In an excellent summary of what the Rethuglicans have stolen, Moyers talks about the Marianas Islands (about halfway through the speech, when he's talking about Abramofff [sp?]). I had no idea, but basically here's the deal: the Marianas are administered by the US. In addition to luxury resorts and golf courses, there are sweatshops there with imported, mostly Chinese, workers. Thanks to the lobbying of Abramoff, at least two bills put forward by US congresspeople (one Dem, one Rep) to address these workers' complete lack of human rights were quashed.

All manner of gigantic US clothing companies, including Levi-Strauss, use these sweatshops, then slap a 'Made in USA' label on them.

As it happens, I am in desperate need of new jeans and planned to combine shopping with a doc's appt this afternoon. Not because I am a slave to labels, but because I loathe and detest shopping, I stick to brands and styles I know (and Levis have numbered styles I can write down and take to the store with me). I just looked at my current pair and the label says 'made in Canada'.

I don't often wear trousers - usually skirts and tights - my footless tights from Elita are at least supposedly made in Montréal; don't know under what conditions though.

I haven't bought a 'new' piece of clothing or appliance in years. Local thrift stores are essential to my meager consumptive habits. I also do all i can to avoid brand name goods and if i end up with one i make sure the logo and tag is removed. Shopping is a necessary evil for me, not 'an excuse to hang at the mall". BTW, does anyone think the stuff served in food courts is really food?

quote:

---

each and every business that worships the 'bottom line' of huge profits

---

Ah, dear. That is not the problem. The problem is us. We want everything as cheaply as we can get it no matter the externalized costs. Wal-Mart is not successful because of cheap, overseas labour. Wal-Mart is successful because we shop there.

Some of us, no more interested than you in being superannuated mall rats, occasionally have to buy the odd new garment to be presentable for wage labour. I usually work at home, but sometimes I have to meet clients (some "cool", some straight) or work as a conference interpreter. I can't do that in ripped jeans or faded thrift shop stuff.

And thrift shopping takes time. It is more difficult for people who are hard to fit (tall, short, heavy, oddly built) and indeed for any men over size small, because men don't give away their clothes unless they are too small, worn out or hopelessly out of style.

For one thing, it is simply not true. That argument ignores the major sources of power and how they are exercised. Politics has got to be a little more urgent on larger fronts than simply converting everyone back to flower-childhood.

The problem is, mid-priced, sturdy clothing produced by unionised workers in countries with decent labour legislation (or assured of decent conditions by careful inspection, fair-trade rules and support of their labour struggles) simply doesn't exist, in ranges to suit all ages, sizes and needs. The sweatshops in Bangladesh were producing largely for First-World retailers when the recent, horrific fires and collapses took place.

I don't think any worker should be faulted for having to buy decent clothing for her or his work needs - moreover I think humans have had a desire to decorate themselves since humans were humans, as proven by Neolithic finds and the great sense of style found among some very poor people in African and Asian slums and villages.

Bully for those who can find everything in thrift shops. Even shoes? They are by far my most expensive clothing purchase, and it isn't particularly healthy to buy second-hand footwear, unless it just didn't fit the first buyer, so she or he discarded the shoes practically unworn.

And no parent should feel guilty for wanting a reasonable number of new garments for her or his children.

quote:

---

I have a bit of resistance to the argument that individual purity will cure all the world's political problems.

---

The hungry, abused and poverty stricken who populate so much of the world do not work for Nike or Folgers. They work for us. The wealth of their labour is loaded aboard freighters and shipped to us to be purchased at the lowest possible price for our want much more than our need.

While they scour for food we throw out food that might have been produced on their shores. For us shopping has become a recreational activity. For them, it is their enslavement.

Change does not require purity. It does require a change of culture whereby we come to measure success and happiness not in terms of accumulated material but in terms of quality of life and experience.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

I've recently moved, and have had to buy several wee widgets and thingamajigs, such as the little metal posts that hold up shelves. My bookcase - a solid, maple thing from the 1960s or so, was made in Québec, but now the thingies are ALL made in China.

quote:

---

For us shopping has become a recreational activity.

---

Speak for yourself, FM.

quote:

---

The problem is, mid-priced, sturdy clothing produced by unionised workers in countries with decent labour legislation (or assured of decent conditions by careful inspection, fair-trade rules and support of their labour struggles) simply doesn't exist, in ranges to suit all ages, sizes and needs.

