Ethical shopping in TK Maxx?

[pinkmonkey]

I work mainly in footwear, not garments, but.....

Fabric can come from anywhere. Italy, Turkey, Portugal are all big textile producers. Japan is probably the best place to get denim. It would usually travel by truck to the factory - or if it is going overseas it would be shipped.

Made in labels often only refer to the last place the garment was finished. New Balance for instance inject all their outsoles and close (stitch) all their uppers in China, then ship these components to the 'country of origin' to be cemented (sole glued to upper) inspected and boxed. A simple assembly job. It's a bit of a dodgy one and they have been in trouble over this in the United States about ten years ago. I am also constantly hearing rumours that the likes of Prada are making lots in China now, with a bit of finishing in Italy. It's also quite common for shoes that say made in Italy to be actually made in Eastern Europe and finished in Italy. Unless you actually work in the trade and can see all this with your own eyes, it is pretty much impossible to know where things are made. Just to add: unless you work in the trade and spend a large amount of time in the factories, it is also pretty impossible to know exactly what conditions are like or whether the owners actually stick to / enforce ethical standards.

 

[Leica]

Thanks. I've always found your posts quite perceptive by the way.

 

[Col_Buendia]

Ta Pm

For kroppers: So it's unrealised surplus value, that's forcing capital to rely on credit (on the basis of future sales) to get the cycle moving quicko and it's blocking circulation. It's been produced - it has to be got rid of - law of value at work, clear as day. Concrete vs abstract labour writ large.

Phew! That's a bit concentrated for the likes of me, but would I be correct, then, in extrapolating from this that by buying in TK Maxx I am participating in a loss-reduction exercise for the original brand owner (in this case Nike). I.E., if there were no TK Maxx or "bargain hunters" like meself, Nike would be forced to absorb an even bigger loss on their deadstock by finding some way of disposing of it (landfill, burning etc etc), rather than sell it on to discounters for a smaller loss?

@ Bluestreak: yr comments to revol68 took the words out of my mouth. Ta!

 

[revol68]

you explained exactly why i don't buy into the fashion thing in your post, you rude cunt. nice is a value judgement for a start, but having the latest clothes at top whack prices is what makes it a commodity and therefore part of the consumerist system. prick.

and if nice is automatically whatever the latest fashion houses are telling you to pay them for this season then really it's not a form of self-expression at all is it. it's an expression of how you allow a marketing team from a profit-centred company to tell you what to wear.

go back and learn what a commodity is you adbusters reading dipshit!

 

[Col_Buendia]

go back and learn what a commodity is you adbusters reading dipshit!

FFS

Don't you *do* civil?

Edited to add: on careful perusal of your posts, I've discovered the answer to my question. Don't bother yourself answering it now, save yourself the hassle of typing up the gratuitous "prick" "cunt" "twat" or whatever eh?

 

[Laidback_Dave]

what you could do is ask if the bag is made from slave labour or even write to the company and ask them what the conditions are like in their factories.

i never buy stuff from GAP, mainly because they are crap but because of the way they treat indonesian workers. since watching pilgers new rulers of the world, thats always stuck in my mind

 

[catch]

Phew! That's a bit concentrated for the likes of me, but would I be correct, then, in extrapolating from this that ...

Yes, pretty much.

 

[catch]

but having the latest clothes at top whack prices is what makes it a commodity and therefore part of the consumerist system. prick.

It's true that Revol is an abusive git who forgets he needs to argue his points, however he's also correct that you're "latest clothes/top whack prices" is a poor definition of a commodity.

A commodity is any item which is produced for exchange rather than to satisfy need directly. All items exchanged on markets are commodities, and some hand-made hemp shirt is as much a commodity as an Arsenal top. To supercede capitalism as an economic form, it's necessary to eliminate the commodity form from society - and hence the distinction between use-value and exchange value, and the specific commodity of labour power that it creates.
If that doesn't make sense try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity

Buying different commodities because they're "outside the system, maaan", and often for way more money (imposing more work time on yourself, and increasing your need to sell your own labour-power), simply reinforces capitalism by enabling expansion into ever more differentiated markets.

