Bronwyn, Pynchme, Houellebecq,

I agree with your sentiments about localized production and commerce, and about organizing things within community clusters. This was how things operated not so long ago - seems consumerism has run away with us all. The recent popularity of local markets, I believe , is one indication that people crave the informality and personal connection of that sort of community interaction.
I grow a bit of veg and keep a few chickens - as do my friends. We all found that a sort of organic cooperation sprang up between us, so that when we planted we took into account what other friends had planted so that we tended not to overlap too much, therefore allowing us to supply each other with the things we grew less of. We all give each other our produce with no money changing hands - quite refreshing and a good way to experience giving while also receiving something in return.
On Houellebecq's point about having to throw things away all the time - I remember watching a program a few years ago about how Cuba managed to cope with the embargo. There was a whole industry that repaired things like barber's clippers, industrial tools, etc. Because the original tools and machines were of such good quality, they were able to keep them operating by doing good quality repairs.

I have to admit that my lifestyle's anything but green (though it's not profligate), and the four women in my life (wife and three daughters) are shopping maul chicks. I have high hopes for a particularly smart son, though, who's very keen on conservatism.
I asked my wife this morning after reading your post, Pynchme, how she'd like the kind of life you outlined. She was non-committal, but non-plussed I think.
We are creatures of this time and reality, and incapable of meaningful change, en masse. But, like skin, a culture's population renews itself every generation, each new generation is acclimatised to its reality, and very different to the one that preceded it. We're all doomed to become dinosaurs before we die--if we live long enough--and the notion of a culture's longevity is an illusion.
In a sense Col,s right about individualism (though his condemnation of what he calls collectivism is a simplistic old cliche directed at socialism), though not his elitist version. The only consolation for our cultural entrapment is to live individualistically--become eccentrics, though even so we remain, thereby, products of our time. Certainly a better option than the treadmill!
Sorry to be a damp squib, Bronwyn et al. Though capitalism accommodates a great deal to keep the wheels turning, we shouldn't mistake internal tolerances, or slippage, for a change of course; it's just another manifestation of fashion, rather than radicalism.

Just re-read your last post, Bronwyn, and we say essentially the same thing, I think--only you said it first :-)

Examinator: "BTW I'm not advocating we go back to the 60s but there is a figure in between then and the obscenity now".

I was born in 1960 and was one of the last of the ten pound Poms arriving in 1970.
Once we got out of the hostel, we furnished our house mainly from the tip, right down to floor coverings! And growing up I recall nothing ever being thrown out if it could be re-used. And yet now I discard and renew as readily as anyone--mainly because it's cheaper than repairs, or the old item is already obsolete. My superego--moulded by my post-war parents who went through the rigours of rationing--gives me a hard time, but s/he makes no material difference (isn't education grand--I see through my conscience!). Now the emerging generations know nothing of this; my eldest daughter (13) has friends who refuse to eat the pointy end of a Cornetto because it's "
"cheap chocolate". Moreover they discard their entire wardrobe every twelve months, often with the labels still attached (my daughter doesn't--in fact she gets their hand-me-downs). Everything's relative; should capitalism avoid the cliff, its futuristic denizens will no doubt deem our lifestyles barbarous.
To drag us back on topic, and hopefully entice the feminists out of the beauty parlours; are today's women in fact showing men what real decadence looks like?

I think conservation is impossible. Unless you want to read a scientific study on every choice you make, you'll never win.

How does the damage of wasted water and polluting the ocean with detergents to wash dishes compare with logging trees for paper cups and the oil for plastic containers. Then what about the cost of mass transport of the food to the local Coles vs the use of your Car to drive to the markets much farther away. The cost to the environment of running your fridge vs the cost of more trips to the shops.

If you weighed up every decision like that you'd go insane.

On the consumer level, it's probably cheaper to re-buy a product with a 1 year life span 10 times than buy the quality one that's *supposed* to last 10 years. I don't think the average person can fight that, and I don't think they want to anyway.

