Because You Never Asked

     Why is it that I philosophically go to war using the name "Post Consumer Man"?

     If I am going to sit here and bitch and complain about this or that over the course of a decade, piling up a mountain of paper that has now ascended close to the 600-page mark, it is essential to be constantly honing and shaping the intellectual clay of the message. Some recent revelations with regard to the positions staked out by my most habitual ideological foes --- people on the "right", market devotees, conservatives, etc. --- have encouraged me to further define the essence of Post Consumer Man.

     For this writer, the original root of all maladies that might be badgering our existence is an unconscious tendency to consume that is being forced upon us by the economic concept we are currently living under. If we could find some way to temper this destructive, adolescent consumptive compulsion, which is being artificially driven in the name of economic "success", many of the problems stubbornly assailing our species (and all the other species) would begin to heal like a disappearing rash. Surprisingly enough, Post Consumer Man is not a dogmatic ideologue. He can accept an infinite variety of public-private sector combinations, of market driven or regulated business activity, of government interference or indifference. All he asks is that the system, whatever it might be, does not demand consumption. It should be a system that allows the citizens to go about their business in a more natural way, in a way that more reflects what they might really need and not what they are convinced (bludgeoned?, brain washed?) to need.

     Unlike the artist Paul Gaugain, naively fleeing to the South Seas in an attempt to find that pure, natural, "Paradise Found" state of existence, Post Consumer Man is not looking back. Post Consumer Man is looking forward. Post Consumer Man accepts the benefits of technology, but would like to see it used for more rational purposes. Post Consumer Man wants to live comfortably. Post Consumer Man is not asking you to sacrifice anything. He is simply asking you to look at your life in a different way, to reassess what is important to you.

     Post Consumer Man is a new kind of human being, a person who, without really changing his or her comfort level (in the end, it would most likely enhance such) has decided to need less. But he really hasn't decided anything. It should happen naturally, triggered by a system that does not constantly seduce him into consuming. It would be a system that can find a way to assimilate a drop in sales and production without causing distress to the work force. It would be an economic system --- or, in other words, a way to develop and distribute the world's resources --- that could at least give us a choice to consume less if the good sense in such became apparent.

     This essay started to take form when I began to realize that all the people from the "right" who I habitually fence with intellectually --- and we are talking about all, 100%, no exceptions --- always threw me the same carrot when agreeing with me on something. "One thing I do agree with you on Jerry, yes, you have a point there, it is excessive, I'm not an extravagant person myself, but yes, it's become abusive, we can't go on like this forever, no, no, this consumption thing Jerry, I myself do not consume .", etc., etc. Without exception --- although one claiming to have one's consumption habits under control is probably fibbing in the same way a man boasts of his feminine conquests --- all my "free market cowboy" friends, at the very least, pay lip service to the idea that we should consume less.

     And now they've fallen into a philosophical trap. There is a contradiction here that can't be resolved if they are going to continue being fundamentalist zealots adhering strictly to the Bible of current neo-liberal, free market dogma. They kneel before the altar of a system that cannot accommodate even small amounts of sales-production slow down, let alone a true change in cultural philosophy.

     I have an old friend from high school who eloquently defends conservative economic rhetoric. He likes to say that in a free society like ours, with free markets and individual liberties and the whole bag of groceries, people have the choice not to consume. In a superficial way, he is correct. But from a practical point of view, under the rules of the road he adheres to, it is almost an inexistent option. It's something like saying you have the choice to not take your hand out of the fire.

     It's true, a person could be born into a culture where he or she, almost from the beginning of their self awareness, is bombarded with thousands of commercial images, day after day, morning, noon and night, thousands of attempts to sell you something every week, hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of such persuasive images over the course of a lifetime, and, in spite of all that, buy hardly anything. It is not only possible, it happens. People win millions in the lottery too.

     But let's put aside the abstract endeavors at persuasive manipulation and look at the merciless reality of life in the real world, where less consumption becomes no option at all. A person like myself, Post Consumer Man, who lives comfortably --- well fed, clothed, housed, using the modern accoutrements of electricity, indoor plumbing, a reasonable array of cooking devices and transport possibilities, etc., --- is probably spending a microscopic percentage of what the average Monday Night Football Yokel is spending to fulfill his criteria for that vague notion known as happiness. This makes Post Consumer Man a far more dangerous threat to the neo-liberal marketeers than Osama Bin Laden could ever be. It is a way of perceiving things that would take them down quicker than a collapsing Twin Tower.

