me it means nothing, not before.

In other words, the TINA argument means absolutely nothing- there is always an alternative, it's just that the intellectual left are too pampered, spoiled and lacking in political will to turn those ideals into reality by legitimate means. Living outside the system in an escapist manner is somehow more appealing, yet taking to the streets, trying to "live the revolution" is a lot less likely to succeed than actually thinking the practicalities through in a sensible manner, and getting across a political paradigm.

You can vote with your ballot-paper, a placard, or your feet, whatever floats your boat, our societies give you the freedom to do all three. But don't expect it to amount to significant change.


"The moral high ground is a lot easier to espouse when one is in a position of no importance whatsoever"

-Oscar Wilde

How...true :P

Occy

Moving out of topic? Why, that's what the boards were created for!

When I go to the bathroom, I am harassed by the fists that cry "One Solution... Revolution!", scrawled across the cubicle wall. I fail to see how this is the case. In fact, it's defeatist.

How can the idea of a revolution appeal to people? Do they realise that they are saying that their cause cannot be achieved by democratic means? And if they do realise this, why do they support it?

I think it's a cop-out. I believe that to for a person to support this viewpoint is for them to ignore their own social responsibilities.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
blah blah blah

Your prejudices are interesting. You choose not to mention corruption in say, former soviet bloc countries. Does Nigeria’s corruption have anything to do with Shell Oil and their domination of the economy? Let’s dig up Ken Saro Wiwa and ask him. People in third world countries leave themselves open to exploitation eh? Serves them right for “electing” gentlemen like Diem, Mobutu, Pinochet, Suharto, Savimbi, Marcos, Fujimori, Saddam, Salinas, and scores of others, none of whom were supported in any way whatsoever by western governments in order to further corporate interests and engender a “favourable” climate of investment.

I said globalization (plain old imperialism or colonialism it was called then) played a part in starting WW1. I know illiteracy is rife in America (According to a recent US government report, The State of Literacy in America, over 90 million US adults, nearly one out of two, are functionally illiterate or near illiterate) but try to read before replying or else don’t bother. Imperialism was about acquiring cheap sources of raw materials and labour as well as new markets for finished products. Corporate led globalization is about acquiring cheap sources of raw materials and labour as well as new markets for finished products. The problem is in trying to ensure economic globalization is “ethical” as the Belgian PM put it.

Unless you’ve been living in a 1950’s sit com for the last few years you’d realise that more and more people are not bothering to vote anymore. Why’s that then? What percentage of the electorate voted in the US presidential election? 50%? Even allowing for the level of illiteracy, why’s that then? Where’s the cynicism, disenfranchisement and apathy comng from? A while ago, I was talking to a conservative journalist who writes for business magazines who said Blair’s election victory was good news because it meant socialism was finally dead. There’s Thatcher’s TINA principle in operation.

Albert Einstein wrote an essay which might explain why many people are not bothering to vote and at the same time many others are organizing mass demonstrations, working at local level and attempting to draw attention to corporate abuses at home and abroad.

“Man’s position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, television). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.“

Einstein may have come out with some gibberish like the theory of relativity but he's spot on here.

I fail to see the point of quoting Wilde out of context. I assume you’re aware that he actually classed himself as an anarchist.

On the subject of BND, the real issue is not consumption itself but its patterns and effects.
How are the products and resources we consume actually produced?
What are the impacts of that process of production on the environment, society, on individuals?
What are the impacts of certain forms of consumption on the environment, on society, on individuals?
Which factors influence our choices of consumption?
Which factors influence how and why things are produced or not?
What is a necessity and what is a luxury?
How do demands on items affect the requirements placed upon the environment?
How do consumption habits change as societies change?
Businesses and advertising are major engines in promoting the consumption of products so that they may survive. How much of what we consume is influenced by their needs versus our needs?
Also influential is the very culture of today in many countries, as well as the media and the political institutions themselves.
What is the impact on poorer nations and people on the demands of the wealthier nations and people that are able to afford to consume more?
How do material values influence our relationships with other people? What impact does that have on our personal values?
And blah blah blah.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
The apathy mainly stems from an amalgamation of views across parties in many nations, especially Britain and the United States. We saw this at the last presidential election- the reason so many stayed at home is that both candidates had little to offer policy-wise that was substantiall different from his opponent.

In the British general election, the Tory campaign was based on xenophobia; keeping the pound, spouting meaningless soundbites like “common sense” and blaming refugees for everything, from foot and mouth disease to Radiohead’s Amnesiac album. Phony Tony and co campaigned on health, education and transport because spindoctors told him that’s what the proles wanted to hear. The Lib Dems and everyone else are still regarded as a wasted vote because of the ludicrous first past the post system. There are several sources of voter apathy in Britain. One could stem from the view that the trend of commercialising every facet of social life, in effect handing social and cultural control of the country over to anonymous shareholders, makes the whole democratic process a sham, and produces a stunted homogenized society which marginalizes and disenfrachizes those who can’t or won’t buy into it. Another could come from people who think they’re the centre of the universe and don’t care about anything except maybe getting slaughtered drunk every weekend. The introduction of PR in Britain might help and if Nader had got enough votes to get federal funding that might have helped in the US too.

I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I disagree that taking to the streets helps anything. Party reform and internal discussion are the meaningful ways forward, not marching up and down Capitol hill with a banner in both hands.

Whether you or I or anybody else likes it or not, movements for positive social progress have invariably been accompanied by a lot of ne’er-do-wells taking to the streets, from the chartists to the suffragettes to the civil rights movements in the US and Ireland to the situationist/student/worker movement of 1968. The present movement’s aims are not especially radical compared to any of those. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which sought to give corporations the same rights as national governments, was stopped by these people. Radicalism – in this case, public protest – is usually a prelude to social change of some sort. “We must overact our part in some measure, in order to produce any effect at all.” – essayist, William Hazlitt.

