The Little Treat

Many people in anticapitalist spaces struggle to understand, rationalize, or justify their personal consumption and consumptive desires. Few if any anticapitalists are committed to the lifestyle of Diogenes in a pithos, myself included. The struggle is that if we are to live with any consumer goods beyond the barest minimum, how can we do so in a way that is also consistent with anticapitalism? Is it even possible?

This question is often asked in bad faith by anti-anticapitalists in an attempt to claim anticapitalists are inherently hypocritical, which frankly I find too ridiculous to rebut seriously. In short, advocating for change does not, can not, and will never require individual moral "perfection". Especially not when measured by those specifically working to halt that change.

That said, I do think most anticapitalists--heck, most people--would like to be living in line with their values to some extent. So I think it's a worthy endeavor for anticapitalists to examine their relationships to consumption and see if something can or should change.

The first knot to untangle is what is meant by "consumerism" and just how it is linked to capitalism. Interestingly, the term "consumerism" was deliberately coined by Ford VP John Bugas in 1955 as a counter to critiques of capitalism--an attempt to shift responsibility away from business owners and government towards individual citizens by claiming the individuals, as consumers, were the only ones with true power. The capitalists were simply bowing to the whims of the public, and they became wealthy simply as a natural result. "How could the pursuit of wealth on the backs of the working class be exploitative? You're the ones buying all this stuff we make!" Similar perspectives had been argued for before then--always by the wealthy, by the way--using terms like "consumer sovereignty" (Carl Menger, 1871) and even "waste creatively" (Christine Frederick, 1929). These statements were very intentional counters to Marxism and anticapitalism which rooted themselves well in the image most Americans had/have of personal liberties. The message is that our economy works the way it does, for better or for worse, because "the people want it that way". If you argue with it, you're arguing with freedom.

This was actually a huge realization for me, because when understood in this context, it's easy to see the flaws in this claim. Claiming that consumerism is the fault of the consumer is itself a consumerist perspective, and specifically one that does not recognize or respect the situation consumers have been born into.

To go through just a few of these situations, there's first the central issue of worker exploitation. Workers are not receiving anywhere near value they are producing, and this has never been the fault of consumers. Companies like to pretend an increase in wages will lead to riots in the streets from consumers angry over price increases in products. This is to draw attention away from the fact that there would hardly need to be price increases at all if their CEOs and stock brokers weren't hoarding billions of dollars.

There's also the fact that there is very little transparency provided by or even required of companies, and there was even less back then (ever read The Jungle?). Even the government agencies that are meant to protect the interests of consumers are often incredibly lax. For instance, America doesn't ban the sale of products created using forced or child labor, despite that it would be within our power to do so. I don't think your average consumer believes child labor is a good thing, but it's not their fault when they unknowingly buy products that used it. Or when the responsibility is put on individual consumers to find out themselves, if that information is even accessible to them.

And finally, there's the fact by being born into a capitalist society, we are essentially brainwashed from every angle at birth to behave as consumers in a way that benefits capitalists. Those at the top continue to have the most resources at their disposal to influence thought and behavior. There are many examples of this playing out, but one I always love is the "cerulean monologue" from The Devil Wears Prada:

"That blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs, and it’s sort of comical how you think that you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you’re wearing a sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room… from a pile of 'stuff'."

I guarantee many people, if given ample opportunity, encouragement, and education to truly question and understand their personal values and how they relate to society, would find they are more anticapitalist than they currently think. (Why do you think capitalists are so afraid of college philosophy classes?) Can we really blame the consumers for capitalism when they are merely following the path they've been trained for?

I think it is from understanding the roots of the term "consumerism" that the relationship between consumerism and capitalism becomes clear--the concept of consumerism was specifically created as a way of benefiting/perpetuating capitalism by shifting the focus away from those in power and placing the blame for capitalism's exploitation on the powerless for somehow "wanting" it. In this context, it's actually a little gross that the term started being used to critique wastefulness, because it once again focuses its criticisms on the victims of capitalism and not its perpetrators.

Given all this, I think to be anticapitalist is also to be anticonsumerist in an economic sense--recognizing the falsehood in the assertion that consumers are the true controllers of the economy. This also means rejecting the idea that consumers, either on a societal or an individual level, are responsible for the atrocities of capitalism.

So where does that leave us? Even if no one is responsible, surely someone is still obliged to change things, or else we'd stay stuck in capitalism blaming consumers for their own exploitation forever. How do we know who is obliged to do what? And what does this have to do with personal consumption?

On the idea of obligation, it's tricky to require change while respecting the situation of capitalism's victims. I think it's not unfair to state that if one has the capacity to work for change in some way, then they are obligated to. In a sense, this means everyone is obligated because we all, as humans, have that capacity. But I do also think that those who have greater capacity also have greater obligation. It feels wrong to say someone is obligated to do something if they are genuinely unable, and if working for change is easier for one person than another, surely the burden of responsibility should be split in a way that accounts for that.

