Reading this new article by Caitlin Johnstone about the bankruptcy of the maker of something called the "Instant Pot" (because it was too durable and useful as opposed to having planned obsolescence) made me think about something that's been rattling around in my head for a few days.
Fordism was the mass-production of lots and lots of the same product for a mass market. It was a production method designed and perfected in the first half of the 20th Century. From the 1960's leading industrialists became more and more able to produce individualized products for more niche markets. This meant smaller production runs, smaller plants, and a more diversified marketplace. Not only did smaller factories require smaller numbers of full-time workers, but the work itself was increasingly automated. (Advances in telecommunications and reductions in shipping costs also allowed manufacturers to ship assembly jobs overseas to avoid paying union wages.)
If we don't all die in the next couple of decades, I'm just thinking that a small core of factories could make durable, necessary products designed for long use, and capable of either being easily and cheaply repairable (but that's really part of "long use") or of having their components efficiently cannibalized and recycled in the manufacture of other products. Once one product is made for a planned smaller population, they go on to re-tool and make another necessary product that will likewise last a lifetime.
That's it.
10 comments:
I mean, it's not IMPOSSIBLE to produce durable products under capitalism, but it's definitely a niche endeavour. Lee Valley has made that their schtick, they've got this whole durable + nostalgia thing, and it seems to attract enough customers for them to keep going. Enough people are frustrated with crappy stuff that dies instantly and are willing to pay a bit more for something solid, to make a decent market. I'm part of it--I quite like Lee Valley, as companies go.
But the broader bottom line is, selling the same thing to the same person every five years makes more money than selling it every 30 years. So if you've got an economic system based on profit, that's what is going to happen for the most part. In order to shift to something less wasteful and annoying and, for the poor sap buying things, expensive, we would have to be in an economic system NOT based on profit. It's not a sufficient condition, but it's a necessary one.
PLG,
I agree. If you haven't read the Caitlin Johnstone link, give it a whirl.
Blimey. I was not expecting that. Was Caitlin Johnstone always that radical? I feel like lately some people who used to be just left-ish critics of society's excesses have moved towards more fundamental stances.
She's sounded that way for as long as I can remember. Though, to be clear, at first I read her for her brilliantly caustic insulting of Hillary Clinton.
I think she supported Bernie Sanders as the best that could be expected and as a necessary turn for the better. But I don't think she ever believed that his New Deal liberalism was a panacea.
I have some issues with Johnstone's analysis but I have tennis elbow and some stuff to do this afternoon so I'll leave it at that.
There is capitalism, and then there is a weird mutant variation of it, "capitalism". Don't misunderstand me, there are many things wrong with capitalism, but at least some of the participants in that system understand the value of quality and durability combined with relative affordability. Then there is "capitalism" as practiced by equity funds and venture capitalists, that among other things, eschews the "middle" entirely and just focuses on either the cheap, highly disposable low end or the extremely high end, increasingly unobtainable "luxury" market, so that only the 1% gets the durable consumer goods, and the 99% have to settle for disposable, low quality, and cheap consumer goods.
Anonymous,
I don't deny the existence of the sort of capitalist you desribe. Nor do I deny the contribution of the economic freedom of a capitalist society to produce those capitalists and empower them to make worthwhile things.
I still think that democracy is more important than capitalism and that democratic socialism will produce a better world.
IMO the kind of capitalist Anonymous describes can and do exist . . . but it is they who are the "weird mutant variation". We often think of the way things are headed as a terrible perversion of capitalism, with the ground base being the kind of capitalism seen in North America from post World War II through to the 70s or so. But in fact it's the reverse--what is happening now is, although with some modern permutations, mostly a return to the norm.
The postwar "golden age" was a very unusual situation, caused by the aftereffects of massive pressure from below during the Great Depression (and after), the impact of strongly planned war economies, and the existence of a major challenger to the capitalist system, all combined. It was a weird version of capitalism, very different from anything that had previously existed. The idea that capitalism would, could or even should be associated with a mass middle class was not normal; the closest thing to that previously was the period of US territorial expansion, when the existence of the frontier gave the lower classes an alternative if conditions became too terrible in the cities. Kind of sucked for First Nations, of course. The rest of the time, capitalism from its beginnings to the Great Depression was full of crises, financial bubbles, extreme income and wealth stratification, and really shoddy goods.
I agree with you 100%. The kind of capitalist I described is clearly a dying breed, and is being replaced by the kind of capitalist that doesn't want to manufacture low cost, durable, consumer goods. Even if that second version of capitalism didn't exist, we'd still have all of the problems that we currently have anyway. I don't know what the solution is, but it definitely isn't "more of the same!", "let's deregulate!", "smash unions!", "cut government spending!", or "lower taxes!".
Anonymous,
If you're interested, check out the book Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power mentioned here.
I know what the solution is. The problem is that we're incapable of accomplishing it.
PLG,
Yeah. For the most part, despite the delusions of Hayek, Friedman, and all those fedora-wearing Ben Schapiro fans, capitalism is a pretty anti-human, botched-job of a political-economy.
Post a Comment