---

quote:

---

Don't go to a store. Go to a tailor. They're around, and not just high-end.
Sure, it'll be a bit more expensive than big-box, but could be comparable to plenty of mall stuff, and the results will fit and probably make up in durability what you lose in initial price.

---

There are tailors in my neighbourhood, and I assume yours too, Rufus, that make suits at prices very close to what you see in the malls. Now I buy a suit maybe once every ten years or so, but that time's coming up soon and I'm simply going around the corner for my next one. And if it proves not to be as durable as I hoped, I'll know exactly who to complain to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
So where are we supposed to buy these sweat-free clothes and tools?

---

You may want to check out this site.

quote:

---

You don't know me very well, do you, FM.

---

I think it is too easy to blame corporations. Corporations are human institutions. We go to them for work, for consumer items, for neccessities, to invest our retirement savings. We blame them because it is convenient. But really, we enjoy the luxury the consumer culture affords us.

The very fact that we are here, on this site, is evidence that most of us enjoy a lifesyle of some creature comfort and leisure and that mere survival is not the foremost priority that it is for countless millions around the globe.

I sense just a bit of hostility but it is, if I dare say, misplaced. I can't fault you, myself, or any one of us for being unable to avoid the consumer culture anymore than I can fault a fish for being unable to avoid being wet. We are immersed within it.

The question then becomes (if we acknowledge the price is too high for the rest of humanity and the planet) how do we change it? And the answer rests with the choices we make while aknowledging not every choice can be perfect.

Unfortunately, I fear the opportunity for slow, incremental change has passed. Change shall be thrust upon us by a changing climate, escalating energy prices, and dwindling water resources. If not in my time, in the time of those who follow.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Without my computer I can't work, so that is a proof of absolutely nothing.

I don't even like calling it a moral stance, as there is nothing wrong with being moral, or making sacrifices. It is a holier than thou attitude.

[ 01 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

You are lecturing other people on the most blindingly obvious generalities as though we had never heard or thought these things before. In the midst of what was meant to be a fairly focused, practical discussion, you are dismissing real people's quotidian concerns in order to pontificate. Cheeky, really.

Back to the issue: it's good to see the no-sweat links, and we can remember them when we next need T-shirts. I sense just a tad of scorn, though, in the discussion so far for women (1) with specific wardrobe needs, faced with a hopeless market; and (2) who don't believe that life should consist entirely of grim pontificating and/or tracksuits.

Women's clothes are a feminist issue, as is the puritanism that insists political virtue must be grim. You are welcome to live that way yourself, but there is nothing politically unsophisticated about expecting that our politics can also find a truce with pleasure and beauty.

Purchasing no sweat clothing is a political choice. Not shopping at Wal-Mart is a political choice. Consumerism, as they will tell you, is all about choices. Buying used as opposed to new is a political choice. The choices we make as individuals become the choices we make as groups.

I agree what I am stating is blindingly obvious. So why the effort to cast it as some sort of puritanism.

Beauty and pleasure, as you have likely heard, is in the eye of the beholder and it is not I who has suggested beauty and pleasure is unsophisticated or at odds with a goal of a world free of exploitation.

The consumer culture is based upon exploitation. You agree what I am stating is blindingly obvious. So what exacty are you making an argument for or against?

And if your response is "purity" or "puritanism" then that is the way you are interpreting it and not the way I am arguing it so perhaps what you are really arguing is that you are satisfied with the choices you are making. And if so, that is fine. They are your choices.

My initial argument was simply: "Wal-Mart is successful because we shop there."

If you think that is incorrect, please explain why? Because so far you have attacked me rather than my argument.

[ 02 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

The "no sweat" clothing, as skdadl pointed out, is of a particular, very casual style, t-shirts, sweatpants and the like, except for a few men's dress-casual shirts. Not a thing I could wear for the type of work I do, when I have to work outside the home. So many women need to find clothing they can wear in a formal or business-casual office situation. Unless you mean people should "refuse consumerism" by refusing to take such jobs, and collect welfare, which does not provide enough money to eat properly or pay for the most basic accomodation in most Canadian cities.

