Among the fetishes of modern society, the “fight against consumerism” is perhaps the most repulsive. Let me explain. “Consumerism,” unfortunately, is not a figure of speech, not a metaphor for greed or stupidity, and the “fight against consumerism” is not merely a pastime for self-absorbed “intellectual elites.” The matter is not limited to the moral stances and aesthetic preferences of certain individuals—the “fight against consumerism” is a very practical thing with very practical consequences.
Even if we set aside the various insane green fascists dreaming of destroying humanity, critics of “consumption” and proponents of its restriction would still fill a whole wagon and a small cart. They all repeat the same incantations about “spirituality,” “resources,” and the like. Unable to clearly formulate what “consumerism” is or why it is bad, they nonetheless do not hold back on prescriptions, many of which the state eagerly implements, citing public opinion.
Of course, I am far from intending to dissect all the delusions and errors of the fighters against consumption in a short column. I simply want to point out some obvious things. First, consumption is the essence of our life. In essence, this is life itself. We consume not only food or luxury items. A peasant growing wheat consumes his tractor. An artist consumes paints and canvas, and the viewer consumes the painting. You, living in your house, consume the house. Computer programs, books, university lectures—all of these are consumer goods.
Second, “society,” and subsequently “civilization,” arose exclusively for the sake of greater consumption. The simplest barter exchange, from which everything began, exists only because by exchanging wheat for honey, you have both wheat and honey—that is, you can consume more than before. As a result, a modern person can consume the thoughts of any philosopher or poet, can see places they will never visit, can learn from people they will never meet personally. Just about 200 years ago, such possibilities would have seemed miraculous. Therefore, fighters against consumerism are actually fighting against civilization itself, which made their existence possible.
Well, and finally, third. How do we distinguish “necessary” consumption from the “excesses” of consumerism? We cannot. From the standpoint of most of the planet’s population, a person like me is sunk in unconscionable luxury, although I consider myself very poor. How to limit the “overfed,” if someone considers it necessary? There is only one reasonable path—self-restraint. Turning off the lights when leaving a room, turning off the water while brushing teeth. But few resort to it—it’s too troublesome and one cannot “generate hype” from it. In general, who can determine whether someone is “overfed” or not? The answer is one—bosses. Fighters against consumerism not only appeal to bosses to intervene as soon as possible, they also, to the latter’s delight, give them “moral justification” for such intervention. Public opinion has become so accustomed to the negativity of “consumerism” that it is no longer capable of noticing the absurdity of the proposed measures. For example, here is an idea beloved by everyone—to tax consumption. But allow me, we all toil for the sake of consumption. Labor exists only because it brings a result that can be consumed. That is, supporters of this tax believe that labor should bring a smaller result than it does. The absurdity of this construction, unfortunately, no one notices anymore.
But what, they will tell me, hasn’t humanity faced the problem of the absence of “self-restraint mechanisms”? Doesn’t the question of resource depletion, planetary pollution, and so on exist? These questions probably do exist. However, the proposed solution, as they say, is worse than the disease. After all, “self-restraint mechanisms” exist and have existed all this time. They are incredibly effective, since they were created by no one and are controlled by no one. These mechanisms are described by a simple formula: “In order for you to be able to consume, you must do something that another can consume. And the measure of your consumption is established by the assessment by other people of what you produce for them.” This self-regulating mechanism is precisely what all practical consequences of the activities of fighters against consumerism are actually aimed. All their taxes, bans, “state” ownership of natural resources—all of this strikes directly at this mechanism. And what is interesting is that no other mechanism that all people without exception would follow completely voluntarily can be invented.