Haven't read this, but it looks like it describes the process pretty well.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-6319254-1463052

it's an expression of how you allow a marketing team from a profit-centred company to tell you what to wear.

Nearly all companies are profit centred, and "ethical" is nothing if not a marketing ploy.

 

[si//]

classic good cop/bad cop I like it. What my unruly companion meant to say was...

 

[catch]

classic good cop/bad cop I like it. What my unruly companion meant to say was...

Except aren't they supposed to switch sometimes. Revol's always bad, and I'm always good.

 

[Ryazan]

It's true that Revol is an abusive git who forgets he needs to argue his points, however he's also correct that you're "latest clothes/top whack prices" is a poor definition of a commodity.

A commodity is any item which is produced for exchange rather than to satisfy need directly. All items exchanged on markets are commodities, and some hand-made hemp shirt is as much a commodity as an Arsenal top. To supercede capitalism as an economic form, it's necessary to eliminate the commodity form from society - and hence the distinction between use-value and exchange value, and the specific commodity of labour power that it creates.
If that doesn't make sense try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity

Buying different commodities because they're "outside the system, maaan", and often for way more money (imposing more work time on yourself, and increasing your need to sell your own labour-power), simply reinforces capitalism by enabling expansion into ever more differentiated markets.

Haven't read this, but it looks like it describes the process pretty well.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-6319254-1463052


Nearly all companies are profit centred, and "ethical" is nothing if not a marketing ploy.

Good post. Good Job you didn't go and play saxaphone at The Lion King musical.

 

[darren redparty]

quite simply all this talk over bourgeouis TK MAXX is a deviation from true proletarian consumerism
All real communists buy their clothes at Primark

 

[\\-(*o*)-//]

No dear, Matalan.

 

[bluestreak]

Phew! That's a bit concentrated for the likes of me, but would I be correct, then, in extrapolating from this that by buying in TK Maxx I am participating in a loss-reduction exercise for the original brand owner (in this case Nike). I.E., if there were no TK Maxx or "bargain hunters" like meself, Nike would be forced to absorb an even bigger loss on their deadstock by finding some way of disposing of it (landfill, burning etc etc), rather than sell it on to discounters for a smaller loss?

@ Bluestreak: yr comments to revol68 took the words out of my mouth. Ta!

could someone so keen on explaining why it is better to bring down capitalism by shopping answer this point please? preferably without abuse.

 

[bluestreak]

It's true that Revol is an abusive git who forgets he needs to argue his points, however he's also correct that you're "latest clothes/top whack prices" is a poor definition of a commodity.

Buying different commodities because they're "outside the system, maaan", and often for way more money (imposing more work time on yourself, and increasing your need to sell your own labour-power), simply reinforces capitalism by enabling expansion into ever more differentiated markets.

Haven't read this, but it looks like it describes the process pretty well.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-6319254-1463052


Nearly all companies are profit centred, and "ethical" is nothing if not a marketing ploy.

but i don't see how somehow the latest fashion at top whack prices is less a commodity then a few years old stuff at knocked down prices where the companies might be making almost no profit?
thanks for the commodity link, btw, it helps to understand the process a little more though it certainly hasn't changed my argument.

it seems that the mass of argument on here is that until capitalism is brought to its knees then anyone who buys outside of the high street is a weak liberal idiot contributing to capitalism more than the revolutionary in the latest threads. i really can't see that. am i just being thick, or is beckham really undermining the system more than an activist in second hand clothes?

----
buying clothes "outside the system" (and please don't give me that patronising shit) doesn't cost me any more time or money than buying them from the high street. in fact, one of the major advantages is that it costs me significantly less money, and if it takes up more time then i haven't noticed.

