All Outta Angst ? Part 2

In response the first half of this post, my dear friend Sol reminded me of the Hunger Strike for Worker's Rights currently taking place on the Purdue campus. I had not forgotten about the strike - I just had not gotten to it yet. In fact, it was the hunger strike that catalyzed my thoughts on this blog post. I was one of the first 30 or 40 people to sign the online petition the strikers presented to university officials demanding an end to Purdue licensed/branded clothing being manufactured in sweatshops and I get constant updates on the status of the strikers from several friends closely affiliated with those actively participating in the strike. There is a link on the right-hand side of ODM's main page that will better inform those of you interested in the hunger-strike.

In principle and ideology I agree with the strikers and I'm genuinely concerned for the welfare of laborers in sweatshops, that's why I signed the petition. I'm also concerned about the health of the strikers. Yes, this "hunger" is self-imposed, not a tortuous action inflicted on them by someone else but that doesn't mean I can't be sympathetic to their cause and concerned for their well-being.

That said, these issues have me thinking. I alluded to the notion of ethical-consumerism at the end of All Outta Angst? Part 1 - my wife refers to this idea as ethical-materialism, but isn't it just "ethical"- capitalism?

Are POLE (Purdue Organization for Labor Equality), the hunger-strikers, United Students Against Sweatshops, etc. really challenging the capitalist structure of Western Society or are they simply calling for changes within the existing system? Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticism them - I commend them for trying to create change of any kind. I believe anything that can lift a person out of poverty, violence, or generally improve a life is very likely a cause worth fighting for. But allow me to revisit the last part of the Marcuse quote from AOA, Part 1 "... a society which seems increasingly capable of satisfying the needs of the individuals through the way in which it is organized."

The organization of the capitalist structure has left us all satisfied to the point that we no longer question the ethics of consumption, but only how to make the consumption ethical. If the hunger-strike is successful and Purdue adopts the DSP (Designated Suppliers Program), the end result will not change the demands for consumption, rather it will change how SOME of the items we consume are manufactured within the capitalist structure. And within the capitalist structure someone is always being exploited for the purpose of profit.

That said, I'm part of the problem. I've been inculcated by capitalism to want "things." Yes, as an informed and educated consumer I can consume "ethically," but what is the end result of that? More of the same I'm afraid. Yes I can buy my fair trade coffee, drive my gas-efficient and economical Volkswagen, purchase organic food stuffs, and buy clothes that are union made - but I still consume and continue to want. "...satisfying the needs of the individuals through the way in which it is organized."

I own a home, and last month my household consumed 3000 gallons of water. In a few short weeks I will be exchanging gifts for Chanukah and Christmas anticipating what new "things" I might receive and worry whether or not the gifts I have purchased for friends and family will provide enough of that ephemeral elation for them that only "things" can bring. I am part of the problem.

Perhaps then, this petition for Workers' Rights is not as altruistic as many of us hoped it was. Well maybe it is for those actually participating in the hunger-strike; however, the legacy will be about consumption. So what is it really about? I'm afraid the answer is the soul of the self.

Those of us "enlightened" enough to know better will be able to walk into University Bookstore and get warm-fuzzies knowing we just bought a t-shirt manufactured by someone in decent working conditions and paid a "living wage" ... maybe. Just like when we buy our fair-trade coffee and organic eggs we have no real way to know if it truly is fair-trade or organic. We know what those terms mean to us, but they are labels applied to products whose meaning is voted on by a congressional committee, the actual piece of legislation likely written by the industry that manufactures said product.

So the question then remains: Can we ethically consume? Is there such a thing as ethical-capitalism? I don't believe we can truly ethically consume, but not because we don't want to - rather because the structure of capitalism prevents us from doing so. When the bottom line is the primary concern it can't be ethical. Ethical-consumption is nothing more than enlightened complacency.

And now for the pontificating.

So where does that leave us? I wish I knew and I wish I had some genuine solutions. But I think staying informed on matters of consumption is the least we can do. When consuming, try to make the most ethical decision possible. Learn what "organic" really means and when you shop at a store find out if they provide benefits to their employees. Ask yourself if it is more ethical to frequent a local coffee shop who doesn't provide benefits to employees, or a Starbucks who not only provides benefits to full-time employees but part-time employees as well. Determine what ethical means to you and try to put it in to practice. If you determine something to be unethical start a petition for change, cause a ruckus, ask probing questions, etc. it may or may not work but its the right step to take.

What I've learned from the Purdue hunger-strikers is that we can all influence positive change. It may not be the sweeping radical changes some of us desire, but these type of actions may be the seedlings for future radical changes. At least I can hope so. Let's all do what we can to create a better society - but for lasting and meaningful change to happen, we must reorganize it.