[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I must agree with those whose opinion is that capitalism has created the
>perceived "need" of many, many extravagant and extraneous material (as well as
>service) objects. As to H. Ellis' experience in socialist countries where
>citizens yearned for VCRs and microwaves. . .who do you think introduced this
>"need" to them? Capitalistic societies such as our very own America. ...We
>need to look at who has been responsible for instigating the consumerist
>values (as people have already posted on the list). Give up? Okay: white,
>upper-class males. Yes, in non-capitalistic countries as well, but in nearly
>every case, *we* have forced so-called third world countries into a position
>where they must exploit their resources in order to survive. Maybe they
>wouldn't have air pollution if we hadn't told them cars were great.
The problem with blaming capitalism for creating needs is that there is no way
to objectively draw the line between needs and *mere* wants. Do I need a
computer? Only if I want to do my job efficiently. I could live without it.
Do I need an automobile? Only if I want to live more than walking distance
from my job, and occasionally go somewhere else. Do I need books? Only if I
want to know something. If we are talking about mere survival, than needs are
few. I don't even need a clean environment or much biodiversity. Just enough
to get by. I don't even need to be concerned about the survival of humanity,
so long as I survive as long as possible. But if we are talking about a good
life, then the concept of needs expands. It begins to include education; not
just food, but good food; a safe neighborhood; antibiotics; insurance; and
many other things. Do we need a new VCR? If it makes one's life better, than
yes, we do. I have two in my house, so that my children can watch something
while I watch something else. They become less subject to my tyranny, and
vice-versa. So the additional VCR becomes a vehicle for one of humanity's
greatest needs, freedom. This is not as trivial as it sounds, as anyone with
children or roommates knows.
White men don't deserve blame for showing the world that life can be more than
subsistence. In so far as they are responsible for modernity, they deserve
credit. But I believe that the modern world is a collective effort. People of
all races and both genders have contributed to advancement. It is very
convenient to trumpet the achievements of people of color and women to show how
talented they are and then deny those same contributions when we feel like
lambasting white men for creating the world as we know it.
Third worlders are not children. They see what the west has created, and they
want it. No one is forcing them to adopt western values and western
materialism. The trick is to find balance between materialism, preserving the
environment, and spiritualism. Hungry and bored people in a pristine
environment are still hungry and bored.
What is capitalism anyway? It is merely the notion that individuals should be
entitled to keep what they have produced (property) and should be allowed to
enter into voluntary transactions to buy and sell what they have, including
their labor. The alternative is tyranny of one sort or another. Why would we
want to adopt a system that offers less freedom and less productivity? What is
to be gained? It is empirically obvious that only countries that are
democratic and productive can afford to care about the environment.
