# Ethical shopping in TK Maxx?



## Col_Buendia (Oct 19, 2005)

I wonder... I generally avoid branded goods that are pretty obviously shit, like, for example, the Caterpillar boots that miss the tagline "we bulldoze people's homes" etc.

There'd be a couple of reasons for that... (1) not wanting to put any of my money in those companies' pockets, and (2) not wanting to be part of the general endorsement of these brands.

But I was wondering... I've spotted a cheapish rucksack in TK Maxx that would be a very handy replacement to my currently falling apart one. But it is a Nike Rucksack  :sweat alert:

So the question is, although it is quite mildly "branded", one small swoosh which could be easily covered up or "busted" in some sense, if I buy a Nike product in TK Maxx, how does the money travel? Do Nike get something from my purchase there? Or just TK Maxx?


----------



## Tank Girl (Oct 19, 2005)

surely if you've strong feelings towards buying ethically, the very fact that it's a nike bag would mean you don't buy it.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 19, 2005)

Tank Girl said:
			
		

> surely if you've strong feelings towards buying ethically, the very fact that it's a nike bag would mean you don't buy it.



Hmmm... you may have sorted me there. Dunno. My ethics aren't cast in stone, I'm a bit long in the tooth for that style.

But I presume you mean if it is a sweated product then you wouldn't want it on your shoulder regardless. Good point!

On the otherhand, it's lying on the floor in TK Maxx, so now that it exists, I suppose what I am asking is 'is my boycotting of it going to have any effect if Nike don't get any of my cash from this'. Someone will end up with the bag, and the fact that it is in the discount store suggests that purchasing it wouldn't exactly be stimulating demand for Nike...

Also, it is quite cheap, as rucksacks go, and after paying for our green electricity and organic yoghurt, I'm pretty fecking skint at the mo!


----------



## Tank Girl (Oct 19, 2005)

well I guess that nike have already been paid for it - but I dunno for sure!

ethical shopping is way too fraught for me.


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 19, 2005)

Very very few products _aren't_ made in sweat shops, so I wouldn't stress if I were you.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2005)

i've bought stuff in tk maxx, and primark, because it's cheap, but i go clothes shopping so rarely... don't think i've bought much more than 2 pairs of trousers and a shirt in nearly 3 years 

i bought my trainers from tk maxx in february 2003, still wearing them now.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 19, 2005)

bristle-krs said:
			
		

> i bought my trainers from tk maxx in february 2003, still wearing them now.



Snaaap! I'm wearing a pair of trainers that I got in TK Maxx for about 1/3 of the retail price.

Yeah, I know a lot of stuff is sweated, and it's not like we got a lot of choice, esp. on limited budgets, but Nike is sort of a high profile one that usually makes me wanna barf! That said, this rucksack is curiously under-branded, so it might be worth snapping up & re-branding!


----------



## Blagsta (Oct 19, 2005)

If you like it, buy it.  Simple.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 19, 2005)

i've got a nike rucksack and nike trainers - i got 'em both with 75% discounts


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 19, 2005)

Matalan is where I get me jeans and t-shirts.  Although just because something isn't branded with a big name doesn't mean the garment hasn't been made by workers with bad working and living conditions.


----------



## WasGeri (Oct 19, 2005)

Nike is shit - I wouldn't buy it for that reason alone. I've got a spare rucksack you can have - it's hardly been used, PM me if you want it and I'll stick it in the post to you. It's a Gelert.


----------



## kropotkin (Oct 19, 2005)

I thought this thread was a satire, to be honest.

If you like it, and it is cheap, buy it.

The problems with production are just that: they can't be altered in a meaningful way by attempting [and failing] to change patterns of consumption.

Making a choice to buy the same product at higher than its market price is silly.


----------



## catch (Oct 19, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> If you like it, and it is cheap, buy it.
> 
> The problems with production are just that: they can't be altered in a meaningful way by attempting [and failing] to change patterns of consumption.
> 
> Making a choice to buy the same product at higher than its market price is silly.



In addition to this, are you not concerned about the (probably) shit wages of TK Maxx workers - or retail industry workers in general? Just because something wasn't made in a sweatshop doesn't make it "ethical", it just means the degree (rather than nature) of exploitation is maybe a bit less.

Try finding a rucksack that isn't made in a sweatshop. And if you can, it'll likely be some cynical hippy product designed to fleece guilty western consumers who'll pay higher prices for "value added" products.


----------



## The Pious Pawn (Oct 19, 2005)

you work you pay tax that buys weapons , stop being childish an buy it what you do has no credence on what happens in the world why cut of your nose to spite your face


----------



## scumbalina (Oct 19, 2005)

Pawn said:
			
		

> you work you pay tax that buys weapons , stop being childish an buy it what you do has no credence on what happens in the world why cut of your nose to spite your face



How the fuck is being concerned about the influence your actions have in any way childish?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 19, 2005)

okay not childish but niave liberal wank.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2005)

Where else am i going to get OTS gear for £50 - if a few black men die for that, well, that's a price i'm prepared to pay (with a heavy heart).


----------



## reallyoldhippy (Oct 19, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> The problems with production are just that: they can't be altered in a meaningful way by attempting [and failing] to change patterns of consumption.


But attempting and succeeding can alter things. Production AND consumption are necessary to capitalism. To think that we can change things ONLY as producers is naive marxist wank.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2005)

reallyoldhippy said:
			
		

> But attempting and succeeding can alter things. Production AND consumption are necessary to capitalism. To think that we can change things ONLY as producers is naive marxist wank.


 These thing have already been bought and sold already, you might as well attack investement funds by shouting at them - if you understand the cycle....you'll stop a few local capitialists who'll move their money elsewhere and get the average rate of profit...you're not attacking capitalism, you're attacking a few examples of it...come the fuck on...


----------



## JWH (Oct 19, 2005)

What does OTS stand for? 

Yes, if it's in a shop, Nike got paid for it. If it's in TK Maxx, they might have got paid a little less for it than if it had been selling at full price in some high street sports shop.

If anything, Nike stuff is _less_ likely to have been made in abhorrant sweatshops than unbranded stuff. Unbranded companies have nothing to lose by using the worst possible labour conditions.


----------



## neilh (Oct 19, 2005)

another angle - as you are paying a far reduced price for it, you won't have to work longer hours and so be tied to a possibly boring job when you could be doing something else just so you can get a nike rucksack.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 20, 2005)

So, would buying any of this stuff make you feel better?

Velvet Shoulder Bag

Fair trade velvet shoulder bag with embroidered celtic motif (which may vary).

(This fairly traded shoulder bag is produced in India and Nepal for Namaste. Namaste have a very strict fair trade policy - full details can be found at www.namaste-uk.com. All sizes shown are approximate and colour may vary on some items. We cannot guarantee your first choice of colour.)

Studded Back Pack

Strikingly studded small back pack with zip top and zipped front small pocket, with adjustable black straps. Made from used inner tubes. (Also see our inner tube belts.)

(Due to the nature of the materials used, the surface of each bag may differ slightly.)

Question: So what do you do with the used inner tubes from the 7 million cars in Mexico City? Answer: Use them to create these stylish & functional bags (what else!?) Tough as, well, old tyres; these funky bags will last for ages and serve both you and the environment well.

Back Pack

A roomy small vegan backpack, has a front pouch with buckle, adjustable strap, plus the top is edged in a colourful fabric. Made from used inner tubes. 

Eco Chic Hemp Bags

Smosho Bag - From Bottles To Bags

Solar Back Pack

No Sweat sneakers

Ethical Footballs


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2005)

They all look crap though.

And to answer JWH (I think it was) OTS = One True Saxon.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 20, 2005)

There are two other more expensive footballs in that range:

The 'Team'

The 'Premier'

The 'Pro'


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2005)

You'd get people beaten up wearing that badly photoghraphed tat.

Question: So what do you do with the used inner tubes from the 7 million cars in Mexico City? Answer: Use them to create these stylish & functional bags (what else!?) 


And we'll make a tidy little number into the bargain at £54 each...