---------

i dunno why you keep bringing it back to ethical clothes companies though. surely the biggest problem here is not that they exist to make money out of liberals, but "are they actually ethical"? by referring back to liberals all the time people here often make me think that their arguments are based on classism, factionalism, and point-scoring rather than ethics. as if somehow a liberal doing the right thing is still worse than a capitalist doing the wrong thing.

 

[revol68]

well fucking bully for you and your ethical clothes, for me i just buy thinks i like and if i can get it cheap then great.

 

[bluestreak]

well fucking bully for you and your ethical clothes, for me i just buy thinks i like and if i can get it cheap then great.

ok, well that's fair enough, but if you don't care about exploitation of workers and making big companies rich, which is what some of us on this thread are concerned about and trying to find the best way of avoiding, why are you an anti-capitalist? or aren't you, and i've got this wrong? assuming that you are an anti-capitalist, then why, if it's not the inherant power that rich has over poor that motivates you to press for change?

 

[revol68]

i do care about exploitation but i recognise it as something inherent within capital, something universal and not some nasty thing that happens to other people with dark skin.

I'm interested in freeing myself from the boredom, alienation and meaninglessness of capital accumulation, that requires an analysis of capital and an understanding that it is a totalised social system that cannot be stepped out of.

 

[bluestreak]

do you believe in degrees of participation?

 

[revol68]

not if it means helping to mystfiy what capitalism actually is, no.

capitalism is not evil multi nationals, it's not McDonalds, Nike or anyother world brand, it is a social relationship, it is wage labour.

 

[bluestreak]

oh yes, i understand that. it jsut seems to me that if you're opposed to capitalism part of life is trying not to participate in it when you don't have to. obviously you can't step out of it completely in this country, but that doesn't mean you have to be an arms trader or an exploitative boss - an extreme example i know, but you can see where i'm coming from. we're all cogs in teh wheel, and that's a fact, so how does one reconcile one's opposition to capitalism with one's basic inclusion in it. do we say fuck it and dive in, do we attempt to live outside of it completely somehow, or do we try not to participate in some of the worst aspects, leaving the degree of participation to each person to justify according to their own ethical standards - which most intelligent people should be able to justify if they've ever thought about it. of course, being able to justify your ethical stance doesn't make it unattackable, but such is life.

 

[scalyboy]

NO IT WON'T

That idea is based on a misunderstanding of the way the market works. AT BEST you are talking about expanding a middle-class niche market, where 'concerned ethical consumers' choose to buy

But by buying fairtrade products over the standard ones, the practical result is that the farmers concerned are getting a higher price.

Also, as far as it being a niche market, the more people buy fairtrade products, the more widely they will be stocked - as the demand is perceived to be larger. This in turn will increase sales still further, because of these products' increased visibility. And a greater volume of these products being sold should reduce the prices...

 

[scalyboy]

not if it means helping to mystfiy what capitalism actually is, no.

capitalism is not evil multi nationals, it's not McDonalds, Nike or anyother world brand, it is a social relationship, it is wage labour.

But do you see any difference between Nestle, and, say, the Body Shop? Or are they both just large international profit-making companies?

 

[pinkmonkey]

But by buying fairtrade products over the standard ones, the practical result is that the farmers concerned are getting a higher price.

Also, as far as it being a niche market, the more people buy fairtrade products, the more widely they will be stocked - as the demand is perceived to be larger. This in turn will increase sales still further, because of these products' increased visibility. And a greater volume of these products being sold should reduce the prices...

Not all fairtrade is very fair though. As I've found out (working in the rag trade as I do), a lot of it is bullshit. I've seen and heard things that are not true from both sides of the fence - from the big brands, the manufacturers and also from fair trade campaigners and companies. Someone linked to a website where a fair trade fashion company was boasting it's factorys' ISO standards as if it was something to trumpet about. Well I haven't been to a factory in the last ten years that didn't have those standards. Some of those factories were better than others. Sadly the only way to know what really goes on is to work in the trade. That's the only way you'll ever know how it really works.