     Unfortunately, as things stand now, it would also cause a tremendous amount of upheaval and hardship. People would be out of work, with no means to sustain themselves, etc., etc. Every time the Gross National Product (and it is gross) or the rate of economic growth falls just a few percentage points, the system and the lives of millions are thrown into a crisis mode. Imagine if the Post Consumer Man style of life became a trend and that hardhearted concept we call "economic growth" fell 10, 20, 40%! That would not be a crisis. It would be a nuclear holocaust.

     No, less consumption, under the current rules, is not an option.

     Let's get a bit more squematic in trying to further illuminate these concepts: Let's say we have a community of about 500 people who have lived self sufficiently for generations, growing their food and using the materials available to them to exist comfortably (something like an Amish thing). Everyone participates in the work; everyone shares in the bounty. And then, one day, someone gets the bright idea to build a trough connecting the river with their farmland so they can more easily water it. The work is done and it works to perfection. They can now do the same work with 100 less people. What will they do? Draw lots to see who can stay and who has to go? Of course not. They will delegate the work in a different manner. Maybe they'll spruce up the baseball field, or learn how to play the trombone, or write poetry, or even produce something new with the extra time they have. The important thing is that they don't have to consume more in order to keep people working and sustained in their needs.

     If this were an enterprise in the global economy of today, this option is not there. Your business must always be looking to cut costs, both for increased earnings and competitiveness. It's pure hardball. No romantic notions allowed. It's the jungle. Everyone is a predator and everyone is prey. Those 100 people from our self-sufficient community are now out on the street. (In the real world, their project would probably have been "privatized"). Perhaps the system (economy) is dynamic enough to absorb them somewhere else. Perhaps not. But under no circumstance are they allowed not to produce. In order for them to sustain themselves, the consumption cannot stop.

      My conservative high school buddy recently asked me a good question. "Would you have the government impose rules on consumption, tell us what we can and can't buy, etc.?"

     Post Consumer Man does not want the government telling people what they can have or not have, anymore than you the reader does. Ironically, if we continue on the course my conservative friends advocate, that's exactly what could happen. What Post Consumer Man envisions is a system that naturally moves us away from consumption, just as the one we have naturally leads us to consume. In the past, all changes in the economic system were usually driven by a yearning for justice, for a more equitable distribution of the Earth's riches. It might be said that the current system has already served much of its purpose in that it has both created and distributed a good amount of wealth. Although there is still much to do in this sense --- especially with regard to third world inclusion, where the exploitation rather than the inclusion of such seems to be a fundamental aspect of the current system's survival --- the problem is no longer the ability to provide for all, but the more rational use of our technology in doing so. If we could create that system that moves us away from the current frivolous consumption, the rest would fall into place.      

     How to do it? Post Consumer Man has a few ideas floating around in his head, rough drafts, experimental concepts, notions to be considered, debated, honed, worked upon, looked into and forever evolved as time goes on. No sacred dogma, unimpeachable correctness or unquestioned line of thought. Everything is always subject to doubt, even, for instance, private energy companies or commercial media conglomerates.

     Post Consumer Man believes that the "global economy" is good in that it is global. "Globality", in a world that is more and more connected, is a laudable goal that should be strived for. But what we now call the global economy serves selfish interests in search of dubious goals (over consumption leading to a litany of undesired results). In place of a private sector global economy, I might suggest a global economy of well integrated, well coordinated public sector services that would provide the basics of a modern life style and a foundation of employment for those who might need it. Such things as energy and water supply, waste removal, a blueprint of basic transport services, communications devices, infrastructure maintenance and development, public recreation facilities, etc., could be administered in a kind of federal global system.

     The way in which electronic media functions --- primarily TV --- must be overhauled as well. It should no longer be a forum that is directly linked to commercial interests. We must find a way for it to operate that allows it a certain degree of independence from both governmental and commercial pressures.

     Contrary to what you might now think, Post Consumer Man envisions a thriving private sector as well, but not one dominated by the impersonal omnipotence of powerful corporate giants. He sees a far-flung galaxy of local small businesses in direct contact with their customers, businesses that survive on their merits without the use of massive marketing devices like TV.

     Certainly, none of these ideas are currently in favor, but they have been discredited by self-interests out to maintain their predominance. I ask the reader not to discard any ideas without objectively considering them, perhaps a utopian thought given the mind pollution we've all been force fed for so long.

     The important thing is to define the goal. If the goal is to move us away from irrational consumption, the system can be found to do it. The more difficult task is the emotional one --- a world full of Post Consumer Men and Women who understand that the next step forward is to have less materially so we can have more emotionally.