Multiple factors may contribute to one's capacity, and therefore obligation, to work for change. Some include:
- Basic needs. Food, housing, health, safety, etc. being sufficiently covered increases ones capacity. This includes mental health.
- Education. Not only skills that one has, but their knowledge on anticapitalism itself. I don't mean that everyone must have a college degree in theory, but if someone genuinely doesn't know what capitalism is or why it's bad, how can we require them to be anticapitalist?
- Support systems. People who are sufficiently supported by family, friends, community, etc. have greater capacity.
- Environment. Someone in a better political and environmental climate (one that is more supportive of them) has increased capacity. Additionally, someone with greater social/societal power and influence also has increased capacity.
- Wealth. People with greater wealth have increased access to all of the above. Therefore it's not necessarily the wealth itself that increases capacity, but what it has the power to do for the wealthy person.

Race, sex, gender, caste, and many other factors all intersect and impact the above as well. It's also important to note that the above factors are not "excuses", simply things that need to be acknowledged as having real impact on ones capacity. Finally, it is of course possible to work beyond one's capacity, but I question the sustainability of such efforts.

I think this approach works well because it is a privilege-centered approach. The focus turns from a sort of moral absolutism into an exploration of privilege, both one's own and others'. From this perspective, it supports efforts to make those with greater privilege more accountable without dismissing the potential impact those without privilege could have on pushing for change. It doesn't blame the victims of capitalism, but neither is it defeatist. I think it also provides some ideas for methods of working for anticapitalist change--one could work for change both by demanding accountability from those with great privilege and/or by increasing one's own or others' capacity to enact change through promoting education, political action, providing support systems, or contributing towards basic needs.

Now, finally, we can move to individual consumption, and the whole inspiration for this essay to begin with: "The Little Treat".

You may have heard the phrase "little treat" in a few other contexts, especially in advertising; here I am specifically focusing on it as an argument used used in anticapitalist spaces. The Little Treat argument is essentially defending small-scale individual consumption as being 1. consistent with anticapitalism and 2. at least a moral neutral. It basically goes like this:

Given that we live in an oppressive capitalist world, it's acceptable for the oppressed proletariats to buy themselves "a little treat" to (essentially) keep their spirits up, regardless of any ethical conundrums that may exist over the nature of the production, distribution, or consumption of that treat. The "little treat" is usually referring to a non-essential consumer good, typically something relatively inexpensive, and often mass-produced--think a figurine, an accessory, a fancy coffee, a video game, etc.

Those using this argument may have different beliefs regarding related implications. For example, many critics will say "if everyone thought that way, nothing would change". The person using the "little treat" argument may believe 1. even if every consumer forwent all little treats, the impact on [negative thing] would be so minimal it's not worth the loss of joy one could get from little treats; 2. that whether the critic is right or not, there aren't enough people willing to forgo little treats, making it impractical to morally require commitment to; 3. that it is possible to have ethical consumption under a different social structure, so changing the social structure is the imperative; or any number of other beliefs.

The Little Treat comes up both as a response to bad faith attacks of hypocrisy as well as a way of trying to offer support to others. It's also a means of recognizing feelings of guilt an anticapitalist may have over what privileges they do have and trying to alleviate them. It says that yes, resistance is important, valuable, and necessary, but it's also draining, difficult, and expensive--and consumption can be a way to fill one's proverbial well. It's almost like a shorthand for acknowledging the relative lack of power most have to create structural change, rejecting the idea of excessive personal responsibility, and recognizing that piling guilt on oneself or others for consumption is unhelpful and is likely to lead to burnout. The Little Treat argument is, at its core, a message of support.

To be honest, I've had mixed feelings about this argument. I've tended to agree with it overall, especially now after clarifying for myself the capacity/privilege-centered approach to obligation. The part I worry about is whether The Little Treat is used too frivolously as an excuse to avoid critically thinking about one's own relationship with consumption. Critics of The Little Treat argument certainly see it as a justification for needless consumption that goes against principles of anticapitalism. So let's take a closer look.

The key to the critics' response I think lies in the idea of "needless" consumption. It's safe to say all anticapitalists recognize it's impossible to abstain entirely from consumption; as a human with basic needs, you will always be consuming at least enough for those basic needs. The criticism is not on the consumption itself, but on needless or "non-essential" consumption. So what consumption counts as needless?

This is actually a tougher question than one might think, because one could argue that almost everything we consume is actually "needless". No one needs more than two shirts. No one needs furniture beyond a bed. No one needs food beyond like, rice, beans, and a vitamin supplement. (I realize the examples are a bit reductive, but you get the idea). Of course, when compared to food, something like a gold Rolex is very clearly needless, and I'm not arguing with that! But where is the line drawn? Is a third shirt needless consumption? Is a toy for a child needless consumption? What constitutes "need", and who gets to decide that? Does it vary based on environment? How?