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

plenty of respect lost on this thread from people who attack the system regularly but participate in it with a clear conscience, then attack those who worry about how their own participation works.  nice, and it smells of hypocrisy.  people aren't allowed to buy from charity shops, aren't allowed to buy from discount warehouses, ethical products are naive wiberal bullshit.

consume and die fellas, but don't forget that bitching about the system on the internet is the BEST way of undermining it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2005)

Wow and i thought teejay shoveled a load of seperate issues into one unrelated *load of crap* post - we have a new record.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Wow and i thought teejay shoveled a load of seperate issues into one unrelated *load of crap* post - we have a new record.



cheers.  when i see a post of yours that presents a reasonable way of living the most ethically sound life possible in a capitalist system on a limited budget then i'll be offended.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 20, 2005)

Here's some more: http://cityhippy.blogspot.com/2005/05/mission-little-green-bag.html

Recycled Messenger Bag
Hemp Messenger Bag
Pure Sativa Rucksacks

You want fashionable?

Try these: http://www.treehugger.com/files/accessories/index.php


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 20, 2005)

Don't worry - butchersapron lives in a fantasy "class struggle anarchist" world where he can scream and shout and snear and generally let loose his tourettes-like personality, and call it "politics".

He has yet to actually tell me, after all this time, what he has ever actually done in terms of politics, campaigning or making anyone's life better.

He is overwhealmingly negative about everything and doesn't have any kind of positive ideas or vision about the world beyond a vague utopian pipe dream which allows him to denounce anything anyone does and maintain a smug superiority to everything.

He is a complete and utter waste of time (although I am told he is "really sweet" and "harmless" in real life).


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 20, 2005)

ethical handbags at dawn?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

is it still an ethical handbag if you drop a half-brick in it before the fight?


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 20, 2005)

But that would stretch it darling! 

Don't you know how much they cost!


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 20, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> cheers.  when i see a post of yours that presents a reasonable way of living the most ethically sound life possible in a capitalist system on a limited budget then i'll be offended.



My mother could give you a few pointers on that mate.  And it wouldn't be about a silly bag from south America either.


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

Do you even read the websites you link to TeeJay?


> The bling binge has ignited a major increase in the diamond market. Recognizing the opportunity to encourage a diamond trade that is fair, equitable and benefits communities where the diamonds are mined and crafted - Kimora Simmons, founder of Baby Phat fashions and wife of Hip-Hop mogul Russell Simmons - partnered with diamond distributor M. Fabrikant to create Simmons Jewelry Co. The company inspects all diamonds to ensure they are conflict free and a large percentage of the profits benefit communities affected by the diamond trade. Recently, the company, which started in 2004, announced the release of a not-so-eco-but-nonetheless-socially-conscious $35,000 case for the Sony PSP portable gaming system. The iced out case is made out of a pound of gold, alligator skin (tsk!) and yellow and black conflict-free diamonds.





> You want fashionable?
> 
> Try these:http://www.treehugger.com/files/accessories/index.php


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 20, 2005)

Tk Maxx buy 'deadstock' (old, out of date, broken size runs, hard to shift stock) which usually means they buy it for less than the usual wholesale price, so the company that sells it to them often makes a small loss.

They also commision companies to make cheaper, lower quality versions of what they sell to everyone else (called downspeced), they are not the only company to do this, M & M sports and Designer Rooms do the same thing.  That way they can sell it at a discount price.

They are the funeral directors of the fashion trade.

Finally re. Nike - they now have among the best ethical policy out there and they share a lot of factories with other brands  (yes- including New Balance), so boycotting Nike I don't really get anymore.  If you are truly worried about ethics, stop shopping in pound shops, buying cheap candles or xmas decorations.  Those are the shithole factories in South East Aisa, the garment, shoe, bag factories are like palaces in comparison.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> My mother could give you a few pointers on that mate.  And it wouldn't be about a silly bag from south America either.



go on then.  give her a call and share the wisdom.  i'm serious.  people often have trouble balancing a low income low impact life within a capitalist system and if your mum has the secret it would be rude not to pass it along.


----------



## nadia (Oct 20, 2005)

I do believe that all unsold stock in tkmaxx is donated to charity at least in the US after being on the rails for about six weeks


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 20, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> go on then.  give her a call and share the wisdom.  i'm serious.  people often have trouble balancing a low income low impact life within a capitalist system and if your mum has the secret it would be rude not to pass it along.



3 for 2's.

Handy when on income support.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

Ryazan said:
			
		

> 3 for 2's.
> 
> Handy when on income support.



so basically you were just having a pointless snipe and have nothing whatsoever to offer other than sneering.


----------



## rednblack (Oct 20, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> plenty of respect lost on this thread from people who attack the system regularly but participate in it with a clear conscience, then attack those who worry about how their own participation works.  nice, and it smells of hypocrisy.  people aren't allowed to buy from charity shops, aren't allowed to buy from discount warehouses, ethical products are naive wiberal bullshit.
> 
> consume and die fellas, but don't forget that bitching about the system on the internet is the BEST way of undermining it.



don't be a fucking nob end - buying cheap nike stuff is probably the most ethical way of living on a budget - as others have pointed out their sweatshops are probably less bad than the ones for unbranded stuff, and there is no way of buying 'fair trade' stuff on my budget for a start.

who has said you can't buy from discount warehouses?


----------



## mk12 (Oct 20, 2005)

Cat boots are useful for wearing in a warehouse though.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 20, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> so basically you were just having a pointless snipe and have nothing whatsoever to offer other than sneering.



Not a snipe at all.  It is just pointless in some ways in trying to get a complete change in your consumer habits when on a _low _ income.  You will just end up annoying yourself if you do.  From family experience, the least "ethical" options in the supermarket are sometimes the best choices to make when you have a tiny budget in which to feed the kids.  Just a thought.  Hardly taking the piss, being very serious.  I just don't think that changing your consumer patterns is going to have that much of an impact in the long term, and it helps the profits of those that have placed themselves into the ethical niche when selling to guilt ridden  people, who might want to spend their larger disposable incomes on a fair trade football, but most will head to JJB when there is a sale on.

I would buy a hemp donkey jacket if they were available though.  Tartan-lined of course.


----------



## FreddyB (Oct 20, 2005)

I buy a lot of clothes from auction, boxes of ex catalogue stuff surplus and bankrupt stock. Keep what I want/fits me and sell/give to mates the stuff that doesn't.  Army surplus is good stuff as well but some places are ludicrously expensive.  

Having absolutely no dress sense helps, apparently Swiss camo shirts should not be worn with versace jeans.


----------



## dolly's gal (Oct 20, 2005)

hm, this is an interesting thread. i watched that documentary 'The Corporation' the other night. and while it succeeded in making me feel a bit guilty about buying clothes from GAP it didn't offer a viable or affordable alternative (cos let's face it, primark is just as bad). in fact, after an initial five minutes of feeling remorseful about my wardrobe, all it really did was make me think that the majority of boycotting is a load of old cobblers, and that's what i thought before i watched the film anyway. maybe if we made our own clothes, that would be ok. trouble is, i wouldn't know where to start with a pair of ugg boots!


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

rednblack said:
			
		

> don't be a fucking nob end - buying cheap nike stuff is probably the most ethical way of living on a budget - as others have pointed out their sweatshops are probably less bad than the ones for unbranded stuff, and there is no way of buying 'fair trade' stuff on my budget for a start.
> 
> who has said you can't buy from discount warehouses?



first point, don't be such a rude cunt.  but the cheap nike stuff may be a goodd idea, however how does one get them when plenty of people on this thread have suggested that buying from tk maxx (a discount warehouse) is just as bad.  this attacks the principal of trying to get goods without paying either top dollar or supporting companies that are, perceived as being partially responsible for bad ethical practices.  after all, i would suggest that if there hadn't been pressure put on them from consumers they wouldn't have improved conditions in their factories.

part of the problem here is that a lot of people are uncomfortable wearing branded clothes as it appears to be visible support, whereas others couldn't give a fuck what message they put across.  i tend to get around it by wearing charity shop clothes, but then i've been attacked for that before.  people who spend moeny on fair trade clothes because they can afford it are attacked for   being liberals.  i just think that around here there's always attacks on people who try to do the best they can and worry about it and quite frankly that sucks.

