Consumerism as a Spiritual Good

[Loki]

In the religious arena, all reject the values and virtues of the physical world. Virtually all religions preach the submission of man's physical gratification for mental or otherworldly benefits. Even Buddhism, which I have praised many times, preaches an ideology of privation for the entire world.

This perspective must be soundly rebuked. The most important form of progress is economic progress, which raises the longevity, health and welfare of all. Thanks to the widespread production of material goods and the advances of science and technology, we have doubled our lifespan, made health care available to all, made heat, power, communications, and all sorts of conveniences available to all, and been given more and more time for leisure and spiritual pursuits.

Ultimately, one cannot live without valuing the material world to some extent. Everyone is a consumer. Everyone is a trader, even if only in a social way. As most of us live in relatively free societies, we are free to interact with other people as we see fit. We must all value the consumption of material goods, whatever our ideology on the subject.

Some people do sacrifice some of their material needs for a "higher" goal. If they do not make it religious rhetoric, I consider that to be a personal decision. People are free to choose the way they want to live, as long as they do not obstruct the freedom of other people to do the same.

But when religious people, be they Christians, Islamists, Buddhists, or others, use their religion as political activism and preach anti-progress rhetoric, they are gravely irresponsible. They overstep the bounds of personal belief and use intimidation against rational values. Preaching compassion is hollow if one does not promote the compassionate ideology of progress and liberation from material needs.

The commodification of resources has brought about a general improvement of life for all. Greed has pushed people towards more and more efficient use of these resources. Globalism has permitted this efficiency to apply on a global scale and to push back the obscurantism and traditionalism of local cultures and has helped make the Earth an equal economic playing field.

Of course, behaviorist excuses have always been presented to argue against freedom of thought, and religious fanatics are no exception. For instance, they will use unsupported sociological assertions such as "consumerism makes people shallow" or "materialism turns people away from spiritual matters" to justify their totalitarian ideologies.

But these are nothing more than "good old days" ad hoc rationalizations. Yes, most people are shallow - and prosperity or not, they will always be. But the individual is still free to live and think in any way he desires - and thanks to economic progress, as I said before, we are more free than ever and have more resources than ever to devote to any cause we desire. If you are not attached to material goods, you will not "be owned" by them, regardless of how much you buy.

I attack Buddhism particularly because it illustrates itself so much in other areas, and yet falls in the same rhetorical patterns.

The idea that greed and consumerism is a hostile and shallow ideology , the idea that we should suppress the individual's progress in the name of the collective, the primacy of local culture and inefficiency over the benefits of globalization, the bad-mouthing of appliances and cheap products that raise everyone's level of life, as well as hatred of economic progress. We should not seek a better life and our own way to happiness, but rather we should subvert our well-being and individuality to the collective. Hardly words of compassion!

Suppressing economic freedom also implies suppressing social freedom. If we support the idea that one's freedom of movement and trade must be suppressed, then how can one be part of social movements that do not exist within this artificial community system? One cannot assemble or pool resources to compete with this community system: indeed, the mere notion of competition is anathema to this anti-progress mentality.

How about non-believers? Do we enforce privation on them too? And if so, how much? Should we, like the communists, demand universal poverty for the entire Earth and plunge it again in a Dark Age?

The Dalai Lama himself shares the belief that material and spiritual are enemies, and that we must choose the spiritual world :

Instead of caring for one another, we place most of our efforts for happiness in pursuing individual material consumption. We have become so engrossed in this pursuit that, without knowing it, we have neglected to foster the most basic human needs of love, kindness and cooperation.
from "Universal Responsibility and Our Global Environment", Tibetan Bulletin, March-April 1994

For such a benevolent and revered figure to utter such words, is complete irresponsibility. How are material goods the enemy of love, kindness and cooperation? Does not poverty ensure general hatred of man against man? Is not cooperation a virtue in the pursuit of production? Should we not seek to experience love and kindness, regardless of our personal choice of living?

What I blame all religions for, and especially Buddhism because it is otherwise rational about worldly things, is that they should be pointing the way to integrating our physical and mental needs within a spiritual framework, not attacking them. The rejection of materialism is an anti-man attitude which is wholly out of place. In my opinion, such a rational integration must proceed from rational values and acknowledge that each individual is free to choose his own purpose. Without these premises, we err into authoritarianism. We must reject such as approaches as being part of the True Believer mentality: an irrational desire for control and to control, which itself only causes more illusions.