Attacking puritanism is attacking your argument. You seem to have a ridiculously miserablist and "pure" view of the global South (where, in the better-off countries, lots of folk shop at Wal-Mart or the equivalent). Have you never seen pictures of people in favelas, in Indian or African slums who manage to keep themselves and their children beautifully-dressed under the harshest and most challenging conditions, even in refugee camps? It is a matter of pride and survival.

My shopping expedition yesterday. I went to the Bay (yeah, yeah, begin Canadian nationalism side-debate) because (see above) I loathe shopping and at least I know where stuff is in the Bay. Got to Levis section. Many surprises ensued. First, Levis no longer sells women's jeans by waist size. It now uses -- I dunno what it's called, 'dress' size? -- you know, the even numbers, 6, 8, 10 (and what are the odd numbers for? uh-oh, new thread needed for idiotic sizing systems). Next, it doesn't use style numbers either, so much for that part of my strategy.

(Another 'simple' question: all the other brands of jeans in their little niches seemed to offer only 'distressed' or decorated denim. Anybody know of a jean maker that sells heavy plain denim jeans?)

I tried on a couple of pairs (of all the stuff one could buy on line, jeans or pants of any kind would be an absolute lost cause for most women I know). They were of very inferior denim, very thin. I looked at the labels -- made in Mexico. But (see above again) I was desperate, so I bought a pair. I wasn't thrilled -- shopping never has that effect -- I wasn't happy. But I had a pair of jeans that fit relatively well and I had them NOW.

So: yay capitalism!

But seriously, one of the reasons I wear jeans and t-shirts (mostly, like lagatta, occasionally I have to meet a client and then I have to dress better) is that as a 'costume' it's unisex, sturdy (or used to be), sorta fashion-free, and bland in that it doesn't say much about me.

Now, it seems, I can't even buy honest 'working' jeans wherever they may be made.

quote:

---

My initial argument was simply: "Wal-Mart is successful because we shop there."

---

I have never set foot in a Wal-Mart in my life.

Not from a political pov, of course, but from a practical pov, you could work out sizes by men's waist sizes a lot better there, I thought.

quote:

---

I have never shopped at Wal-Mart. That said, I wouldn't put down a working-class parent who is really hard-pressed to dress his or her kid for school doing so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
So you have excercised a choice. I wouldn't put them down those who shop at Wal-Mart either. But I might try to convince them that Wal-Mart perpetuates poverty globally and locally. I might try to convince that they could establish co-ops or buying clubs. And I might try to convince them that a dollar spent in their own community is a dollar invested in their own community.

---

Yes, of course. This is a good and necessary thing to do, but not so easy. In my small community which ironically hosts a few clothing manufacturers that don't pay so well and which themselves compete directly with overseas operations, I know several women heads of families who don't hesitate to shop at the new Wal-Mart that opened up last year. One of them I know very well - she's a veteran of McDonalds, did her own shit-disturbing there, and she knows how crappy conditions are for Wal-Mart workers and clothing labourers. But, she chooses to shop there anyways, because her kid needs warm clothes. She bought him a lovely, thick snowsuit for $20 (why don't they just advertise 'we don't pay anyone for the fabrication of this garment?') and gets lots of compliments on it.

I made the trip to another city an hour away and bought a high-quality, second-hand suit for the exact same price (sans taxes, of course.) I can do that, because I generally make more than 10$/hour, because I have a car and free time and because I'm not all that proud when it comes to clothes. For my neighbour, however, it was a big deal to find such a bargain and have a lovely suit for her son.

quote:

---

There has to be something more, on a wider scale.

---

Such as what? And action on any wider scale will require the action and support of individuals.

Everyone can find examples of the one person who must buy the cheapest product they can find. But when I visit a Wal-Mart I see the parking lot full of late model vehicles and SUV's.

Where I live, the poor don't visit Wal-Mart except on a special occassion because they don't drive. They shop at thrift stores and dollar stores within walking distance.

Wal-Mart is one example. Others are Home Depot, home furnishing stores, brand name outlet stores and even grocery stores.

The entire market has gone overseas to meet demand for cheaper and cheaper products. Products we, as a society, are demanding.

In another thread they are debating the plight of the family farm and subsidies. A big part of that debate is the globalization of food and the demand for cheap food without concern for who produced it or under what circumstances.