------------------

ryazan, now you've explained it, i can see your point a lot better.  i think what is a shame here is that yeah, tescos loss leaders and the like are the cheapest way of feeding a family on a budget and i can totally understand that people don't necessarily have the choice - i'm bloody skint and do my best to avoid tesco and the like because i don't approve of their business practices but you can't avoid the bad shit altogether.  changing your consumer patterns as an individual isn't going to help, but if enough people demand food that is as local as possible then it might well help.


----------



## kropotkin (Oct 20, 2005)

NO IT WON'T

That idea is based on a misunderstanding of the way the market works. AT BEST you are talking about expanding a middle-class niche market, where 'concerned ethical consumers' choose to buy _the same commodity_ [e.g. a banana] at higher than its market price. This is the same- in terms of effects on _general_ market practises [i.e. the only thing that should concern you]- as someone buying the same sandwitch from Harrods food court for £4 when they could have bought it from Tescos for £1.50: i.e. none.

What you have to understand is that in a class-stratified society, where for the majority of people the largest factor in determining purchasing decisions will always be the price signals surrounding a commodity, 'ethical consumerism' can only ever have niche market effects. That is cool for the workers in those industries [although there are ots of issues around weakening the bargaining position of producers- like fairtrade coffee coops in Guatemalas- by tying them to one particular buyer], but it can never achieve the momentum to effect significant change in average practises.


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

> i just think that around here there's always attacks on people who try to do the best they can and worry about it and quite frankly that sucks.


You're misunderstanding the attacks. The objection is to two things:

1. that consumerism will not change the fundamentally exploitative nature of capitalism. ethical capitalism is an oxymoron.

Anyone who doubts this is just another manifestation of consumersism see TeeJay's "_So, would buying any of this stuff make you feel better?_"

2. Ethical shopping can take a lot of time - either time spent shopping hunting around charity shops, or time spent working to buy goods at multiples of their normal price because they've been branded to a niche market. If you accept point 1, then these shouldn't be seen as attacks, they should be seen as genuine expressions of concern that people are spending loads of time and money that in the end will have little effect because they feel guilty about a system that isn't their own fault. Spending a little bit less time trying to opt out of capitalist society or reduce your impact or whatever might free you up to consider how things could actually be changed collectively.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Do you even read the websites you link to TeeJay?


Of course not that would take up too much of his time being used to be a tedious fuckwit.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> NO IT WON'T
> .




but what i'm talking about with food is that while a locally produced spud might cost a bit more than a tesco's spud the money goes direct to the producer, there is far less wastage and far less pollution involved in transfering it around.  cutting out the middleman, basically.

how does one reduce their negative social/environmental impact most effectively in this society then on limited funds?


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

> how does one reduce their negative social/environmental impact most effectively in this society then on limited funds?


How about trying to change the society so social/environmental impact isn't left to consumer choices?


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 20, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> I thought this thread was a satire, to be honest.
> 
> If you like it, and it is cheap, buy it.
> 
> ...



Interesting points from many posts, but I'd like to come back to Kropotkin on the above... not sure why it should have seemed like satire, but that's not so important.

I take onboard and to a large degree agree with what you are saying about consumption not being able to change patterns of production, although I think that that position needs to be tempered with a small amount of recognition that public reaction has meant that perhaps some of the more flagrant sweating abuses needed to be beautified...

But my original post was prinicipally concerned with my position in the world, and that seems to me to be the point that you have missed. While I largely agree with your analysis of my potential impact on a factory in the Philipines, I am more concerned (in this instance) with personal morality. When you say "If you like it, and it is cheap, buy it" I find that hard to take at face value. I mean, for sake of argument (and if you'll forgive me picking an extreme example to try to make the point clear), would you seriously have no personal/ethical concerns over the impact you would have if you turned up at a Palestine Solidarity Meeting wearing a pair of Caterpillar boots that you had picked up in a charity shop? I find it hard to imagine that you would not blink at such a proposition, but I don't want to put words in mouths, I'd be keen to know what you think.

Don't you feel that there is a question to be asked of people who wear/carry logos that represent forces that have a hugely concrete and negative impact on our world?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> You're misunderstanding the attacks. The objection is to two things:
> 
> 1. that consumerism will not change the fundamentally exploitative nature of capitalism. ethical capitalism is an oxymoron.
> 
> ...




1.  i agree that ethical capitalism is an oxymoron.  however, given less we're stuck with it for the time being how about some form of less destructive consumerism - an attempt to reduce one's participation as much as possible.

2.  to be honest i've considered a lot of ways, and this is what i've come up with.  charity shopping for what i want, buying from the secondary market such as tk maxx etc., trying to buy my food outside the restrictive markets of the supermarket monopolies.  doesn't seem to be costing me much time.  and what's the point of using the time that the capitalist system gives me in ease of use to try and undermine it through collective change when i can simply feel a lot better about myself and not put myself through the hell of trying to organise anarchists into a force for change.  might as well try and nail jelly to the ceiling.  been there, done that, worn the t-shirt.


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Don't you feel that there is a question to be asked of people who wear/carry logos that represent forces that have a hugely concrete and negative impact on our world?



no logo clothing has a 





> hugely concrete and negative impact on our world?


 as well. Concentrating on brands just obfuscates the real issues of capitalist society (and I say this as someone who owns just about zero branded clothes, I don't normally wear clothes with any kind of pattern/print on either).


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> How about trying to change the society so social/environmental impact isn't left to consumer choices?



it'd be nice.  and part of that is by advising people that consumer choices aren't the only way of doing things, spreading the word and most importantly trying to live it yourself to demonstrate.  how can you take someone seriously who demands change from a system that they themselves profit from, even if the profit is only in terms of time and ease of existence?

IMO changing society comes by showing people there is another way, not by telling them that there is when you're not living it.  even if you're only living it a little bit, it's still better than nothing.


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> 1.  i agree that ethical capitalism is an oxymoron.  however, given less we're stuck with it for the time being how about some form of less destructive consumerism - an attempt to reduce one's participation as much as possible.



The logical extension of that is squatting/homelessness, dumpster diving, eating roadkill. Not a road I'm prepared to go down by choice myself. I personally don't have the cash to be either a rampant consumerist or consistent ethical shopper - I buy some stuff that's might be considered ethical, some stuff that isn't. I don't think any of it has much to do with changing society and it's that idea I'm objecting to. Buying "ethical" stuff doesn't make me feel any better anything (unless it's happens to be tasty food!), in fact I've walked into one or two "ethical" clothing shops and got pretty angry about the bare-faced consumerism that's trotted out as a force for social change. I'd rather good, honest, hard-nosed capitalism to dishonest cunts like the body shop or adbusters.



> 2.  to be honest i've considered a lot of ways, and this is what i've come up with.  charity shopping for what i want, buying from the secondary market such as tk maxx etc., trying to buy my food outside the restrictive markets of the supermarket monopolies.  doesn't seem to be costing me much time.


TK Maxx is hardly outside the market - they're a way of clearing dead stock to make way for new stock. Don't know what their staff get paid, but I bet it's shit. I'm lucky enough to live close to a street market (and two supermarkets) and get most stuff on the market apart from things like milk, cheese and cereals that aren't available. Again, although I really like the street market, I'm under no illusions that I'm hurting supermarket chains by buying stuff there instead most of the time.



> and what's the point of using the time that the capitalist system gives me in ease of use to try and undermine it through collective change when i can simply feel a lot better about myself and not put myself through the hell of trying to organise anarchists into a force for change.


Who's talking about organising anarchists? How about acting in areas where you can actually have some influence like your job or neighbourhood?


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

Making consumer choices in western society isn't "another way", it's an essential part of western late-capitalism. Profit is a term relating to a specific social relationship that occurs in production, not something that can be applied to emotions and time.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Concentrating on brands just obfuscates the real issues of capitalist society (and I say this as someone who owns just about zero branded clothes, I don't normally wear clothes with any kind of pattern/print on either).