As I said before- if you feel there's no alternative, get off your ar$e and go and create one. There's no law against starting a party with meaningful policies, nor one to prevent you from petitioning for change within a party. If you want policy change, then campaign for it through legitimate political process. Unless you're lazy/filled with apathy of course. In which case, feel free to continue demonstrating and proclaiming "there is no alternative"

TINA is a phrase of Thatcher’s not some concoction by moaning lefties and it’s neo-liberalism’s guiding tenet. Bush sez either you’re with the McWorld military industrial complex (good) or you’re a terrorist (bad). That’s sub-neanderthal logic. Some alternative. The problem is not a shortage of political parties with good intentions. The Belgian prime minister, Mr.Verhofstadt asked me last week if he could include a letter I wrote to him on the subject of globalisation and violence at demonstrations in a book he’s publishing in time for the D14 summit in Brussels. The book is to be distributed to European leaders and the media, so contrary to “man in the pub” opinion, not all people in high places operate with tabloid headline mentality. I never said anywhere I took part in any demonstrations. Dunno where that came from. I know a few people involved at various levels all right and I’ve translated documents for the Italian white overalls group but I also know some people in our government and media and have worked with them. It’s all the same to me. You ought to get over the whole left/right thing and think beyond archaic dogma if you’re at all interested in developing an objective informed opinion instead of simply reinforcing your prejudices.

What's your point? He also classed himself as a Whig, a Tory and a liberal at various stages in his life...and his political viewpoint is irrelevant in the context of the quotation. The point he makes very astutely, is that it is very easy to occupy the moral high ground when you aren't in a position to take risks, make tough decisions, make mistakes, and being branded an idiot for making them.

I don’t want to invoke an F18 air strike by threatening the american monopoly on commenting on the lives of Irish writers, but Oscar Wilde, in spite of his affectations, posing and cucumber based jokes, lent his name to Shaw’s petition for the release of the Haymarket martyrs without hesitation and opposed locking up people for damaging property so his views would have much in common with some of today’s more extreme protesters. Of course his political viewpoint is relevant in this context. Instead of lazily co-opting people like Wilde (who like many artists was perceived as a threat to the establishment and subsequently destroyed) why not quote a writer with political views closer to your own? If any such writer exists. Like Malthus or someone, I dunno. About occupying the high moral ground: it’s those who condemn protesters in boring Daily Mailesque terms who occupy the high moral ground. Uncritical acquiescence to the view proffered by authority figures or the mass media is a demonstration of elitism. The propaganda of elitism operates in different ways but these ways are the way of all forms of prejudice. It makes a wide range of statements and won’t allow a challenge unless it be done on its own terms, and it continues to make such statements until eventually part of the foundation of the dogma comes to be accepted as a kind of ‘truth’: fat women have got hearts of gold, men with red hair lose their temper, catholics are inferior to protestants; jews are greedy, pakistanis are greedy; people on the dole are lazy; whites are superior to blacks; folk who go to university are born clever; foreigners are evil; strangers are dangerous; asylum seekers are lazy, greedy, inferior, evil, dangerous liars, and anyone who attends a political demonstration is a mindless middle-class hippy hoolithug.

“What is said by great employers of labor against agitators is unquestionably true. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so abundantly necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilization.” – Oscar Wilde

Whenever the left has had opportunities in power in the West, they've always squandered them because of a failure to make tough decisions that needed to be made to ensure stability. TINA is simply a form of apathy propagated by the left to make up for their own failings in power, pretty pathetic, really.

Look at the health, education and transport systems in Sweden, France or Germany and compare them to what the proles in allegedly wealthier countries like Britain and the US have to put up with. There’s no such thing as a waiting list in French national healthcare.

As for Einstein's essay, I agree in principle with some of what he says, especially the need to control how private capital affects mainstream political decisions. I reject his message however, that humanity is deteriorating because of the creation of economies of scale.

The Belgian PM is concerned about the rising levels of depression and stress related illnesses brought about by the effects of modern consumerist life and the fall in standards in areas like housing and food production apparently. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to attract people to work as public teachers and medical staff. The whole voluntary sector is in decline. Personal responsibility in general is in decline. In Dublin a couple of years ago I saw a woman on the other side of the street getting mugged by two thugs and even though she was screaming and struggling, about 6 people, men in suits it has to be said, must have walked straight by before a couple of lads went to her aid. If those people who walked straight by couldn’t be bothered to disrupt their dim-eyed walk to some overpriced twatty pub lunch to help someone being mugged, then it’s hardly likely that they can be expected to give a toss about anything else, least of all the effect of commodity fetishism on society.

As for the notion that capital wealth is entirely concentrated in the hands of a few individuals...so what?

Yeah dude, like, what’s so bad with living in a plutocracy anyhow, like? What’s so bad about a handful of individuals like, controlling the flow of all like, information? What’s so bad about government of the billionaires by like the billionaires for the like, billionaires? So what – the mantra of the button pushing junk munching terminally shallow generation of wassaaaappping automatons.

We call it supply and demand- if there is a demand for a good in the economy, then someone will supply it. People want, people have the choice to get. Sounds good to me.

How is demand created? That’s where the Black Arts of advertising, branding and marketing in league with the diabolical organs of corporate infotainment mass media come in, and batter the proles with repetition and pavlovian conditioning to exhaust their resistance until they capitulate and accept a message or product they initially defied and scorned.