I can't comment on fairtrade food. The only way you can be really 'fair' is to grow your own food and make your own clothes. A bit unrealistic for most people.

And no, theres really no difference between Body Shop and Nestle. Same as theres really no difference between New Balance and Nike.

 

[Col_Buendia]

could someone so keen on explaining why it is better to bring down capitalism by shopping answer this point please? preferably without abuse.

You missed it, bluestreak: post 97

 

[bluestreak]

You missed it, bluestreak: post 97

right, so it would help to undermine the company's financial situation, at a cost to the enviroment. now i need to know what causes more environmental and social damage before i can draw a conclusion..... aaarrrrgggghhhh, why did i ever have to start questioning things, life is so much more easier for people who don;t give a fuck...

 

[pinkmonkey]

right, so it would help to undermine the company's financial situation, at a cost to the enviroment. now i need to know what causes more environmental and social damage before i can draw a conclusion..... aaarrrrgggghhhh, why did i ever have to start questioning things, life is so much more easier for people who don;t give a fuck...

Isn't it just? <wrings hands>

 

[catch]

but i don't see how somehow the latest fashion at top whack prices is less a commodity then a few years old stuff at knocked down prices where the companies might be making almost no profit?

Both are equally commodities if that's what you mean. And as has been pointed out, shifting old stock is necessary to enable the continued production of new stock. Over-production of some commodities is also inherent in capitalism. The rate of profit is averaged out across all these sales anyway, it's useless to calculate it per individual unit.

thanks for the commodity link, btw, it helps to understand the process a little more though it certainly hasn't changed my argument.

You're welcome.

it seems that the mass of argument on here is that until capitalism is brought to its knees then anyone who buys outside of the high street is a weak liberal idiot contributing to capitalism more than the revolutionary in the latest threads.

No, the argument is that buying outside the high street will not change the fundamental relationships of exploitation inherent in capitalism, but due to widespread misunderstandings about the nature of capitalism (that it's corporations that are the problem, not capitalism itself), many people think along those lines.

buying clothes "outside the system" (and please don't give me that patronising shit) doesn't cost me any more time or money than buying them from the high street.

Look I buy some stuff on the high street, some stuff used, some from charity shops. In terms of music I buy from all kinds of independent/co-op type shops and labels. It's all part of the same system nonetheless.

i dunno why you keep bringing it back to ethical clothes companies though. surely the biggest problem here is not that they exist to make money out of liberals, but "are they actually ethical"?

If they employ wage labour and accumulate capital then they aren't ethical.

 

[catch]

But do you see any difference between Nestle, and, say, the Body Shop? Or are they both just large international profit-making companies?

http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Ne...42438&int2ndParentNodeID=89397&Action=Display
http://www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/bodyshop.html
http://www.tgwu.org.uk/Templates/Ne...42438&int2ndParentNodeID=89397&Action=Display

Body Shop values should apply to staff, says Woodley
... picket line of Body Shop subsidiary Soapworks in Easterhouse, Glasgow, this morning (Wednesday 8th September 2004). T&G members at Soapworks today began their second 48-hour strike in a dispute over shift allowances.

.....

T&G members at Soapworks voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action after the company refused any percentage increase in shift allowances. Workers work on a 24-hour shift rota, which can require them to work through the night. The management have offered a 3% increase on basic pay but no increase on shift allowances.

 

[bluestreak]

....snip...

re: individual unit vs overall... surely by buying overstock cheaper you're still helping to lower the average?

re: capitalism being the problem, i totally get that, and i'd be a lot happier in a socialist / anarchist sytem, but again, it's degrees of participation innit. we clearly have the same shopping patterns, and we can't be totally outside the system, but i think that trying to keep mainstream participation down is a useful thing - although clearly not the only thing. merely part of a lifestyle that demands change for the better.

and re: ethical capitalism... that makes me wonder if the idea that capitalism CAN'T be ethical is correct. would a company that treats its workers well, has minimal environmental impact, and pays living wages be ethical. or is capitalism automatically inethical no matter what?