I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying Catch, but again, I think my point is that it is not an either/or situation. I do many other things apart from think about where I shop & what I buy, and I couldn't agree more with you when you write "I've walked into one or two "ethical" clothing shops and got pretty angry about the bare-faced consumerism that's trotted out as a force for social change."

At the same time, whilst engaging in other activities, and while not entertaining any illusions about the revolutionary potential of "ethical shopping", is it not worth our while to spare a moment's thought to what/where we buy? That's my point, again returning to the personal morality thing I was on about above.


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> trying to buy my food outside the restrictive markets of the supermarket monopolies.  doesn't seem to be costing me much time.






			
				col buendia said:
			
		

> is it not worth our while to spare a moment's thought to what/where we buy? That's my point, again returning to the personal morality thing I was on about above.



OK a bit of an admission. I've been increasingly reading up on Del Monte and Dole's practices in banana production, and have decided I can't face buying bananas produced by them any more. Not just because they're union busting child mutilating cunts, but because my wife's pregnant and the idea of her eating something that's directly resulted in disfigurement of the kids who produced it (or whose parents produced it) is pretty fucking sickening, and also because for that to be the case, they must be completely saturated with fungicide which isn't an idea I like either.

As I've just posted I live next to a street market, and two supermarkets. If I buy bananas from the street market, apart from one stall I've noticed (that's half a mile away past all the other stalls selling bananas), all of the bananas are either of unclear source or made by Del Monte/Dole. Or I could pop into Sainsbury's and pick up from a choice of organic or fair trade. Or I could stop eating bananas, and by extension stop eating any food at all. Think about this shit too much and you end up feeling guilty about eating, wearing or living in anything - I'm not interested in being an ascetic.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> 1. The logical extension of that is squatting/homelessness, dumpster diving, eating roadkill. Not a road I'm prepared to go down by choice myself. I personally don't have the cash to be either a rampant consumerist or consistent ethical shopper - I buy some stuff that's might be considered ethical, some stuff that isn't. I don't think any of it has much to do with changing society and it's that idea I'm objecting to. Buying "ethical" stuff doesn't make me feel any better anything (unless it's happens to be tasty food!), in fact I've walked into one or two "ethical" clothing shops and got pretty angry about the bare-faced consumerism that's trotted out as a force for social change. I'd rather good, honest, hard-nosed capitalism to dishonest cunts like the body shop or adbusters.
> 
> 
> 2. TK Maxx is hardly outside the market - they're a way of clearing dead stock to make way for new stock. Don't know what their staff get paid, but I bet it's shit. I'm lucky enough to live close to a street market (and two supermarkets) and get most stuff on the market apart from things like milk, cheese and cereals that aren't available. Again, although I really like the street market, I'm under no illusions that I'm hurting supermarket chains by buying stuff there instead most of the time.
> ...



1.  true enough.  i've been down that path myself and it's not fun.  i'm in much the same situation as yourself, not rich in money or time.  i don't know how dishonest 'ethical' companies are - they're operating within a capitalist system and are playing by the rules of the high street.  i can't really stand any of them so whatever, basically.

2. dead stock is still stock that is no longer viable - by buying it later you're not playing into the whole fashion bullshit. it may not make much of an effect but it's the difference between consumerism and making use of what's left behind when this wave has been eaten up by those who are consumers.  again, buying from small stores and markets isn't 'hurting' chains, it's simply not participating in the chains' existence.  it's having nothing to do with them,  and maybe if enough people do that it might hrt them.  that's the way i see it anyway.  

3.  temps have no power in their job, when they're lucky enough to work.  and transient renters such as myself don't have a lot of power in the community.  but yes, exercise such power as you can.  i'm permanently impressed by how good community action groups can,if nothing else, expose the anti-democratic machinations of capitalism.  but the simple truth is that we aren't going to bring down the state any time soon, but if we act in a the best way that we can within our communities and as individuals, lead by example and with intelligence and integrity we might make spreading the word easier.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Think about this shit too much and you end up feeling guilty about eating, wearing or living in anything.



ain't that the truth.  we're so entangled in the global capitalist system that it's a total headfuck.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Think about this shit too much and you end up feeling guilty about eating, wearing or living in anything - I'm not interested in being an ascetic.



Indeed! And I didn't want to think about it... that's why I asked you 'orrible lot


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> 2. dead stock is still stock that is no longer viable - by buying it later you're not playing into the whole fashion bullshit.


Selling that stuff, even at a loss, liquidises assets that are reinvested into the mainstream fashion industry. It directly supports the fashion industry and overproduction.



> again, buying from small stores and markets isn't 'hurting' chains, it's simply not participating in the chains' existence.


TK Maxx is a chain isn't it?


> 3.  temps have no power in their job, when they're lucky enough to work.  and transient renters such as myself don't have a lot of power in the community.


There've been ideas floated here about setting up a workers' co-op temp agency. Might be a shit idea in practice but you never know. Trying to build structures in workplaces and communities that can include people with transient lifestyles is important (like unionising temps), it certainly doesn't involve writing them off entirely.

I rent and I've also lived within a 5 mile radius for the past four years in three different places - that's a small enough area for a degree of consistency, although I'll be the first to admit that I've not established anything of use myself - just joined existing activity.



> but if we act in a the best way that we can within our communities and as individuals, lead by example and with intelligence and integrity we might make spreading the word easier.



That involves pointing out when certain political activities aren't going to achieve very much and proposing alternatives doesn't it?


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Do you even read the websites you link to TeeJay?


That site lists hundreds of products and isn't selling them - it is just linking to them/reviewing them. It endorse them all - just makes comments etc. some of them critical ones.

I didn't bother looking down the whole list of products. Why should I?


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> 1. Selling that stuff, even at a loss, liquidises assets that are reinvested into the mainstream fashion industry. It directly supports the fashion industry and overproduction.
> 
> 2. TK Maxx is a chain isn't it?
> 
> ...



1. yes, but it's better than spending full price on the latest gear and thus legitimising the consumerist experience!  buying from the seconds and olds place is saying, yeah, we'll take the stuff you can't sell at a huge profit but we wont take it otherwise.  if it says anything at all!

2.  yeah, true enough, though i was thiking the supermarket chains when i made that comment, who move far more stuff around and are a lot more of a threat to community cohesion than tk maxx.

3.  that would be a great idea in theory and one i'd certainly sign up to.  unionising temps isn't gonna happen easily though.  the corporate world will fight tooth and nail to avoid giving any rights to temps sadly.

4.  unfortunately i haven't had any consistency in years.  i've been involved in community activism whenever there has been community activism to be involved in though.  i think that is far more important than lifestyle changes on the whole.

5.  but i haven't seen an alternative yet.  consumption practices aren't, in themselves, the only thing to do, they're just part of a wider scale of living that involves unionisation, low impact living, activism (community and wider scale), and all sorts of other things.  i still think that avoiding the mainstream markets as much as possible is important - not the be all and end all, but an important part nonetheless.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> ...Or I could stop eating bananas, and by extension stop eating any food at all...


Why "by extension"? You have a problems with bananas, not with "all food", so why would quitting bananas - a specific product - mean not eating fod at all?


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 20, 2005)

Just to add: TK part of a huuge chain (caled TJ Maxx in the USA).  Although they are pretty much the biggest buyer and trader of deadstock out there, the majority of what they sell isn't deadstock at all.  It's either cheapo non-branded fodder bought in much  the same way any other chain would buy stock in, or MTO - made to order branded goods but designed to a cheaper spec (eg if original garment was emnbroidered the downspec willl be printed) so they can then sell it at a discount.

http://www.tjx.com/employment/


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Why "by extension"? You have a problems with bananas, not with "all food", so why would quitting bananas - a specific product - mean not eating fod at all?