At a recent meeting a man demanded to know, while defending coal and nuclear generated electrcity, "how much do you want to pay per kilowatt hour?" Again price. But without regard to the future cost.

This can be an exasperating discussion because it is difficult to accept that we can't escape the trap we are in.

[ 02 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

When I speak of "us" or "we" I am speaking of all of us in the Northern hemisphere. We all benefit from consumer culture.

---

I agree with much of what Frustrated Mess has to say. I'm puzzled by the above exhanges.

Does "Made in Canada" mean that it is actually made in Canada is a good question. I have always assumed that the label was true.

It is odd to me that people see Wal-mart as a cheap place to shop because although the prices are cheap so is the quality and what that means is that you will soon be shopping for another one to replace it.

I understand that people can get defensive when they infer that their own choices are being scrutinized. But I don't think that was your intention.

I think your point is simple. Sweatshop conditions exist because we, as consumers, patronize the corporations that create these conditions. And that is a decision that we all face living in a consumer society.

I certainly agree that the cause of better conditions for garment workers is an important one, but there are many ways to support their struggles that go beyond an impotent, individual moral posture. One first step is to be well-informed on these struggles and to write to firms both to complain about the most egregious shortcomings and to praise them for progress achieved (whatever we may think of corporations in general).

If I understand you correctly, you do not have an argument with consumerism but you would ask it to be nicer to the poor unfortunates who provide the grist for the globalization mill. You would convince capitalism to be nicer. Good luck with that.

Also, I think you will find in large parts of rural Ontario, and I think other provinces as well, that rural poverty is becoming more widespread with goods and services harder to come by, in part, due to the loss of rural downtowns in favour of more remote big box stores.

The impoverishment is not only global, it is local. And it is not only materially, it is environmentally. And I would suspect the loss of connection to the people and land that once produced the things we use leads to a spiritual impoverishment as well. But I wouldn't really know about that for sure.

We make compromises everyday. People should not be criticized for the choices they make. But we must also be aware of the choices we are making and how, in concert, our choices impact in ways far removed from our own circumstances.

And you can call a choice not to buy a Coke, or to drink only fair trade coffee, or to forego a trip to a big box store impotent. That is your choice. I call it the only tool we have.

[ 02 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:

I certainly agree that the cause of better conditions for garment workers is an important one, but there are many ways to support their struggles that go beyond an impotent, individual moral posture..

---

Posture's the word, lagatta. I hardly think I'm going to bring Levi-Strauss down by refusing to buy my one pair of jeans a year from them. A person has to wear clothes, and sometimes a person has to look professional, or whatever term you want for non-raggedy.

When I have time, I do buy used clothing and those upscale shops are sometimes amazing. (I bought an Armani jacket for $75 about 20 years ago and it was the most gorgeous thing I've ever owned.)

But I don't have time right at the moment. I'm working my ass off. And when I receive the princely cheques, as usual, I will send money to organizations working in some of the nastier parts of the world to alleviate a bit of suffering.

I am certainly aware of the damage Wal-Mart has done to small towns in all countries where it has set up shop. I have never shopped there. But I also refuse to blame poor people with children who do. (Very different from impecunious bohemian singles). And I've seen lots of folks who look like non-affluent, often recent-immigrant parents (from the global South) on the Bélanger bus between the closest Wal-Mart (in Saint-Léonard) and my house. clutching Wal-Mart bags.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

If I understand you correctly, you do not have an argument with consumerism

---

I would say that, pretty obviously, you do NOT understand her correctly.

I think your sophomoric self-righteousness is obscuring your view.

You and your friends can pretend all you like that you are not passing judgement on anyone, and yet you continue to drone on at length, lecturing people who are, I suspect, much more virtuous as non-consumers than you-all are, and who've certainly been doing the politics longer.

Socialism is not individualist. Socialism is not egotistical. Socialism is not anhedonic.

That said, maybe I should start posting links to the Dior New Look again, eh, grils? How's about some gaudy earrings?

quote:

---

I also refuse to blame

---

I don't believe I have placed any blame on any person so your accusation seems misplaced.

