What does capitalism do well? Well, it makes for a ‘great’ shopping experience. You can get 200 varieties of breakfast cereal. Tens of thousands of shoes. Uncountable choices in clothing that you can throw away later. Many, many cable channels, some you don’t even watch. Every conceivable type of furniture. Drugs for every conceivable illness – even ones that you don’t have or that don’t work. Hundreds and hundreds of car or scooter choices that only an expert can tell apart. Toothpaste? Soap? Addictive fast food? You got it baby!
Branded! Woman Passing through Boutique |
I put ‘great’ in quotes because there is a massive cost
here. Unplanned and profit-based
consumer development creates waste, repetition, consumer fetishization, shoddy
materials, environmental destruction, pollution, packaging nightmares, cheap
wages (even virtual slavery), unhealthy or chemically destructive products, over-production,
‘under consumption’ and high prices due to monopolization or control of real
estate. Capital does not take anything
but the profit cycle part of this 'circulation' into account.
But it is still in this consumer wonderland that shopping
shines as the number one attribute of capitalism. It is the Number One ‘hobby’ in the U.S. It is what most people do to relax, even when
they don’t buy anything. For many it is
retail therapy which justifies those long hours of work.
Take a look at women’s clothing. The men’s clothing area is about quarter of
the women’s sections. Women’s clothing
dominates many brick and mortar locations.
Women of course must look ‘good’ or sexy or constantly diverse, either
to other women or to men. This is a
reflection of the sexism in the society. It is not such a burden on men. Class is reflected in clothing choices, as is
being ‘hip’ or projecting some other image, like health or sportiness or
corporate ownership or manliness.
Clothing is also a ‘costume’ and we are all players on that stage.
A brick- and mortar woman’s clothing shop is full of young
women attending to the needs of the shoppers. Serving them, waiting on them. After all, everyone wants a servant... Trying on clothes is a ritual in the dressing
rooms. The music is never disturbing or
obtrusive - it is always light and poppy so that the shopper pulls out her
purse. Each store has an ‘atmosphere’
created by careful design. There is
sometimes a men’s chair, but mostly women shop alone so that they can spend as
much time as possible. A ‘shopping
trip’ can take up a whole day, visiting both department and boutique stores and include a lunch. Boutiques exist so that
the shopper can get ‘individualized’ clothing, which enhances her
individualization – a prime goal under capital.
The ‘hit’ only happens at the end – when the woman has to take out her
wallet and pay for the overpriced item she just chose. You can go to Wal-Mart, buy bespoke shoes in
a chi-chi part of town or buy from a ‘craft fair’ – facilitating artisanal capitalism. It only varies in price and quality.
Is her closet full?
Will she wear it? How long will it last?
Will it go ‘out’ of fashion? With
‘fast fashion’ it certainly will. Will
it ultimately go to a second hand store, become a rag, be thrown in the garbage
and landfill, given to someone else or molder in the closet until death? Which
at that time the children have to dispose of in some way.
We all know this cycle.
It is in fact so ‘normal’ that we do not notice how actually abnormal it
is. Commodification extends into our
very psychology. Normality is the mask capital wears.
Wealthy women used to start women’s clothing boutiques,
perhaps with their husband’s money, but now it is an avenue for the
petit-bourgeois strata of women to earn money.
It was one of the first ways that women became business ‘owners.’ Now many other avenues are open and these
businesses are really the root of the petit-bourgeois part of the womens’ movement. This extends to women-owned ethnic businesses too.
What is interesting is that the shopper is ultimately a
passive ‘consumer.’ There is no need in
this system to sew your own clothes, or to add or subtract to clothes in
various ways, to enhance them - to have any imagination or creativity. Sewing is a dying skill at present. All is ‘off the shelf’ – the work is done by
someone else. The shopper is not active
or creative or even skilled – except as to where to get the best price for the
best item. Shopping itself becomes a
skill of sorts, which used to involve lots of driving and some walking, but
which now maybe comes down to being internet-saavy. In a way, it is a procedure of
infantilization.
The recent mass closing of department stores is a sign that shopping
is becoming even more ubiquitous.
Department stores were originally a signal of the ‘democratization’ of
clothing, as a variety of mass-produced clothing items could be bought at lower prices
in central locations. Now with shopping
moving into the computer robot, every home has a ‘store’ installed in it, open
24 hours a day. Stores are becoming fronts only.
In a capitalist society, the ‘consumer’ is king and
queen. The worker is forgotten. The environment is forgotten. But the real issue is why is the diner
superior to the cook? The coffee drinker
a buck above the Starbucks barista? The
clothing buyer more important than the hidden seamstress? The skilled worker less important than the consumer? The land beneath the chemical dyes? Is it because of the ownership of a credit
card, in which the banks then collect interest?
Of course that is it. The credit
card and shopping are almost like the banking carrot before the donkey. Many people have been forced to use credit
cards for essentials, so then it also becomes extortion by criminal syndicates
called banks.
Consumerism is routinely denounced, but few have yet to
grapple with the changes that an environmentally sustainable and
labour-friendly economy would bring to this shopping house of cards. Essentials would be taken care of –
education, shelter, food, health, clothing.
But the production of goods would be decided by democratic means instead
of market and profit means, by the ‘associated producers’ in factories and
assemblies. As such, many useless
products would disappear… the ‘pet rocks’ of consumption. Many marginally ‘different’ products would
also disappear. In the realm of fashion,
people would enhance clothing by their own creativity to create fashion items, much as was done
in the past. That is the future or the
future will not be.
Review of a book on a Marxist analysis of fashion, "Stitched Up." Use blog search box, upper left.
Toronto, Canada
May 30, 2017Red Frog
No comments:
Post a Comment