Because there's problems with the production and distribution of nearly all food that's available to eat in London. If I stopped eating anything that didn't fit strict ethical/sustainable criteria, I wouldn't eat. Take this ethical shopping  stuff seriously, and you end up withdrawing from society - by relying on a personalistic view of morality it leads to quietism.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 20, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> Because there's problems with the production and distribution of nearly all food that's available to eat in London. If I stopped eating anything that didn't fit strict ethical/sustainable criteria, I wouldn't eat. Take this ethical shopping  stuff seriously, and you end up withdrawing from society - by relying on a personalistic view of morality it leads to quietism.


You can take ethical shopping seriously and still buy stuff - by adopting the principle of buying the "least worst" product rather than using a strict 'fixed' ethical/sustainable criteria.

I'm not however saying that I believe that "ethical shopping" is the way forward (despite my posting links to various products on this thread). If people have a certain amount of time, effort and money they want to put into doing something I'd prefer they first of all put it into political action and campaigning. Ideally *all* products would be fair-traded and sustainable and the burden and cost wouldn't be placed on individual consumers and end-users, but I doubt that this can be achieved by niche shopping rather than widespread campaigning. 

One example is CFCs/aerosols: while people avoiding CFC-containing hairsprays did raise the profile of problem, ultimately it was an internationally agreed world-wide ban that changed things, not the force of people's shopping habits.

Personally I combine a bit of both - supporting political campaigns *and* trying to choose fairtraded/ethical goods where I can (although it is only ever *one* factor in what I choose to buy rather than the sole factor).


----------



## catch (Oct 20, 2005)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> Ideally *all* products would be fair-traded and sustainable and the burden and cost wouldn't be placed on individual consumers and end-users,



Ideally all products would be provided "from each according to ability; to each according to need;" not "fair traded" which ignores the inherent exploitation in capitalism.

Either way "least worst" results in people voting liberal democrat and other bollocks.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 20, 2005)

It doesn't make a difference to the people who produce the stuff whether you buy Nike or not - it's not like they get paid more for sewing up Nike than Matalan. At source it's all the same. Brand-focussed campaigns like anti-Nike don't make any difference as long as everyone else gets away with the same behaviour - which they do if a campaign focusses on a brand, which it almost always does in effect because that's the simplest message.

Paying less for things is good but it's still money going to support their business practices, and there's the social effect of branded clothing as well.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 20, 2005)

also the cock who said something about not buying into the fashion thing. Fuck you, if i wanna buy shit thats nice i will, nothing wrong with fashion, infact i see it as a form of art, once it is of course removed from the grip of the commodity it will be another sphere of self expression.


----------



## kropotkin (Oct 20, 2005)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Interesting points from many posts, but I'd like to come back to Kropotkin on the above... not sure why it should have seemed like satire, but that's not so important.


Sorry, that was a bit needlessly cruel, you are right. 



> I take onboard and to a large degree agree with what you are saying about consumption not being able to change patterns of production, although I think that that position needs to be tempered with a small amount of recognition that public reaction has meant that perhaps some of the more flagrant sweating abuses needed to be beautified...



I just wanted to come back on this quickly. 
What happened was that Nike sourced their trainers from incredibly cheap suppliers in South East Asia. They could do this because of their size in terms of capital-command, the export-processing-zones neoliberal capitalism helped create there, and the ease at which they could shift their manufacturing. They saved massive amounts, and managed to use lots of other capital to create a global brand that caught the attention of campaigners. 
The massive disparity between the wages of the workers and the cost of the product- the very thing that made the capital employed in the company so profitable- became the hook on which the brand was attacked.

They were forced to institute checks and thus raise the costs of production slightly- this of course was made up for by the concommitant rise of the commodity price etc and will may have had little effect on them. What also happened was that that particular way of producing became more dominant- capital was able to fly from _all manufacturig sectors_ and Nike's mechanism of making a massive company is now used in making most of the clothes [and indeed everything else]. One company may have been harmed [a little], but all the other workers involved in manufacturing now have shittier conditions. 

I'll come back on the rest tomorrow- I'm moving at the weekend and am trying to pack [whilst of course having the odd spliff-and-u75-break you understand].


----------



## JWH (Oct 20, 2005)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> It doesn't make a difference to the people who produce the stuff whether you buy Nike or not - it's not like they get paid more for sewing up Nike than Matalan.


But that's not necessarily true. _If _it is the case that the big brands are having to genuinely make sure that pay and conditions at the factories that make their products are acceptable as a result of the sweatshop campaigns while non-brands don't, _then_ it does make a difference to the workers whether you buy Nike or Matalan.


----------



## JWH (Oct 20, 2005)

Why is it TK Maxx in the UK and TJ Maxx in the US?


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 20, 2005)

JWH said:
			
		

> Why is it TK Maxx in the UK and TJ Maxx in the US?



I think someone already trademarked the name over here or it was possibly too similar to another brand name over here, so maybe they weren't allowed to register it


----------



## kropotkin (Oct 20, 2005)

No, it only makes a difference if the global sales of the commodities in question are actually effected [i.e. if they reduce] for a long period of time.


ah- i see what you mean- that a non-sweated Nike is preferable on a labour-conditions level than a non-branded sweated place?


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 20, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> Sorry, that was a bit needlessly cruel, you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Where on earth did you get this info from because it's utter rubbish


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2005)

pinkmonkey said:
			
		

> I think someone already trademarked the name over here or it was possibly too similar to another brand name over here, so maybe they weren't allowed to register it


 Can you tell us more about 'deadstock' or point me towards something (book/link/article) please? 

No worries if you can't.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 20, 2005)

JWH said:
			
		

> But that's not necessarily true. _If _it is the case that the big brands are having to genuinely make sure that pay and conditions at the factories that make their products are acceptable as a result of the sweatshop campaigns while non-brands don't, _then_ it does make a difference to the workers whether you buy Nike or Matalan.


Is it though? I mean, really. Do they genuinely make sure that pay and conditions are fair, and by what standards?

If you want to work within the system then a genuine campaign against unfair working conditions might work... unless it doesn't. If everyone decides to maintain their profit margin and pay people shit, what do you do? Not buy clothes? (The other answer here is "make your own" or "buy only second hand" of course but those are not popular solutions.)

There is always the point here that people do need clothes.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2005)

The average rate of profit. I said it yesterday i think.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 20, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Can you tell us more about 'deadstock' or point me towards something (book/link/article) please?
> 
> No worries if you can't.



It's terminology, also referred to off-price or closeout.  It's basically old stock that you can't get rid of.  The longer it's in your warehouse, the less you can get for it and it starts to cost you  in warehousing space so you have to get rid.  It can be broken size runs, faulty or colours and styles that you ordered tons of that just didn't sell.

Just about every company I can think of ends up clearing at least some deadstock to TK Maxx at a loss.  The alternative is to sell it even more cheaply to clearing companies who then 'debrand' it and sell it in Africa for next to nothing.

They don't call TK the funeral directors for nothing....

Then theres the Clothes Show Live in December.  Plenty of companies hire a stand to sell their deadstock and take advantange of the mad feeding frenzy.

Then theres now also eBay.  They've started showing at trade shows, encouraging companies to clear their deadstock on there.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2005)

Ta Pm 

For kroppers: So it's unrealised surplus value, that's forcing capital to rely on credit (on the basis of future sales) to get the cycle moving quicko and it's blocking circulation.  It's been produced - it has to be got rid of - law of value at work, clear as day. Concrete vs abstract labour writ large.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 20, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Ta Pm
> 
> For kroppers: So it's unrealised surplus value, that's forcing capital to rely on credit (on the basis of future sales) to get the cycle moving quicko and it's blocking circulation.  It's been produced - it has to be got rid of - law of value at work, clear as day. Concrete vs abstract labour writ large.



Yup.  That's pretty much it.  

Although one of my old bosses held onto some stock for so long it actually rotted away and became as one with the warehouse fixtures!

I've also heard of people burning deadstock too........