No revolution, socialist or otherwise, can begin without a moral stance and the moral stance of today must be that the poverty, disparity, and environmental degradation directly, and indirectly, resulting from globalization and consumer culture is wrong. Simply wrong.

And we do not wait for revolutions to take place we launch them by taking actions and making choices in line with our moral values.

[ 02 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

Such individualism fails to see the role of social classes (including trade unions of garment workers in cheap-labour countries and international solidairty among workers), and other social groups (for example, women or people of colour banding together to fight systemic exploitation and discrimination).

Instead, it prefers to lecture people on their perceived moral failings without really offering any viable alternative.

[ 02 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

However, I just can't spend all my time searching and researching my purchases; it's draining. I hate shopping for the most part, and do it as little as possible. I would have no time, energy, or motivation to become involved in any other sort of 'morally oriented' things if that's all I did.

[ 02 March 2006: Message edited by: Amy ]

quote:

---

Instead, it prefers to lecture people on their perceived moral failings without really offering any viable alternative.

---

I have not lectured anyone and especially not on any moral failings. Rather I have been lectured to (Please practice what you are preaching) on any number of topics-- and insulted (not by you). And for nothing more offensive than suggesting change begins with the individual.

Every mass action is a collection of individual actions. There is no collective without individuals.

There is no effective mass action to counter the impacts, economic and environmental, of the globalized consumer culture. None. All the best efforts are to minimize and reduce harm but there is no end to harm. And the harm is only worsening.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amy:

However, I just can't spend all my time searching and researching my purchases; it's draining. I hate shopping for the most part, and do it as little as possible. I would have no time, energy, or motivation to become involved in any other sort of 'morally oriented' things if that's all I did.

[ 02 March 2006: Message edited by: Amy ]

---

Excellent point, Amy. We do what we can.

This, and the 'poverty pimp' thread reminds me of something. All my adult life, I've volunteered at something or other. I had just started at a small organization. A bunch of volunteers were sitting around a big table stuffing envelopes and chatting. There was a woman there whose entire conversation revolved around her good work: where she bought fair trade stuff, how she used only non-toxic cleaning products, how she'd never dream of buying anything from xyz country. Etc. etc. I was new, so I wasn't going to say anything, but she was bugging the hell out of several of us.

One of the employees of the outfit, the one who had recruited me, came in and said she was going out for coffee and who wanted what. The woman asked where she was going and when told Papaya Hut, she put in her order for something with fruit and nuts and all kinds of super-healthy stuff. And, no doubt was way more expensive than a cup of coffee. The charity, or more likely the employee, was buying.

The employee, dutifully writing this long order down, fixed her soulful eyes on the woman and said: '[Name of woman], you are so evolved.'

Here's a good list of second-hand shops and charitable boutiques and bazaars, and other ways to recycle and re-use in Montreal:

http://www.guidedureemploi.com/

Alas the hoity-toity wealthy enclave of Westmount is no longer in Montréal - I've been trying to locate one high-end charity shop there - all designer stuff and a godsend for grils (think it is only women's clothes) who have to look nice for a job or a job interview. Provided they find things to fit - but this place did have a wide range of sizes.

Outremont, however, has remained within the merged city.

Actually, there have been several campaigns to improve the working conditions of garment workers. One source of information on workers' struggles thoughout the world is www.labourstart.org

Many people have written in to the Guardian to express their dismay with the tone of George Monbiot's latest column on the damage caused by air travel. Not that they disagree, but his tone annoys them, especially since he is one of those stars of the global justice movmeent who shows up at all the right forums. He may have taken the Eurostar train to the European Social Forum in Paris, but I suspect he flew to Porto Alegre. I'm mentioning his article as it is a rabble.ca sidebar feature.

Monbiot article on air travel.

[ 02 March 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I presume that greenie has never been told he/she had to dress more "professionally" for a job he or she desperately needed.

---

Your presumption would be correct. I've managed to choose jobs that did not require me to rely on the toils of oppressed third world country workers. I have discovered that the job market has more than the two options of "dress more professionally" or be unemployed jobs.

Anyway, I do agree with a lot of your points and my own consumer choices do not preclude me from participating in the other effective actions that you provided. Furthermore, I do not pretend to think that my one action of abstinence is sufficient on its own to affect change on large corporations. I consider it one tool that we as consumers have to influence corporate policies.