|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Did someone mean something other than what they wrote?
"Anti-corporate activism often has parallels with environmental activism and anti-globalization, and sometimes animal-rights activism, in their condemnation of the practices of modern organizations such as the McDonald's Corporation (see McLibel). There is also significant overlap between anti-consumerism and anti-globalization."
Since this is not an article on anti-corporate activism, which is defined as being distinct from anti-consumerism only one paragraph before the one quoted above, what does the first sentence in the paragraph above have to do with anti-consumerism? It doesn't mention anti-consumerism even *once*, instead talking about anti-corporate activism, a seperate subject.
I'm going to remove the sentence, and if the original author wants to come in and clarify what they'd originally intended to write, they don't even have to go into history, because the whole thins is quoted right up there above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 22 April 2006.
Critique of movement
Theres only mention of right critique of this 'movement' - are there any left critiques of it? I also find it strange that calling it Marxism Lite is critique at all; There are many prominent (libertarian and neo-) Marxists, like Negri and Habermas, why would it being connected with marxism qualify as critique at all, be it true or not?--Aryah 02:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- thanks aryah, the sentance meant to say "anti-consumerism has parallels..." Upon creation, this page was once a collection of wiki-plagerism from different articles. I also agree the criticism section could use some work. Spencerk 14:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Link to Video of Anti-Consumerism Discussion
I believe that this video of Judith Levine discussing her book Not Buying It: My Year Without Shopping adds to the value of the article and should be published in the external links section. I would appreciate it if another editor would add it. Thank you.
- Judith Levine discusses Not Buying It: My Year without Shopping, March 8, 2007 (video)
I see no need to merge the two topics (Affluenza and this one.) Anti-consumerism is a movement or standpoint while affluenza is a byproduct (so it is argued) of consumerism.
This would be like merging, say, seasonal affective disorder with an article on the Samaritans. Nach0king 18:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really understand the rationale for the proposed merger, either. —AldeBaer 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"Namely, libertarians believe that no person has the right to decide for (or even suggest to) others what goods are "necessary" for living and which are not, or that luxuries are necessarily profligate, and thus argue that anti-consumerism is a precursor to central planning or a totalitarian society."
Honestly, do libertarians really believe anything that opposes their dogmatic views leads to totalitarianism? I'm removing this in a few days if this is not sourced. The Legend of Miyamoto (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Considering your rather open dislike of libertarians, I find it hard to beleive that you plan on deleting the criticisms out of good faith. The statement is not presenting the Libertarian viewpoint as fact, merely as a political philosophy. Providing clear cut sources showing that anti-consumerism leads to totalitarianism, (ignoring possible historical examples, such as communism in general) would warrant an entirely different entry other than the mere fact that Libertarians and Anti-Consumerists do not see eye-to-eye on these issues. While this does warrent a citation, it warrents one that shows that Libertarians do indeed hold this position on anti-consumerism. If you honestly think this statement requires sources to prove an opinion, then I would ask you to apply such scrutiny to other statements in the non-critical areas of this article. In the meantime, I re-added the statement. --Tiler (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
could anti-consumerists not be decribed as conservationists ? this as, as opposed to consumerists, they try to reduce the material they buy and buy less. this would also mean they conserve material and energy rather than spend it when this is unneeded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have amended it - does this make better sense? Here is the text you vilified; (below is the old text)
Consumption capacity Purely philosphically speaking, economics start with morals. The famous economist Adam Smith constued economics in terms not familiar to our times. This is perhaps impossible today. In an attempt to meet economics half way the idea that consumtion is bad has to wear a new dress. The idea of consumer choice and rationalism lies hidden in any theory about economic behaviour. Talking about economics in anti-consumerist terms should not be impossible in the near future. The term consumption capacity is perhaps better than the use of the term purchasing power, for three reasons; 1) We cannot allow ourselves to drown because of a misunderstanding, 2) the mixing of carrying and consuming should be avoided if unnecessary, 3)I do not like drowning Allowing for a new word may benifit in this way; consumption is a collective phenomena (see group purchasing power) but is often percieved as personal, which implies a non-ricardian quality. The idea that rationality rules becomes implicitly threatened by this new terminology which to many is welcome. And last but not least it separates young from old and rich from poor. The term is in this sense not helpful, but is helpful in that it questions categories of thought. (please do not misplace this article, but feel free to replace it!) please feel free to add to this column or to add it to any discussions (computer illiterate) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
"Many anti-corporate activists believe the rise of large-business corporations poses a threat to the legitimate authority of nation states and the public sphere" My general impression is that anti-consumerists are usually internationalists, and furthermore, are not per se concerned with the "legitimate authority" of nation-states so much as the welfare of the world in general. I feel this merits a rewording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Very confusing section
The section "Alternatives to mainstream economic concepts" is very confusing and misleading. There does not appear to be a point for including it. It especially confuses the ideas of Michel Foucault (about scientism, but in the context of sociology??), providing no sources. Foucault opposed disciplinary structures and criticized "epistemes" as historical products of power relations in nearly all his books and lectures.
Also, does the magazine The Baffler fit in anywhere in this article? It is very critical of popular and "mass" culture, which makes it anti-consumerist, but I'm not sure which section it would go into. --undergroundman 21:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikem1234 (talk • contribs)
Removed Sentence and Citation #8
Removed this sentence from the end of the "Consumerism and Advertising" subsection:
"Lebow and his cronies got together to 'create' the modern advertising industry, which plays to primitive beliefs," says Rees. "It makes you feel insecure, because the advertising industry turned our sense of self-worth into a symbolic presentation of the possessions we have," he told me. "We've turned consumption into a necessity, and how we define ourselves.
This was it's own paragraph and did not flow from the paragraph preceding it, save for both involving comments from Rees. I removed it over letting it stay and flagging it because I'm not sure what the original author intended to do with this, as this really is just a quote. In my edit, I listed it as oddly written because of the "he told me" making me think that this may have just been a straight copy and paste job from some article.
I would I preferred to have been able to have have checked the article it is cited from, but the article's link in the citation is a link to citation templates here on WP. The citation is still up so if any of the editors here know where that article came from, it'd be rather nice if you could fix up the citation's external link. This little bird was just passing through. Birdman1011395 (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)