From a rational hierarchy of values, spiritual values are an integral part of the rational life, and an extension of our material values. They are a tool of awareness and a force of peace and justice, not a call to submission.

[Leyla Shen]

Should we, like the communists, demand universal poverty for the entire Earth and plunge it again in a Dark Age?

By "communists" do you refer to Soviet socialism?

If you've read any Marx at all, you will see that his vision was not one of universal poverty. Quite the contrary. This persistent misconception is truly perplexing---and, without fail, comes from the mouths of Americans.

Marx had his faults, but the premise of universal poverty wasn't one of them.

Have you read any Marxist material, at all?

[Kevin Solway]

Consumerism works fine until we run out of things to consume. Then everything's gone.

[clyde]

Loki;

In the religious arena, all reject the values and virtues of the physical world. Virtually all religions preach the submission of man's physical gratification for mental or otherworldly benefits. Even Buddhism, which I have praised many times, preaches an ideology of privation for the entire world.

I disagree that Buddha taught rejection of the physical world. Specifically, the Noble Eightfold Path which is a core teaching of the Buddha includes Right Action, Right Speech, and Right Livelihood – all values and virtues of the physical world.

It is the case that some forms of Buddhism and some Buddhist teachers promote renunciation over engagement, but that is not the whole of Buddha’s teachings.

From a rational hierarchy of values, spiritual values are an integral part of the rational life, and an extension of our material values. They are a tool of awareness and a force of peace and justice, not a call to submission.

I agree and believe living as a fully-engaged authentic human being to be fundamental to Buddha’s teaching.

Do no harm,
clyde

[Tomas]

Should we, like the communists, demand universal poverty for the entire Earth and plunge it again in a Dark Age?

By "communists" do you refer to Soviet socialism?

If you've read any Marx at all, you will see that his vision was not one of universal poverty. Quite the contrary. This persistent misconception is truly perplexing---and, without fail, comes from the mouths of Americans.

Marx had his faults, but the premise of universal poverty wasn't one of them.

Have you read any Marxist material, at all?

.............

The Lincoln Putsch: America's Bolshevik Revolution

-snip-
Carl Schurz was another forty-eighter, who had met Karl Marx at the Democratic Club in Cologne.
The chief exponent of the philosophy of most of these people was Karl Marx. The extremely pro-Union, anti-Southern writings of Marx and his colleague Friedrich Engels echo the attitude of his German followers as we have discussed here. In addition, his later followers, the Soviet Russians, adopted similar positions in their official histories of the WBTS.

http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrando ... 48ers.html


.

[Leyla Shen]

You do understand, Tomas, that your reply doesn't follow from my question?

Perhaps you'd care to try again. You might yield a better result than the one currently headed your way... :)

[Edited to add post title]

[Rhett]

People pursue materialism over-zealously in the hope it will reduce their spiritual suffering. It doesn't do that for them, but it does occupy them, keeping them away from deeper thoughts.

[Loki]

I wrote that essay on consumerism 4 years ago. I hardly believe a word of it. I was just testing you guys.

[Tomas]

.



-funny girl-
I wrote that essay on consumerism 4 years ago.

-tomas-
Huh, still in high school..?




-funny girl-
I hardly believe a word of it.

-tomas-
Still flippin' burgers at McDonald's..?




-funny girl-
I was just testing you guys.

-tomas-
Oh, aren't you the cute one..!


PS - No pickles on the burgers, ma'am..


.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, Tomas, perusing your link lead from one thing to another and I ended up here. (Same shit-house, different wallpaper.)

This is your particular political hue, is it? I hardly know where to start, so I’ll just pick something that sticks out the most. Let‘s see if you know anything at all about what you‘re trying to talk about:

To translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the members of the Frankfurt School - - Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, to name the most important - - had to contradict Marx on several points. They argued that culture was not just part of what Marx had called society’s “superstructure,” but an independent and very important variable. They also said that the working class would not lead a Marxist revolution, because it was becoming part of the middle class, the hated bourgeoisie.

Who would? In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question: a coalition of blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals.

Do you seriously think there is any direct Marxist (and, therefore, communist) relation between the political and economic revolutions in Europe in the 1800s, the proletariat (and others, including the bourgeoisie) rising up against the monarchy states, and a coalition of downtrodden blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals heralding a ‘60s free-love fest movement in America?

You have got to be joking.

Not even the author can show such a connection. Instead, he must turn "Marxism" into "Cultural Marxism" before he can attack it.

Tell me, though, can you make any connection between the title and the content of this post?