I have a few basic clothes for work in black, grey and dark blue; all interchangeable, with one good jacket and a wrap in brown fleck, some scarves and blouses in white, beige or patterned fabric, often silk. I don't waste time or money worrying about clothes. If they start to look tacky I replace them or replacements come as gifts.
For gifts, friends and relatives know that I prefer an emailed card or pic (no paper; no storage), gym memberships, books, vouchers for books, petrol and the like, dvds, computer software, grocery treats, things to plant like fruit and nut trees and donations. Last Christmas one of my daughters bought gifts here and it was really exciting:

http://www.oxfamunwrapped.com.au/ViewContent.php?pageid=11

Good video too:
http://www.oxfamunwrapped.com.au/ViewContent.php?pageid=19

Some local people who cook, sew, knit and grow things appreciate a bit of extra income so I pay them to make or do things as gifts.

Just think about it - are there people that you like because of what they own? Did you ever like someone more because they drove up in a later model vehicle? I dislike or like people regardless of their possessions. If people think less of me because I don't cut a fine figure of consumerist devotion, I haven't lost anything - I doubt I would enjoy the company of people who evaluate others in those ways anyway.

I'm not socialist, capitalist, right, left, green or anything that can be categorized except as feminist and Christian. Maybe we need some new paradigms. I adopt values that make it possible for me to uphold efforts to do no harm. It's easier to destroy than to create, therefore life is precious. I treat all life respectably, if pragmatically. Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils. I do the best I can and I try to not have my needs or wants deprive anyone else of theirs.

I live well within my means with a bit to spare and share. Couldn't ask for more :D

Bron, Pelican and 'Zam - loved your posts. Wise perceptions Zam re: anti-capitalism isn't automatically socialism.

Very inspiring, Pynchme. Good for you! And I never even tweaked yours was a female perspective.
Your case is a rarity, I'd hazard, though I suspect a great many would love to follow your example if they could muster the courage, but that many more become thoroughly disillusioned with their materialistic lot without making the switch. Unfortunately, it generally takes quite a bit of life experience to make genuine life changes. Young people just enjoy the wonderful spread that our culture puts on, seemingly with no strings attached, for a time.
The other observation I'd make is that even this modest lifestyle choice you've made is comparative luxury, and indeed only available thanks to the largesse of our capitalist system.
But it does sound idyllic! :-)

We need to remember that there is little
basis for the common view that capitalism
and socialism represent "either/or"
alternatives, since neither system exists
in a pure form.

In practice there is a great variety in these
two kinds of economy, ranging from the most
capitalist societies such as the United States
and Canada, through intermediate societies,
such as Britain, Sweden, to the
most socialist societies, such as China.

There is, moreover, great variety in the political
systems that are associated with both capitalism
and socialism, for democratic and authoritarian
forms of government are found in each type of
economy.

For example, Sweden is socialist but democratic,
while Cuba is socialist but authoritarian;
Switzerland is capitalist and democratic, but
Chile is capitalist but authoritarain.

The concepts of "capitalism" and "socialism"
each represents merely an 'ideal type,'
an abstract description. One would have to
examine each individually to reveal their
essential features. Like anything each has its
pluses and its drawbacks.

Thanks Mitchell, I do often think of the vast number of people who will never in their lifetimes experience the comfort that I do in one night - bathed, well fed and with many hours of untroubled slumber ahead of me. Even the hope of having one night of safety and warmth must be a completely alien prospect to many of them. It makes any push for accumulating more than a person needs for basic comfort seem greedy and obscene doesn't it - and worse still when we accumulate as a result of exploiting impoverished people. I despise transnational companies btw. What do you all think should or can be done about them, if anything ?

Yes Romany I agree, as you and Examinator have described, there are many permutations of socio-political organization. Thank goodness for that hey.

I apologize btw if my previous posts parts 1 and 2 seemed a bit curt - it was a word length thing.

Col - I am not the first to have made this observation, but capitalism is predicated on the idea that the best and strongest competitors rise to the top. If capitalists actually applied that to their own favoured systems (by which they maintain control over the masses), then why did governments bail out the banks during the recent crisis? Those who were in a mire should have been allowed to sink, as the philosophy expects others to do who don't succeed for a range of largely circumstantial reasons.

r, why shouldn't the money have been used to pay off the mortgages - relieving the burden for ordinary wage earners and sorting out the debts the banks continue to pursue despite the bail out funds.

Anyway, have a lovely Sunday all:D

Foxy: "
"We need to remember that there is little
basis for the common view that capitalism
and socialism represent "either/or"
alternatives, since neither system exists
in a pure form."

You mean "democracy" and socialism I think?
Capitalism is the one manifest reality that governs all our lives, and in its global reach transcends domestic politics; the only differential is the local effect; some are rich, some are well off, and a great many are destitute. Capitalism will never, can never, bring equality--much less "equity", to observe Examinator's distinction--to the world.

I agree with you, however, about binaries.
In any case, socialism is a term so corrupted by propaganda (as well as evils perpetrated in its name) that it should be expunged (capitalism of course also perpetrates untold evils, but condemnation of a rival is always easier than self-examination, figuratively speaking).
Sweden's democratic socialism, or welfare capitalism, was an economic ploy designed to pre-emp bust and boom, and the dreaded Marxist dialectic. It's showing signs of failure, incidentally.

Houellebecq: <"I've long dreamed of your workplace flexibility. Actually if feminists could pull off workplace flexibility for men I think they'd be surprised at how it helps women. They work hard not smart those chicks">.

What an odd comment. My comment WAS for all workers. If men would like workplace flexibility, why haven't they tried for it ? The only fellas I've mentioned it to were indifferent about it. Perhaps men who can see the benefits of it would join with feminists in campaigning for it - that would be a hoot!

I have made a few tentative efforts in this direction; never had a positive response from any political party or union official. If I had more time I would really work hard on it but I'm sure there are people who know more about how these things work who could do it better. Belly is in the know about union biz isn't he? His opinion would be interesting.

Earlier you posted about the need for big biz; entrepreneurs and the associated taxes. I think that theory is referred to as the trickle-down effect. Clearly it isn't working. I think the problem might partly be that big companies (not small business - annoyingly) get tax breaks and favours... or ah 'incentives'; and people on high incomes employ accountants to minimize their tax contribution. I am not sure but I think the biggest tax burden is probably felt by low and middle income earners - like the 20,000 to 40,000 or so bracket.

Oh and Foxy my apologies - I called you Romany. Maybe a compliment anyway when you think about it; hope you didn't mind :)