These questions are valid, but I don't think there are any clear answers. Therefore, I don't think need/needlessness is an appropriate basis for determining the morality of individual consumption.

Some may say the morality of needless consumption depends on the means of acquisition--buying secondhand is moral, buying new is immoral, etc. I won't get too far into it, but the basic trouble is that thrifting, while it has many benefits, still doesn't solve many (if any) of the problems that buying new has. (For a tiny peek into this, check out this article: https://www.earthday.org/unraveling-the-impact-of-thrifting/). Given that, it feels strange to draw the line of morality there as well.

This talk of morality of consumption actually reminds me of an ethical philosophy called "effective altruism". It's based on/highly influenced by the essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" by philosopher Peter Singer in 1971. The essence is that we have a moral obligation to provide charity to others in greater need as long as our sacrifice wouldn't be as bad as what others are experiencing. Think of it this way--there are starving people, it is worse to starve than to live without a new car, so people are morally obligated to give their new car money to starving people instead. That's the gist of it, anyway--a rather utilitarian view of morality.

There are many interesting responses to this article, some I agree with more than others. One response is from John Arthur in 1984, and while I don't necessarily agree with every argument, I think it does well pointing out that there are other things that need to be accounted for in questions of moral obligation, such as fairness, justice, and respect for certain rights. He concludes by saying that in order for a moral code to be rational, it needs to also be practical. The line that stands out the most is "Rules that would work only for angels are not the ones it is rational to support for humans."

To me, this feels very similar to what "The Little Treat" is getting at--we're not morally perfect, if there even is such a thing as moral perfectionism. We are ourselves human beings who have our own human desires. We cannot be obligated, by ourselves or others, to behave in a supremely self-sacrificing way. That's just not how humans work, and for morality to require that would be impossible and pointless.

(If you're interested in reading more, both Singer's article and Arthur's response can be read for free here: https://food.unt.edu/arguments/singer_arthur.pdf )

It is because of all the complexities in Singer and Arthur alone, to say nothing of so many other discussions on morality in philosophy and political-economic theory, that I wonder if we're asking ourselves the wrong questions about individual consumption. I don't think it's very effective, much less provable, to ask whether individual consumption is morally "right" or "wrong". It's a question that lacks nuance and perpetuates the idea that individual consumers are the ones responsible for capitalism.

Instead, when exploring individual consumption, I think it's more valuable to ask ourselves things in a way that honors our privileges or lack thereof, that allows for flexibility as well as agency. We can do this by asking questions in a capacity-centered way. Some questions we can ask ourselves:

- In what ways does my individual consumption affect my or others' capacity to enact change?
- In what ways can I increase my capacity for change, or use my current capacity more effectively? How does consumption relate to this?
- Would I (could I?) feel more supported by using my wealth in different ways?
- Am I more or less dependent on consumption than I would wish to be? Can I work towards getting joy/support in other ways?

This approach allows us to get a clearer picture of multiple factors that may be at play, allowing us to reflect thoroughly and honestly on our relationship with consumption. It doesn't require or presume any particular outcome--one could find that less, greater, or simply different consumption would increase their capacity for change. Plus, I don't think approaching questions of individual consumption in this way excuses people at the top--we can demand that as people with greater capacities they fulfill their obligations for change.

Finally, I think there's one more thing that needs to be acknowledged: exploring these questions is labor. It is absolutely difficult work, most especially because it is resistance. Capitalism does not want you to question things at all, especially capitalism itself and the tools and narratives it uses to perpetuate itself. Oppressive systems are not oppressive by accident--they are designed that way as a way of perpetuating themselves for the benefit of the few that hold power in that system.

Finding the "best" ways to dismantle these systems is difficult. Every question begets more questions--how effective is "dollar voting" or other efforts of anti-consumerism in bringing about positive change? Does that positive change include societal shifts towards anticapitalism, or just towards a possibly-fictional ideal of "ethical consumerism"? It is absolutely critical to allow yourself moments of rest between this labor. And you do not need to feel guilty for being a morally-imperfect human born and living under an oppressive system.

When it comes to The Little Treat, I guess I fall on the side of "yes, as long as". I ultimately agree that I don't consider individual consumption to be a moral issue, but I do think one can utilize their individual consumption habits thoughtfully in a way that supports their true goals, both for themselves and others. I think the approach of The Little Treat argument is more useful because it's coming from a place of kindness and recognizing power dynamics at play, but I don't think using it in a defeatist or nihilist way is effective on either an individual or a societal level.

I suppose one could classify my view as "mindful consumption", but done in a way that specifically encompasses an anticapitalist end goal (rather than some idea of "proper" but still capitalist use of individual wealth) and a disbelief in the claimed existence/impact of consumer sovereignty. But ultimately, it is still a view that fully accepts Little Treats.