Cseeman
11-22-2010, 05:38 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9611685
I'm talking about a simple boycott of all nonessential spending. Simple, because we're talking about nonessentials: movies; the latest game system or mobile phone; the trendiest toys; another pair of shoes for an already crowded closet; eating out...
I'm mentioned this before and been condemned for it because the people who would suffer the most are the lower working class who make a living selling nonessentials. But aren't they already suffering? Has the system that enslaves the lower class not been designed specifically to make challenging it more painful than submitting to it? Isn't it necessary to be willing to take a punch to get close enough to deliver a punch?
In an economy where 70% of the GDP is based on consumption, imagine the impact and the message of simply not doing any unnecessary consuming. Yes, the wealthy can weather the storm, but they'd be watching the U.S. market, and a cascade of markets around the world, dive in response. The ones who would be afraid would be the politicians. They still have to navigate the illusion of democracy to obtain their positions. This would put fear in their hearts.
A lot of people are already doing this out of necessity. Why not join them in solidarity? Is affluence alongside poverty moral?
Remember when George W. Bush told everyone to get out and spend money after 9/11? He was showing the soft underbelly of the system.
That is what i want to know
I'm talking about a simple boycott of all nonessential spending. Simple, because we're talking about nonessentials: movies; the latest game system or mobile phone; the trendiest toys; another pair of shoes for an already crowded closet; eating out...
I'm mentioned this before and been condemned for it because the people who would suffer the most are the lower working class who make a living selling nonessentials. But aren't they already suffering? Has the system that enslaves the lower class not been designed specifically to make challenging it more painful than submitting to it? Isn't it necessary to be willing to take a punch to get close enough to deliver a punch?
In an economy where 70% of the GDP is based on consumption, imagine the impact and the message of simply not doing any unnecessary consuming. Yes, the wealthy can weather the storm, but they'd be watching the U.S. market, and a cascade of markets around the world, dive in response. The ones who would be afraid would be the politicians. They still have to navigate the illusion of democracy to obtain their positions. This would put fear in their hearts.
A lot of people are already doing this out of necessity. Why not join them in solidarity? Is affluence alongside poverty moral?
Remember when George W. Bush told everyone to get out and spend money after 9/11? He was showing the soft underbelly of the system.
That is what i want to know