Buy Junk or Starve!
Culture, Economics — Posted by Thomas Storck on January 10, 2011 4:36 AMThe human race obviously needs external goods merely to survive.
And to live a life in accord with our human dignity we need more than simply the bare necessities that survival requires. But I suppose that few will deny that we often produce things that are neither necessary for survival nor that really enhance human life. One need simply wander through a shopping mall to conclude that many of the products of human industry are really just junk. But it is this junk, together with the more necessary and worthwhile things that we produce, that keeps our consumer economy going. If Americans stopped buying more than was strictly necessary or genuinely desirable, then where would we be? The current recession has been portrayed as a crisis of demand, that is, ordinary people are not receiving enough income to purchase all that industry could produce. Hence unemployment, lower demand, and then more unemployment and still lower demand as the economy continues to shrink. Therefore the way to rekindle the economy is to stimulate demand. This can be done most directly by putting people to work so that their incomes will buy the products and services they and others can produce or provide. But wait—what products are we talking about? About necessary or useful products or about junk? I am far from denying that right now many go without useful or even necessary goods or services. This is a crime and scandal in a country as rich as ours. But much of the drop in spending is for things such as bigger or fancier electronic gadgets that I would contend are neither necessary nor really useful, but upon the sale of which our economy is based.
Now I am sure that this assertion will provoke a howl from some. After all, who am I to decide what is good for others? Well, I am less interested in convincing readers that any particular item is useless or junk than I am in convincing them of the fact that such junk does exist and that it is neither necessary nor good for us.
Although one should hardly be unduly restrictive about this, still we can assert that there is some rough amount of goods and services which the human race either absolutely needs or truly benefits from. Beyond that we have unnecessary things or often just plain junk. If mankind could produce all the goods and services that are necessary or helpful to us by working just two hours a day (say), why should we work more than those two hours? The time would be better spent with our families, in relaxation and in that most neglected of activities, the worship of God. In such circumstances it would be silly to claim there was a crisis of underemployment and that we should all work eight hours so we would have enough money to buy these extra and unnecessary products that were produced during those extra hours of work.
But that is exactly what we try to do now. Keep the factories humming, we are told, never mind what they are making. But the earth, which God gave us for our home, does not have enough storage space in which we can put all the castoffs of the things we make, including toxic wastes and chemicals. Of course we have to arrange things so that everyone can produce or earn enough to purchase what he needs and what really will enhance his life. But beyond that we can rest from our labors. If our economy depends on consumers buying things they don’t need, things which will hurt our own souls and often will harm our physical environment, then something is radically wrong with our economy. And something is wrong with it. Capitalism.
Capitalism, the separation of ownership from work, while not inherently evil—in theory there could be a just and reasonable Capitalism—has always operated such that the purpose of the economy is more or less forgotten. Each capitalist is interested in making and selling. That is the purpose of production, sales. Whether the product is actually useful to human beings is secondary. That is why advertising is necessary to persuade us we have a need that otherwise we might not have noticed. In fact the entire capitalist apparatus of advertising creates imaginary needs filled by largely useless goods, and when the demand for these goods falters because of lack of consumer buying power, then the whole economy goes into recession. As the late Fr. John Hardon. S.J. put it, “We live in the age of advertising, when the economy of whole nations depends on making products appealing no matter what their real value or utility may be.” (Spiritual Life in the Modern World, p. 38) But we are not prisoners of this system. There is a better way if we choose to embrace it.
That better way is Distributism. With Distributism most workers will also be owners, either owners of small businesses, farms or workshops, or joint owners of the larger enterprises at which they work. As such, they will not simply be interested in sales, because they will be first producers, people who identify as the maker of a product, who will tend to take pride in something well-made and useful. Production will thus tend to be seen as rationally related to mankind’s need for goods, not to the ability to convince others to buy something, regardless of whether it is necessary or useful, or useless and perhaps even harmful. No discussion of economics that does not start from the obvious and inherent purpose of the economy as a whole—the supplying of necessary and useful goods to humanity—can be a realistic or intelligent account of man’s economic activity.
So yes, the current recession is at bottom a crisis of demand. But no genuine and lasting solution will be found simply by stimulating demand so that we can produce more and more junk, even if everyone has the income to fill his house with junk twice over. This is an insane way to live. Rather we need to remember that we engage in productive activites not for their own sake, or to hoodwink someone to buy whatever it is we make, but to supply our own and our fellow men’s needs, so that we can then devote our lives and our time to what is more important than mere production. Any notion of economics that does not recognize this is just hot air.
Digg It
Bookmark
Stumble
10 Comments
To me the beauty of the Catholic view is the fact that the truth in which it partakes can only be spoken of by means of paradox.
Thank you for your article Mr. Stock, and I look forward to reading here sometime the complementary viewpoint that it is the nonessentials in which human joy consists. Are wine, music, and novels necessary to man’s survival? No, but they are so clearly not junk, and they maintain so prominent a place in our happiness (though not its source) that great minds and great men like Chesterton and Belloc regularly rejoice in these superfluities.
The opposite of and antidote to consumerism is neither puritan sumptuary laws nor an “earth first” personal or nation policy, but a right view of art. Art is not artifice or artfulness which amount to deception and technique, but those raw materials which man’s skill and will have made better than they were before – the crystal goblet and also the wine.