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 21, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> also the cock who said something about not buying into the fashion thing. Fuck you, if i wanna buy shit thats nice i will, nothing wrong with fashion, infact i see it as a form of art, once it is of course removed from the grip of the commodity it will be another sphere of self expression.



you explained exactly why i don't buy into the fashion thing in your post, you rude cunt.  nice is a value judgement for a start, but having the latest clothes at top whack prices is what makes it a commodity and therefore part of the consumerist system.  prick.

and if nice is automatically whatever the latest fashion houses are telling you to pay them for this season then really it's not a form of self-expression at all is it.  it's an expression of how you allow a marketing team from a profit-centred company to tell you what to wear.


----------



## chegrimandi (Oct 21, 2005)

those 'ethical' (hugely expensive) products were fucking disgusting, absolute dross.

TKMaxx on the other hand sells good gear at cheap prices - can't go wrong.....


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 21, 2005)

chegrimandi said:
			
		

> those 'ethical' (hugely expensive) products were fucking disgusting, absolute dross.
> 
> TKMaxx on the other hand sells good gear at cheap prices - can't go wrong.....



I have to say, working in the trade (as I do) the alarm bells always start to ring when I see so-called ethical clothing.  Especially when I know where it's made......

Theres really very little difference between all of the brands and own label (i.e. supermarket).  

I was somewhere last week where they were making Giorgio Armani and George Asda on the same track!


----------



## chegrimandi (Oct 21, 2005)

pinkmonkey said:
			
		

> I have to say, working in the trade (as I do) the alarm bells always start to ring when I see so-called ethical clothing.  Especially when I know where it's made......
> 
> Theres really very little difference between all of the brands and own label (i.e. supermarket).



exactly. Its just highly marketed shite playing on rich liberals social conscience. Its exclusive - due to the price, and highly marketed with heavy brand values , much like Adidas, stone Island etc. Just that they cynically marketed to make the purchaser 'feel good' about themselves.


----------



## Leica (Oct 21, 2005)

Pinkmonkey, I've been curious about a couple of things and was wondering if you would be able to help:

-- Where does the material used for the clothing originate from? And how is it transported to the factories?

-- Regarding "made in..." labels on clothing - do they do anything more/other than inform of the place of production?


----------



## chegrimandi (Oct 21, 2005)

_Question: So what do you do with the used inner tubes from the 7 million cars in Mexico City? Answer: Use them to create these stylish & functional bags (what else!?) Tough as, well, old tyres; these funky bags will last for ages and serve both you and the environment well._

errr I think we have differing views of what 'funky' is.....


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 21, 2005)

I work mainly in footwear, not garments, but.....

Fabric can come from anywhere.  Italy, Turkey, Portugal are all big textile producers.  Japan is probably the best place to get denim.  It would usually travel by truck to the factory - or if it is going overseas it would be shipped.

Made in labels often only refer to the last place the garment was finished.  New Balance for instance inject all their outsoles and close (stitch) all their uppers in China, then ship these components to the 'country of origin' to be cemented (sole glued to upper) inspected and boxed.  A simple assembly job. It's a bit of a dodgy one and they have been in trouble over this in the United States about ten years ago.  I am also constantly hearing rumours that the likes of Prada are making lots in China now, with a bit of finishing in Italy.  It's also quite common for shoes that say made in Italy to be actually made in Eastern Europe and finished in Italy.  Unless you actually work in the trade and can see all this with your own eyes, it is pretty much impossible to know where things are made.  Just to add: unless you work in the trade and spend a large amount of time in the factories, it is also pretty impossible to know exactly what conditions are like or whether the owners actually stick to / enforce ethical standards.


----------



## Leica (Oct 21, 2005)

Thanks. I've always found your posts quite perceptive by the way.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 21, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Ta Pm
> 
> For kroppers: So it's unrealised surplus value, that's forcing capital to rely on credit (on the basis of future sales) to get the cycle moving quicko and it's blocking circulation.  It's been produced - it has to be got rid of - law of value at work, clear as day. Concrete vs abstract labour writ large.



Phew! That's a bit concentrated for the likes of me, but would I be correct, then, in extrapolating from this that by buying in TK Maxx I am participating in a loss-reduction exercise for the original brand owner (in this case Nike). I.E., if there were no TK Maxx or "bargain hunters" like meself, Nike would be forced to absorb an even bigger loss on their deadstock by finding some way of disposing of it (landfill, burning etc etc), rather than sell it on to discounters for a smaller loss?

@ Bluestreak: yr comments to revol68 took the words out of my mouth. Ta!


----------



## revol68 (Oct 21, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> you explained exactly why i don't buy into the fashion thing in your post, you rude cunt.  nice is a value judgement for a start, but having the latest clothes at top whack prices is what makes it a commodity and therefore part of the consumerist system.  prick.
> 
> and if nice is automatically whatever the latest fashion houses are telling you to pay them for this season then really it's not a form of self-expression at all is it.  it's an expression of how you allow a marketing team from a profit-centred company to tell you what to wear.



go back and learn what a commodity is you adbusters reading dipshit!


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 21, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> go back and learn what a commodity is you adbusters reading dipshit!



FFS 

Don't you *do* civil?

Edited to add: on careful perusal of your posts, I've discovered the answer to my question. Don't bother yourself answering it now, save yourself the hassle of typing up the gratuitous "prick" "cunt" "twat" or whatever eh?


----------



## Laidback_Dave (Oct 21, 2005)

what you could do is ask if the bag is made from slave labour or even write to the company and ask them what the conditions are like in their factories.

i never buy stuff from GAP, mainly because they are crap but because of the way they treat indonesian workers. since watching pilgers new rulers of the world, thats always stuck in my mind


----------



## catch (Oct 22, 2005)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Phew! That's a bit concentrated for the likes of me, but would I be correct, then, in extrapolating from this that ...



Yes, pretty much.


----------



## catch (Oct 22, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> but having the latest clothes at top whack prices is what makes it a commodity and therefore part of the consumerist system.  prick.


It's true that Revol is an abusive git who forgets he needs to argue his points, however he's also correct that you're "latest clothes/top whack prices" is a poor definition of a commodity.

A commodity is any item which is produced for exchange rather than to satisfy need directly. All items exchanged on markets are commodities, and some hand-made hemp shirt is as much a commodity as an Arsenal top. To supercede capitalism as an economic form, it's necessary to eliminate the commodity form from society - and hence the distinction between use-value and exchange value, and the specific commodity of labour power that it creates.
If that doesn't make sense try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity

Buying different commodities because they're "outside the system, maaan", and often for way more money (imposing more work time on yourself, and increasing your need to sell your own labour-power), simply reinforces capitalism by enabling expansion into ever more differentiated markets.

Haven't read this, but it looks like it describes the process pretty well.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-6319254-1463052



> it's an expression of how you allow a marketing team from a profit-centred company to tell you what to wear.


Nearly all companies are profit centred, and "ethical" is nothing if not a marketing ploy.


----------



## si// (Oct 22, 2005)

classic good cop/bad cop I like it. What my unruly companion meant to say was...


----------



## catch (Oct 23, 2005)

si// said:
			
		

> classic good cop/bad cop I like it. What my unruly companion meant to say was...



Except aren't they supposed to switch sometimes. Revol's _always_ bad, and I'm _always_ good.


----------



## Ryazan (Oct 26, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> It's true that Revol is an abusive git who forgets he needs to argue his points, however he's also correct that you're "latest clothes/top whack prices" is a poor definition of a commodity.
> 
> A commodity is any item which is produced for exchange rather than to satisfy need directly. All items exchanged on markets are commodities, and some hand-made hemp shirt is as much a commodity as an Arsenal top. To supercede capitalism as an economic form, it's necessary to eliminate the commodity form from society - and hence the distinction between use-value and exchange value, and the specific commodity of labour power that it creates.
> If that doesn't make sense try this:
> ...




Good post.  Good Job you didn't go and play saxaphone at The Lion King musical.


