Consumerism V Sharing
- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The so-called “sharing economy” that allow people to rent, borrow, lend, swap and share products rather than buying new ones will never replace purchase capitalism because people are culturally programmed to amass as many possessions as possible, says a new report by Nottingham Trent University.
But according to co-researcher Professor Tim Cooper blamed manufacturers for opting to build disposable products – rather than long-lasting alternatives which could be rented or shared by many different customers. He dismisses the notion that people are just fundamentally too selfish to conserve resources, however.“A lot of people want to do the right thing but they are struggling because the systems and culture aren’t right.
Just read the same article in this weekend's i paper. I read it as saying that within capitalism such schemes will never be mainstream, but isn't this was what we say? It could have some relevance to the idea Robbo has revived on the SPGB Communications thread about encouraging such schemes as bits of pre-socialism within capitalism. Having said that, that doesn't mean we should reject or denounce them (after all, they are one way of trying to survive under capitalism), just criticise extravagant claims made about them.
The research doesn't actually say people are incapable of sharing but it's being proposed at the wrong time and the wrong place to be effective as an alternative. Going back to my teens i remember the Dutch hippies started the white bike movement…free access to bicycles left around the city…Seemed quite a success as many city authorities took up the scheme in various forms…When similar was tried in Edinburgh, the bikes quickly disappeared for good, requisitioned so to speak by the needy…(that really should read neds) …These days with swipe cards that release padlocks the idea has taken on a new impetus in various localities…Similar has been tried with cars but not sure if they have been successful. I do think in sociaism sharing and borrowing for occasional use will be popular…Plenty of current business are going concerns with tool hire…
I'm sure that such sharing schemes will flourish in socialism. As Zeitgeist (whatever happened to them?) pointed out in their activists' guide:
Quote:People claim “ownership” because it is a legal form of protection. In a system of abundance, without the need for money, the idea of ownership becomes irrelevant. In this new system no one owns anything. Instead, everyone has unrestricted access to everything. Ownership is a massive burden. No longer will a person need to live in one place. One could travel the world constantly. Anything needed is obtained, without restriction. There is no reason for abuse for there is nothing to gain. You can’t steal things that no one owns and you certainly couldn’t sell them. Household items are obtained through central distribution in the cities, while recreational items are available on call or near the location of their use. For example, if you go to a golf course you would select, on site, your clubs from the most effectively designed models available. You use them, and then you return them. If you decide to keep the clubs, go ahead – that is your burden… for why would a person want to transport, maintain and store golf clubs, when they can always have access to them and then return them onsite? Our homes today are full of junk that we hold onto because of the supposed value they maintain. This waste will no longer be needed. In this model, the city complex or, in fact, the entire world, is really your home. Instead of having extraneous items like recreational equipment and vehicles sitting about your physical house, collecting dust when they are not in use, they are stored centrally for everyone’s free access, with products being utilized actively, minimizing redundant waste. If you require an automobile for whatever reason, the car is made available for you. When you get to your destination, the satellite based driving system will automatically make the car available for others to use, as opposed to sitting in some parking lot wasting space and time. In society today, the need for property results in extreme product overlap and redundant waste. There is no reason for every person to “own” a car. Most only drive them for an hour a day. It is much more intelligent to create a universal shared system, for it dramatically reduces waste, redundancy and increases space and efficiency.I posted this (link below) on the blog a couple of days ago, showing how capitalism distorts any attempts at sharing. There always has to be a business opportunity waiting in the wings.http://www.socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com.tr/2015/06/capitalising-on-sharing-economy.html
ALB wrote:Just read the same article in this weekend's i paper. I read it as saying that within capitalism such schemes will never be mainstream, but isn't this was what we say? It could have some relevance to the idea Robbo has revived on the SPGB Communications thread about encouraging such schemes as bits of pre-socialism within capitalism. Having said that, that doesn't mean we should reject or denounce them (after all, they are one way of trying to survive under capitalism), just criticise extravagant claims made about them.I think the point is that these kinds of developments – like the sharing economy – that, in a way, transcend or go beyond the market relationship, provide a means by which we can begin to address that most daunting of problems – what are we to do in the meantime. If we are honest with ourselves the reaction of 99% people to the idea of a socialist society – even if they like the idea – is to consign it to some distant future, if at all. It is because they think of it as a very long term future that they dont feel motivated to bring it about. There is in other words a gap – or hiatus – between people's short term perspective and their view of socialism as a long term goal. Unless you have some kind of feasible transitional strategy you will never will bridge this gap and socialism will remain forever stranded on the other side , a tantalising will o' the wisp never to be realised and for that reason never likely to motivate workers in sufficient numbers to do something about bringing socialism a little closer. Its a vicious circle.With all due respect to Adam I dont think its enough to say we shouldn't reject or denounce such developments. I would rather say that these are developments to be welcomed and encouraged. Yes they are one way of trying to survive under capitalism. So too is workers joining trade unions, And does not the Party encourage workers to join trade unions? Specifically in relation to the sharing economy I would say it provides a kind of organic or homologous connection between the present and a potential socialist future. That is important because it is through praxis not just abstract propaganda – important though the latter is – that workers are likely to gain the necessary confidence and self belief to change society
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.