The Personal and the Political

The personal is the political, that famous 70s phrase, has become a much misunderstood statement.

There is a trend among anarchists that has to be challenged. That trend is putting individual ethical consumption choices at the forefront of politics. It's a self-righteous elitism and moralism that not only doesn't win any support but loses it. It draws a straight line where there is in reality no black and white about it. And its conclusions are, in contrast to anarchism, reformist and individual.

would che approve??

Consider this fairly typical extract from the Melbourne IndyMedia website:
"Well last night and i hate to be a nark among the movement.., but last night guess what i saw......i saw a person with a che t-shirt on eating kentucky fried chicken, then i see another loser, yes a loser coming out of donut king with a thick shake... last but not least, whats the deal with marlboro, marlboro are respnonsible for more death around the world than any other cigarette, besides the fact that the phillip morris establishment makes the fucking things, this is armageddon people if you can't see that your fucking blind, those socialists are pure hypocrites and if che was still around, no doubt you'd get a thumbs down...also i saw a socialist, at least i think he was a socialist with a bottle of pepsi. GO YOU ANTI-CAPITALIST SOCIALISTS YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF FROM ME AND THE REAL ANTI-CAPITALIST MOVEMENT: THUMBS DOWN."

or class war??

Or this from the joining form on the Class War (Auckland anarchists)website:
"Have you given up eating meat, fish, & dairy products? Smoke or drink?"

If being an anarchist or anti-capitalist means not eating meat or smoking or drinking coke and eating KFC then we may as well all give up now cos the majority of people will treat you with the scorn which that attitude deserves. If that's the dividing line on who's in and who's out of the "movement" then we'll get nowhere. That line of argument is a dead end. Is it ok to be vegetarian but eat chemical food and wear sweatshop clothes? According to some, yes, because eating a dead animal is the line they will not cross. For others it's only eating organic food. Or not being on the dole. But what choice do we have? There are hundreds of decisions to be made about what to buy, wear, eat, etc. Any bold, straight line in the sand is arbitrary and reflects only the priority of the person setting that line. Who's to say that more animals are not harmed bringing soya milk over from Hong Kong than by throwing a fishing line out at the beach? Or that it's better to use a computer for activism than to avoid owning a computer because the parts are made by sweatshop labour?

can we avoid the capitalist system?

We can avoid all corporate products - if we're wealthy enough to buy only organic, local, non-exploitative products and only travel by bicycle, or live on a commune and don't go anywhere. But this simply isn't an option for most people. What none of us can avoid is living in a capitalist system. We have to find engaging and insightful ways to challenge exploitation. Putting the pressure on the end user rather than the corporate producer is unhelpful to say the least. That happens to be precisely the individualistic, divide-and-rule philosophy that best suits the suits.

can consumerism be a political act?

As Michael Albert (Znet and South End Press) says in WTO, IMF, World Bank and Activism, published by the CEC: "The idea that the personal is political should never have become the notion that our personal isolated choices of what to consume or wear define and are the heart of our politics. It was meant to indicate and still has value in indicating that our personal choices are often not near as 'personal' as we think, but, instead, pushed and pulled and coerced and often even enforced by larger social pressure and structures."