Consumerism in America

After we discussed the rise of consumerism this past week in class I had to ask myself the question: is consumerism the end, or simply the means to an end? There was no debate in my mind whether the rise of consumerism was valid- one merely needs to walk down the street and observe their own behavior to be sure of that. As a society, we make snap judgments based on a person's clothes, car, home, community, etc. I won't speak on this kind of "social profiling" in this post, and I do not want to convey any negative connotations; just to say that consumerism is evident, that we as Americans divide ourselves by income bracket, and spend our money correspondingly. But is the goal of the average citizen to advance through those income brackets, to make enough money to move up the social ladder? I think in today's society, the answer is yes and no. Every person has the natural inclination to advance themselves in their lifetime, which I would say illustrates at least an unconscious desire of most people to work into a higher position in society. Furthermore, I have yet to meet the person who would turn down a promotion to maintain their position. These natural inclinations might persuade one to conclude that consumerism is an end, but I think that misrepresents the truth. While people may have these inclinations, I do not think that for most people attaining wealth for the purpose of demonstrating one's position in society is at the forefront of their thoughts. I do not think that it is a goal that is concentrated, focused on. Perhaps, as I stated before, there is an unconscious drive, but the fact that it is not a cognizant goal would suggest to me that it is not an end. I believe that our society is turning away from this sort of "social profiling" that fuels consumerism. No doubt, it exists stronger than ever in some circles, but for the majority of people this is a declining phenomenon. I believe in this day and age, people seek wealth for comfort and the ability to achieve other goals, whatever they may be, but that wealth is usually not a goal in and of itself. Granted, we also live in an extremely diverse society so this cannot possibly be true of all; but for most Americans, I believe this to hold truth.

The Problem of Communism

I would like to start this post out by saying that true utopic communism is indeed a noble goal, and that if I thought it were remotely possible for all people to consume as much as they produce and live together in utopic harmony and sing kumbayah,etc., I would be its biggest advocate. This kind of communism, however, is an impossibility for exactly the same reason men have aspired toward it: human nature. Human nature itself is a complicated beast that even the best philosophers have struggled to examine, so for this post let's just say that human being have the potential to act selflessly and nobly, but also have the potential for greed and selfishness. According to Karl Marx, communism is the eventuality of human progress, but it can only be achieved by the state first taking control of all property and business. Marx asserts (quite truly, I believe) that power rests in money, thus the bourgeoisie. They have the money; they buy machines; they control the industry-- they have the power. While the ultimate goal of communism would be for every person to have an equal share in society, there must first be the transition period. And therein lies the problem of communism: the entire philosophy- the morals, the economics- can only come to fruition if the state takes the side of benevolence and relinquishes control of everything back to the people. The success of years of bloodshed and strife (which will come if you try and take money from some to redistribute to all) all depends on a leader deciding that they don't want power any more. Why is this a bad thing? I'm not a natural cynic and do believe that people are inherently good, but there has not been a single example in history where those in power were willing to give up that privilege for the benefit of their people. The problem isn't the system, the problem is the transition, and, human nature. This is why communism can never work. Plus, we live in an age now where it is not justifiable to take money from others just because they have a lot of it, for many people have earned their money. They are not noble or living off a family inheritance--they are just smart and able. What right does a society have to determine some people have too much? That, I'm afraid, is a different topic for a different day.

As I was thinking of what to write for this entry, I couldn't help but keep coming back to the fact despite the fervor and bloodshed against the nobility during the French Revolution, Napoleon came to power a mere 10 years after 1789, an emperor created by the French people. There are plenty of reasons as to why this might be: the French were still unopposed to the idea of a monarchy, Napoleon was just that cool, etc. I would have to say, however, that the reason that sticks out the most to me is the utter failure to truly implement the notion that sovereignty rests with the people and other Enlightenment ideals. In fact, I would say that under Napoleon's reign the average French male enjoyed a higher level of liberty through legal protection than had been previously seen. To oversimplify, the French revolution was brought about by the unique timing of Enlightenment ideals being injected into a society that was facing famine, a poor economy and an inept and indifferent king. The idea that sovereignty rests with the people spread throughout the country as they revolted, and justified the people's actions. But what happened to that idea when The Committee for Public Safety came into power? There very people that had led the revolution against noble tyranny turned to fanaticism, and through their unnecessary bloodshed became tyrants themselves. One might also draw comparisons between the Committee and communist governments that came years after: "everyone is equal--at least when the people in power decide that everybody has started thinking the same a decide to relinquish power." The Committee enacted extremely harsh and nationalistic laws, censorship laws, and were in many ways much more suspicious of sedition than the previous monarchy, and as a result became the authoritarian government they had sought to destroy, all in the name of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité." In my opinion the only progress that was made was to create a blank slate, allowing the French to develop a new government in future years. I suppose the lesson to all of this is that change is only a good thing if it's taking the country in the right direction, and that the people of any country must be ever vigilant and suspicious, remembering that sovereignty rest within themselves.

John Locke and the Effects of the Enlightenment

Today I would like to write about the profound effect the Enlightenment has had on western civilization, in particular the ideas of John Locke. Today we here in America, and indeed citizens of many western nations enjoy what they consider inherent liberties every day. The freedom of speech, the freedom to own property, the freedom of economic responsibility and the freedom from harm as an individual. What many people do not realize, however, is that while we consider these "natural liberties," or rights that we are naturally born with, this has not always been so. In fact, over the course of history people for the most part considered there to be inherent classes among men- nobility over peasants, community over individual and educated over ignorant. This was society- until the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, whose biggest player in my opinion was John Locke, was a time that sought to dismantle the class system and emphasize the power of the individual. Philosophs, like Locke, were for the first time espousing that every individual was inherently equal and therefore equally free to pursue education or enterprise, or own property. These radical theories galvanized Europe and the Americas, leading to the American Revolution and, not long after, the French Revolution. These enlightenment ideas based on the ability of each individual literally laid the cornerstone for the American Constitution and thus the country that we live in today. These ideas of the inherent rights of the individual over the collective, regardless of economic or social class, are what have advanced the United State throughout it's history as one of the moral leaders of the world. It is truly amazing to think that the ideas that pervade our society were once penned by men who dared to know in a time when that very act could have cost them their lives. So I say that we too, as a society, must continue to dare and assert our rights as individuals, even at the cost of sacrifice.