----------



## darren redparty (Oct 26, 2005)

quite simply all this talk over bourgeouis TK MAXX is a deviation from true proletarian  consumerism
   All real communists buy their clothes at Primark


----------



## \\-(*o*)-// (Oct 26, 2005)

No dear, Matalan.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 26, 2005)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> Phew! That's a bit concentrated for the likes of me, but would I be correct, then, in extrapolating from this that by buying in TK Maxx I am participating in a loss-reduction exercise for the original brand owner (in this case Nike). I.E., if there were no TK Maxx or "bargain hunters" like meself, Nike would be forced to absorb an even bigger loss on their deadstock by finding some way of disposing of it (landfill, burning etc etc), rather than sell it on to discounters for a smaller loss?
> 
> @ Bluestreak: yr comments to revol68 took the words out of my mouth. Ta!



could someone so keen on explaining why it is better to bring down capitalism by shopping answer this point please?  preferably without abuse.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 26, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> It's true that Revol is an abusive git who forgets he needs to argue his points, however he's also correct that you're "latest clothes/top whack prices" is a poor definition of a commodity.
> 
> Buying different commodities because they're "outside the system, maaan", and often for way more money (imposing more work time on yourself, and increasing your need to sell your own labour-power), simply reinforces capitalism by enabling expansion into ever more differentiated markets.
> 
> ...




but i don't see how somehow the latest fashion at top whack prices is less a commodity then a few years old stuff at knocked down prices where the companies might be making almost no profit?
thanks for the commodity link, btw, it helps to understand the process a little more though it certainly hasn't changed my argument.

it seems that the mass of argument on here is that until capitalism is brought to its knees then anyone who buys outside of the high street is a weak liberal idiot contributing to capitalism more than the revolutionary in the latest threads.  i really can't see that.  am i just being thick, or is beckham really undermining the system more than an activist in second hand clothes?

----
buying clothes "outside the system" (and please don't give me that patronising shit) doesn't cost me any more time or money than buying them from the high street.  in fact, one of the major advantages is that it costs me significantly less money, and if it takes up more time then i haven't noticed.

---------

i dunno why you keep bringing it back to ethical clothes companies though.  surely the biggest problem here is not that they exist to make money out of liberals, but "are they actually ethical"?  by referring back to liberals all the time people here often make me think that their arguments are based on classism, factionalism, and point-scoring rather than ethics.  as if somehow a liberal doing the right thing is still worse than a capitalist doing the wrong thing.


----------



## revol68 (Oct 26, 2005)

well fucking bully for you and your ethical clothes, for me i just buy thinks i like and if i can get it cheap then great.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 26, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> well fucking bully for you and your ethical clothes, for me i just buy thinks i like and if i can get it cheap then great.



ok, well that's fair enough, but if you don't care about exploitation of workers and making big companies rich, which is what some of us on this thread are concerned about and trying to find the best way of avoiding, why are you an anti-capitalist?  or aren't you, and i've got this wrong?  assuming that you are an anti-capitalist, then why, if it's not the inherant power that rich has over poor that motivates you to press for change?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 26, 2005)

i do care about exploitation but i recognise it as something inherent within capital, something universal and not some nasty thing that happens to other people with dark skin.

I'm interested in freeing myself from the boredom, alienation and meaninglessness of capital accumulation, that requires an analysis of capital and an understanding that it is a totalised social system that cannot be stepped out of.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 26, 2005)

do you believe in degrees of participation?


----------



## revol68 (Oct 26, 2005)

not if it means helping to mystfiy what capitalism actually is, no.

capitalism is not evil multi nationals, it's not McDonalds, Nike or anyother world brand, it is a social relationship, it is wage labour.


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 26, 2005)

oh yes, i understand that.  it jsut seems to me that if you're opposed to capitalism part of life is trying not to participate in it when you don't have to.  obviously you can't step out of it completely in this country, but that doesn't mean you have to be an arms trader or an exploitative boss - an extreme example i know, but you can see where i'm coming from.  we're all cogs in teh wheel, and that's a fact, so how does one reconcile one's opposition to capitalism with one's basic inclusion in it.  do we say fuck it and dive in, do we attempt to live outside of it completely somehow, or do we try not to participate in some of the worst aspects, leaving the degree of participation to each person to justify according to their own ethical standards - which most intelligent people should be able to justify if they've ever thought about it.  of course, being able to justify your ethical stance doesn't make it unattackable, but such is life.


----------



## scalyboy (Oct 26, 2005)

kropotkin said:
			
		

> NO IT WON'T
> 
> That idea is based on a misunderstanding of the way the market works. AT BEST you are talking about expanding a middle-class niche market, where 'concerned ethical consumers' choose to buy



But by buying fairtrade products over the standard ones, the_ practical _ result is that the farmers concerned are getting a higher price.

 Also, as far as it being a niche market, the more people buy fairtrade products, the more widely they will be stocked - as the demand is perceived to be larger. This in turn will increase sales still further, because of these products' increased visibility. And a greater volume of these products being sold should reduce the prices...


----------



## scalyboy (Oct 26, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> not if it means helping to mystfiy what capitalism actually is, no.
> 
> capitalism is not evil multi nationals, it's not McDonalds, Nike or anyother world brand, it is a social relationship, it is wage labour.



But do you see any difference between Nestle, and, say, the Body Shop? Or are they both just large international profit-making companies?


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 26, 2005)

scalyboy said:
			
		

> But by buying fairtrade products over the standard ones, the_ practical _ result is that the farmers concerned are getting a higher price.
> 
> Also, as far as it being a niche market, the more people buy fairtrade products, the more widely they will be stocked - as the demand is perceived to be larger. This in turn will increase sales still further, because of these products' increased visibility. And a greater volume of these products being sold should reduce the prices...



Not all fairtrade is very fair though.  As I've found out (working in the rag trade as I do), a lot of it is bullshit.  I've seen and heard things that are not true from both sides of the fence - from the big brands, the manufacturers and also from fair trade campaigners and companies.  Someone linked to a website where a fair trade fashion company was boasting it's factorys' ISO standards as if it was something to trumpet about.  Well I haven't been to a factory in the last ten years that didn't have those standards. Some of those factories were better than others.   Sadly the only way to know what really goes on is to work in the trade.   That's the only way you'll ever know how it really works. 

I can't comment on fairtrade food.  The only way you can be really 'fair' is to grow your own food and make your own clothes.  A bit unrealistic for most people.

And no, theres really no difference between Body Shop and Nestle.  Same as theres really no difference between New Balance and Nike.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 26, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> could someone so keen on explaining why it is better to bring down capitalism by shopping answer this point please?  preferably without abuse.



You missed it, bluestreak: post 97


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 26, 2005)

Col_Buendia said:
			
		

> You missed it, bluestreak: post 97



right, so it would help to undermine the company's financial situation, at a cost to the enviroment.  now i need to know what causes more environmental and social damage before i can draw a conclusion.....   aaarrrrgggghhhh, why did i ever have to start questioning things, life is so much more easier for people who don;t give a fuck...


----------



## pinkmonkey (Oct 26, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> right, so it would help to undermine the company's financial situation, at a cost to the enviroment.  now i need to know what causes more environmental and social damage before i can draw a conclusion.....   aaarrrrgggghhhh, why did i ever have to start questioning things, life is so much more easier for people who don;t give a fuck...



Isn't it just?   <wrings hands>


----------



## catch (Oct 26, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> but i don't see how somehow the latest fashion at top whack prices is less a commodity then a few years old stuff at knocked down prices where the companies might be making almost no profit?


Both are equally commodities if that's what you mean. And as has been pointed out, shifting old stock is necessary to enable the continued production of new stock. Over-production of some commodities is also inherent in capitalism. The rate of profit is averaged out across all these sales anyway, it's useless to calculate it per individual unit.


> thanks for the commodity link, btw, it helps to understand the process a little more though it certainly hasn't changed my argument.


You're welcome.


> it seems that the mass of argument on here is that until capitalism is brought to its knees then anyone who buys outside of the high street is a weak liberal idiot contributing to capitalism more than the revolutionary in the latest threads.



No, the argument is that buying outside the high street will not change the fundamental relationships of exploitation inherent in capitalism, but due to widespread misunderstandings about the nature of capitalism (that it's corporations that are the problem, not capitalism itself), many people think along those lines.


> buying clothes "outside the system" (and please don't give me that patronising shit) doesn't cost me any more time or money than buying them from the high street.