Shopping has become a leisure activity. I hate shopping myself and I buy all the clothes I need in one go at 3 year intervals, but my partner is constantly buying clothes. She admits she just likes the act of buying something and it gives her a warm fuzzy feeling. I don't think she's alone. I also think women are more likely to be like that. It might be a nesting instinct. But notice in the average shopping mall, 75% of the floor space is filled with stuff for women.

In that way, women are by far the major force behind materialist culture. Even Bunnings is really about men wanting to please their wives (And get some peace away from them as I said). The 'outside-room' that now has to be adorned in the same spirit as those curtains and cushions and cupboards full of linen that you'll never find in a bachelors house.

Men are by far the more likely to be buying tech gadgets of course, but as I said the shops are 75% full of stuff for women.

Hey Houlle good to see you back in your OLO saddle and riding flank

Thankyou for your words of appreciation too…

It pleases me to rate as a favoured poster.

Doubtless not all here share your enthusiasm for my view (recalling how the little leftie, RobP wrote he wished I would contract cancer… and then, like a whoosie, complained about my supposed flaming and had me banned).

Mitchell/Squeers "that our current system is bad… Capitalism is exploitative and rapacious, and can never attain to [even relative] equality [for the global consumer base] within its closed global precincts; boom and bust, devastation of the planet, and ultimately total collapse, is written in[to] capitalism's DNA".”
“I still think global capitalism has to go the course--that is over the cliff.”

Regardless all the wringing of hands, renting of clothing and demonstrable anguish by the collectivist non-achievers, who feel they cannot accept the practical dynamics of a capitalist market economy

It just Ain't gonna happen

Re all the “left wing collectivist values” being so “important” that we cannot live without them,

If that were true, the “selfish individuals of capitalism” would have already died out and left the whole world to the collectivists.

I suggest the left go build their nirvana in some other spot on the earth,

maybe at the edge of the Aral Sea,

oh maybe not,

the government experts of the socialist utopia of USSR turned it into a desert… (so maybe they should wander the desert, like the Jews of old)

Leaving the capitalists, who prefer to coexist and respect their inherent, undeniable, unchangeable and unequal differences to get on with living and procreating and being happy.

If the politics of the left were so right, why did the decadent USA and western democracies not collapse under the acclaimed and supposedly undeniable “superiority” of “Soviet socialism”?

Hey Houlle

I have a new banner to accompany “Socialism by Stealth”

“Capitalism, you know it makes sense and you get to stay free”

And I just love your last post…..

ahhh three cheers for “consumer choice”

H: <"How does this anti-materialist lifestyle work? How far do you go in defining a want over a need?">

Just got sick of owning objects; opened the house to anyone who wanted something to come and get it. If I hadn't seen or used something for a year it went regardless of monetary value. A few favourite things like books and computers in use remained but everything else went: modular lounge suites, extra beds, desks, linen, crockery, cookware, electrical goods, TV, laptop and computers not in daily use, clothes, late model executive vehicle, shelves, tables, ornaments. Then moved to a cottage. It was exhilarating. Not because of the altruistic aspects, I have to admit - but the release of responsibility for carting and storing a lot of things that were often not even seen for months.

Although I understand what you mean, the emphasis isn't on differentiating a want from a need but on being non-acquisitive and on what I put in rather than what I get out.

As a non-gardener even I can manage to grow some tomatoes and cucumbers in a garden about the size of a table top. Things on vines are easy. I don't have much time for all of that so I pay others to do garden jobs - sharing the income around whenever an opportunity arises. Although I value frugality and it's a side benefit, it isn't the main objective. I've always earned a solid income. I didn't do all of this because I had to but because I wanted to.

I bought a little Gemini about 15 years ago; I think it would be near 30 year old by now. It's brilliant and I've traveled thousands of miles in it. The engine is small and easy to work on. It goes forever on a small amount of fuel. I do have a penchant for nice grooming, lacy gear and perfume but vanity is not a weakness. I buy a few cosmetics but none animal tested. I love shoes but two pair and some gym shoes suffice.

cont'd