Even though we often think of "conspicuous consumption" as a post World War Two phenomenon, it has existed for centuries. Socialists want it killed and capitalists want it unchecked. Who has the right end of the issue?
Here is a question for you. When is enough enough? And who should quantify that arbitrary abstraction?
We can't pick-up our phones without being harangued by the evils of capitalism. Whether its a telemarketing call; a direct message or text; an editorial from a blog writer in Puerto Rico; or a rabid student on a college campus somewhere, thrusting a "Feel the Bern" pamphlet into our polite (but unwelcoming) hands-- consumerism has once again bobbed to the surface of our sea of societal discontent.
Even before the economy hit an iceberg called corona, the prevailing cries from the left in general (and Greens in particular) have been that consumerism is nothing short of societal homicide, and we (as consumers) all have blood splattered on our big screen televisions and SUV's.
Of course, this is not a new rant. During the Nineteen-Forties it prevailed as an undercurrent in screen plays. Social reformers decried it during the Gilded Age. We fought a revolution against Great Britain in no small part because many of our founding fathers (Jefferson in particular comes to mind) were up to their eyeballs in British debt for consumer goods they bought to keep up with the Jones-es. Columbus crossed the Atlantic for the Orient and hit the Americas, all while looking for a faster route to augment the supply of consumer goods, made tantalizing "must-haves" by that master advertiser-- Marco Polo. Greenland (which was anything but "green") was the product of a real estate scheme. And so it goes; on and on.
I like capitalism, but I have to admit-- the left does bring up some very good points. Do we really need destination weddings in Tonga or a television the size of a 1960 era guest room?
Of course the tension between "need" and "want" is a primal as consumerism itself. Capitalism makes money by fabricating needs out of wants; whereas collectivism attempts to reverse the process by stigmatizing wants in favor of defining collective needs. Of course this never works out as intended. When people who want something are denied it, they merely get it from someplace else. Want converted to need becomes a market-- and no amount of social engineering will ever reverse that simple fact.
So how do we balance consumerism with the simple reality that replacing something because its three seconds newer rather than it no longer works is unsustainable. (Yes. I used that horrid word. "Unsustainable.") The reality is you can't. But you can try to remind the younger generations that self-worth is not tied to material ostentation; fads are not life-or-death consequences; and to judge someone by their cell phone and sneakers is just plain-- well-- silly.
Let's not make everyone have to wear gray overalls and sandals to save the planet. Let's not make a world free of gasoline and fuel oil; automobiles and air travel a statutory dictate. Let's just try to keep everything in perspective and remember five-hundred years ago, the cinnamon you just bought at the Dollar Store last week was a luxury good so ostentatious that it was worthy of fighting wars over.
No one has the right to dictate markets other than the consumers. So if you want to keep a free-market economy-- I suggest using some discretion in exercising your rights to consume. Otherwise you may find yourself waiting in line for six-hours at the government commissary just to buy that precious bottle of cinnamon.
Comments