Look I buy some stuff on the high street, some stuff used, some from charity shops. In terms of music I buy from all kinds of independent/co-op type shops and labels. It's all part of the same system nonetheless.



> i dunno why you keep bringing it back to ethical clothes companies though.  surely the biggest problem here is not that they exist to make money out of liberals, but "are they actually ethical"?


If they employ wage labour and accumulate capital then they aren't ethical.


----------



## catch (Oct 26, 2005)

scalyboy said:
			
		

> But do you see any difference between Nestle, and, say, the Body Shop? Or are they both just large international profit-making companies?



http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Ne...42438&int2ndParentNodeID=89397&Action=Display
http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/bodyshop.html
http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Ne...42438&int2ndParentNodeID=89397&Action=Display


> Body Shop values should apply to staff, says Woodley
> ... picket line of Body Shop subsidiary Soapworks in Easterhouse, Glasgow, this morning (Wednesday 8th September 2004). T&G members at Soapworks today began their second 48-hour strike in a dispute over shift allowances.
> 
> .....
> ...


----------



## bluestreak (Oct 26, 2005)

catch said:
			
		

> ....snip...



re: individual unit vs overall... surely by buying overstock cheaper you're still helping to lower the average?

re: capitalism being the problem, i totally get that, and i'd be a lot happier in a socialist / anarchist sytem, but again, it's degrees of participation innit.  we clearly have the same shopping patterns, and we can't be totally outside the system, but i think that trying to keep mainstream participation down is a useful thing - although clearly not the only thing.  merely part of a lifestyle that demands change for the better.

and re: ethical capitalism... that makes me wonder if the idea that capitalism CAN'T be ethical is correct.  would a company that treats its workers well, has minimal environmental impact, and pays living wages be ethical.  or is capitalism automatically inethical no matter what?


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 26, 2005)

Also, an interesting phenomenon this year has been that due to (among other things) floods and such, a vast percentage of the world coffee crop was ruined, driving market prices up. All the coffee growers dealing on the open market had bumper profits this year. 

However, this did not apply to the 'Fair Trade' farmers, whose contracts with 'Ethical' companies were for a set price. They were left with the stark choice of breaking their contracts to try and sell at a one-off higher price, or with being ripped off for the extra.

Now it could be argued that the Fair Trade companies need to keep making their profits to y'know, stay open, but quite how that is substantially different to how every other company in the world works, i'm not entirely sure...


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 26, 2005)

In the UK, we have some of the highest work standards in the world. Would you say the company you work for is ethical? Mine certainly isn't. It made £19,000 profit per worker last year, they pay me £13,000. they recycle, just installed some ergonomic tables/chairs so we don't put our backs out, keep reminding us about the 'ten minute break' rule for computers and give us an hour for lunch. They don't get too bothered if I take a Friday off.

The fact remains however that they take approximately 2/3 of my production value away from me EVERY FUCKING YEAR.


----------



## Col_Buendia (Oct 26, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> or is capitalism automatically inethical no matter what?



Well, it is if you fundamentally have a problem with it as a method of distributing the world's resources, innit?

I think it is clear that there are varying usages of the term "ethical" here, and Catch's use is perhaps (imo) equivalent to saying that something that is ethical is "something that would find a place in my personal utopia". On the other hand, others might mean, as you seem to bluestreak, that it is a "least worst" option. I think there is a lot of difference between the two meanings, for however much they might resemble each other, and personally the "least worst" logic is *always* the one trotted out in defense of capitalism by its apologists. So perhaps we could clarify things by saying that if someone is fundamentally an "anti-capitalist", then "ethical consumerism" is a non-starter, on a basis of ideological absolutism. That, tho, still leaves us in the real world, with the worrying question of where to buy our beans from...


----------



## catch (Oct 26, 2005)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> re: individual unit vs overall... surely by buying overstock cheaper you're still helping to lower the average?


No, unbought overstock would be burnt or dumped, so you're actually raising the average when you buy that individual unit. If you have a choice of which you buy (not the case for many people buying overstock), then maybe a tiny bit, but you're in a tiny minority. It's impossible for _everyone_ to buy overstock (or used, charity shop) innit?


> we clearly have the same shopping patterns, and we can't be totally outside the system, but i think that trying to keep mainstream participation down is a useful thing -


I'm interested in mainstream resistance and opposition to the system, and replacing it with a different one. I don't think it's possible to operate outside it, so why bother? Obviously I can make informed consumer choices within the system, but that's all they are.



> and re: ethical capitalism... that makes me wonder if the idea that capitalism CAN'T be ethical is correct.  would a company that treats its workers well, has minimal environmental impact, and pays living wages be ethical.  or is capitalism automatically inethical no matter what?


The construction "its workers" answers your question doesn't it.


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 26, 2005)

revol68 said:
			
		

> not if it means helping to mystfiy what capitalism actually is, no.
> 
> capitalism is not evil multi nationals, it's not McDonalds, Nike or anyother world brand, it is a social relationship, it is wage labour.


Some companies force their workers to handle toxic chemicals which end up killing them early - other companies don't do this. Some companies use processes that completely wreck the environment, whereas others don't. 

How can you possibly argue that one company is no worse than the other?


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 26, 2005)

No-one is arguing that (quite, I think), the point is they're all wankers, and resistance to what they do isn't effective when it takes the form of trying to reform them via consumer demand changes. 

It's fine to buy 'ethical' stuff if you like (though as pointed out earlier, we're never gonna be talking about people who given the choice will ever make the right decision), but don't try and dress it up as a major plank of political reform, cos it isn't, and can't be (ie. while you may be able to afford organic grub, most folks have to make do with the Turkey Twizzlers - the power is a fundamentally middle/upper class one).


----------



## TeeJay (Oct 27, 2005)

I don't believe "ethical consumerism" is going to change things - for this we need political action. But I still like to avoid giving my money to the worst companies that are committing abuses: to people, animals and the environment. I also think that raising awareness of the worst excesses of business - thinking about what you are buying and telling other people about it, in some cases including through consumer boycotts - helps mobilise the political action needed.  Rightly or wrongly the "mainstream" public are less liekly to take people seriously complaining about the worst corporate abuses if these same people carry on shopping, consuming and rewarding these same corporations by doing business with them, even when there are viable and available alternatives.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 27, 2005)

Do you own a mobile phone? Eat fruit? Watch TV? Watch movies?

Do any of these and you are supporting some of the most evil multinationals in the world. In order to do what you suggest, and live 'ethically'* you'd have to live the most boring of lives, eating hugely expensive food from specialist shops, buying hugely expensive clothes etc from christ knows where.

Frankly, if presented with two people, one a sanctimonious prick showing off their 'hand weaved by unionised Bolivian labour' T-shirts which I can't afford (and look shit), the other a normal human being who likes a pint and a laugh, I know who I'd get along with best, and indeed trust to tell me what's going on the world.

As I said, I don't have anything against you using your money for whatever you like. Given that you agree it won't change anything however, what possible justification do you have to tell the rest of the world to do likewise?

*Always with the proviso that actually they aren't really ethical, and spend as much time as anyone else trying to fuck over their workers, and are a complete rip-off.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 27, 2005)

On a slightly different topic, wtf is 'mainstream public' in parentheses for? You not a member of it or something?


----------



## reallyoldhippy (Oct 27, 2005)

Rob Ray said:
			
		

> ....... most folks have to make do with the Turkey Twizzlers...........


Why? There's loads of cheap healthy alternatives.






			
				Rob Ray said:
			
		

> ..........a normal human being who likes a pint and a laugh........


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 27, 2005)

> Why? There's loads of cheap healthy alternatives.



Readily available? Easy to pick up down the supermarket and cook in ten minutes after a shitty day at the office when you've not got any cooking skills? I know a few people who take the time to hunt down alternative foods (would try to do it myself, in theory) but the fact is it's a massive hassle to sort out a supplier and mostly is more expensive, and you have to take _more _time out to learn the culinary arts as well. The practical effect is people end up having to go with the turkey twizzlers.

Oh I'm terribly sorry, someone who likes a sherry and a laugh.


----------