Zachary,
I don’t think my article requires a “complementary viewpoint” along the lines you suggest, since I specifically include the things that enhance human life and which are not strictly necessary for our survival.
I am new to all of this Distributism stuff but the more I read, the more attracted I am to it.
Thanks for providing a refreshing and thought-provoking alternative to the mainstream duopoly of liberal-capitalist right and social-liberal left.
As for this article I wholeheartedly agree that we spend too much time, energy and money on producing and consuming junk– where I live in Poland there are lots of giant video screens blasting out adverts 24/7, causing a lot of visual pollution. At the same time, the dangerously uneven pavement leading to the supermarket is almost completely unlit, making it a potentially neck-breaking walk to the shop after dark (eg: Any time after 3.30pm in a Polish winter)
I didn’t think the author was referring to the luxury items you mentioned, but some clarification wouldn’t hurt. I was thinking automatically of the horrific superabundance of toys in my kids’ bedrooms (and in the family room downstairs). It’s amazing how many toys they’ve gotten since birth and how few have made their way to the donation box (I’ve been too soft in that regard; they say, “But I still like that!” so I decide to store it rather than drop it off at the nearest donation center).
We also have shelves upon shelves full of books that my husband and I have accumulated (some for home school, scads of kid’s books, and plenty just for reading for enjoyment or for research). If we ever have to move, that’s probably when we’d be hard-nosed about donating at least half of what we own just to make moving less arduous. The last time we rented a large moving truck, we ended up altering the back end of one of our neighbor’s cars. Never again.
What I’d very much like to know, also, is how we might transition from our current economy to a Distributist economy. What might we do – on a small scale and on bigger ones – to move in that direction? Mr. Storck or other authors on this blog (which I’ve come to appreciate) may have already answered that question, at least in part. I’ll take a peek in the archives. No guarantees that I’ll do everything suggested, though. I’m not the only decision maker in the family.
All this stuff is like quicksand. It takes hold, and rather than purge the house of it, I find that we and other well-meaning folks (family and friends) are continually adding to it. Now, if we could just add beer to the fridge . . . but that has been lately added to our list of “unaffordable luxuries.” Truly enjoyable superfluities are being erased as a consequence of spending money on stuff we enjoy far less. Maybe that’s what Mr. Storck meant.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t sufficiently clear to readers that I’m not attacking such eminently human things (even if not strictly speaking necessities) as wine, beer, musical instruments, books, etc. These are the things I meant when I said “we need more than simply the bare necessities that survival requires.” It is impossible to lay down strict rules for this, I think, but traditional Catholic life in countries of Catholic culture can give us a rough idea of what truly enhances and humanizes our lives as opposed to what is harmful and often just junk.
Mr. Storck (sorry for the typo earlier),
I apologize for being unclear in my earlier comment. It wasn’t at all my goal to imply there was a deficiency in anything you were saying. I only wanted to clarify for other readers who might see in an opposition to consumerism the sort of bad theology/economics that leads to, in some extreme cases, a puritanical hatred of the beauty of the physical world.
Any articulation of truth, as Bl. John Henry Newman would say, falls short on account of the sheer depth and interconnectedness of the whole. I only wanted to express my joy in finding a blog like this where it is that whole that matters and not the limited views that lie in the modern view of truth in extremes (Capitalism vs. Socialism, Republican vs. Democrat, Christian vs. Atheist).
Sorry for writing quickly and not making my tone more clear. I’ll be reading through your archives during lunches this week!
Thanks for great and wise article, Mr. Storck. I think that, even being something subjetive, you left sufficiently clear the limit between needed things and junk when you told about the hours of work in a day: Would you work 4 hours per day to have good food, clother, beer, etc? Probably everybody will say “yes”; would you work 3 hours more every day to have a plasma tv, two mobile phones (for the boss to call you) and a portable computer (to continue working at home)? Probably many people will say “no”. The problem is that we don´t see this because it´s abstracted by “money”. Money, having no value itself, is something that corrupts the poor human souls so easily and everybody wants as much as possible even not knowing exactly what to buy with it.
Well put, Alfonso.
Your view of work seems to be that it’s a necessary evil to be reduced to the absolute minimum so one can use one’s time to – do what? Meditate and pray? If I enjoy what I’m doing I should do that as many hours as possible, not to buy a third big screen TV but to maximize my joy in life. The money is often disconnected from the work. The need to work productively is innately human aside from consumerism. To cut down on enjoyable and fulfilling work hours to conform to some artificial dogma about making only the minimum money necessary to survive is crabbed and self-denying, the opposite of a true Christian attitude toward work. And if one doesn’t enjoy one’s work, one needs another job.
Actually, the point is that leisure time (that time during which you don’t have to work to provide for the basic needs of everyday living) is the time during which you should be able to do what you want. It is time during which you can meditate, pray or work if that is what you WANT. Unfortunately, our current mode of operation is that many have almost no leisure time. I am fortunate enough not to have to work multiple jobs just to make the payments required for food and debt, but I know many (and have heard of many others) who do not. I have met families where, not only do man and woman both work two low-paying jobs because they cannot get better, but they don’t get married so that the woman can qualify for better hand-outs from the government to help pay for their children.