I understand where you're coming from, but for some of us, your 'convenience', is our accessible (delivery of food, medication, and masks are examples for me personally). When people look at the 1955-1956 bus boycott, they forget that it was possible because they worked together to provide each other with transport to work, groceries collection, etc. They didn't leave anyone vulnerable to having to need the harmful option of using the bus. If we are ever to transition from capitalism, we have to ensure the most vulnerable have access for their needs, without having to rely on the current systems of exploitation.
Good point, Tamara, but it doesn't negate the rest of the argument. I would love to believe that there is a world in which the necessaries of life can be made accessible to all, but not at the cost detailed above. Convenient grocery delivery is completely consistent with having a healthy local grocery store ecosystem. But Amazon is busily putting our healthy ecosystems out of whack. And like the author, I say this is someone who takes part in this ecosystem. It is distressing on so many levels!
I completely agree, and I wasn't trying to negate the argument. Only add the nuance that until we can learn to care for each other as individuals, we have no hope of getting to a world that doesn't need to exploit others.
Definitely! I have several people in my life whose lives have been made so much easier by technology and the convenience it offers. But I also see so many people who are stressed out by the thing that is supposed to make our lives easier.
With all due respect, that is a gross distortion of the hardships faced by the Montgomery Bus boycotters. White citizens retaliated against the Black community by bombing homes, threatening boycotters, and firing people from their jobs. Police arrested protesters and charged some with conspiring to interfere with business; they harassed carpool drivers and arrested taxi drivers who helped Black residents. Snipers shot at them. I think those hardships--and enduring them for over a year--rather greatly outflank changing some vendors and consumption patterns.
You are right that I didn't go into the hardships the Black Community faced for that boycott (and generally for existing). But my point was not about how difficult it was for them, but about how it was only possible to force change because the community came together and helped one another during that time - something our individualist society cannot currently seem to do (and why boycotts are rarely long term in the way they need to be to actually affect change).
What I see from people saying that they can't join in the Amazon boycott, in particular, is precisely that it would be too great an inconvenience for them to change their purchasing patterns. To revert again to the Montgomery boycott, which lasted for 381 days,some individuals walked long distances to and from manual labor. It was extremely "inconvenient" for them. And they did it alone, at great risk. I think it's deeply misguided to suggest that they had it easier, somehow, than we do if we have to figure out how to do something that everyone did just a few years ago. That could mean reaching out to someone to help--rather than insisting that people are too individualist.
I'm not saying they had it easier, they most definitely did not. But, from experience, I know that vulnerable and disabled people will be forgotten and die due to everyone else focusing so much on individual actions (and judging each other, rather than putting the blame where it belongs - on the billionaires, companies, and governments that could make more than a drop in the ocean change).
Unfortunately, the reality is that those who are not suffering, are unlikely to give up the conveniences of streaming, cars, every food in the supermarket, skincare, fast fashion, etc. And those who are struggling for survival have very little to give up, as their lives are already one inconvenience after another to try and stay alive.
I appreciate your passion for change, I just don't think judging others for not doing enough is the way to get them to do more. Especially when consumerism choices is the smallest, least important action, that can lead to sustainability in our lifetimes.
To people with enough income, Lyft or Uber might be a convenience. But there are many people who can’t afford hundreds of dollars a month for a car payment and insurance and gasoline. A microwave may be a convenience for some, but it’s today’s hot plate for those who can only rent a room, no kitchen. Even a cheap cell phone is an absolute necessity which is why many homeless and thoroughly disenfranchised poor have one. There are more examples of looking at our “conveniences” this way, but you get the idea.
Tamara hit on a critical element that I believe is central to how this brilliant model works, and it’s that we don’t simply leave the vulnerable among us to fend for themselves. No more “every man for himself” isolation in our homes and cars and with faces in our phones. Ultimately that’s so good/healthy for each of us. Love this article, btw - I wish everyone would read it.
Convenience has an environmental footprint too. The Walmart you have to drive to, with it's huge parking lot, rather than the walkable shopping district. All the mining for manufacturing technology. The data centers with their immense cooling and electrical needs. Etc.
Yes, we need to understand we have to give up things. We have to give up privilege, but first of all we need to acknowledge we ARE privileged. Most of us don't. We're used to it - think it's 'normal'. It's normal for me to be able to buy books every month. So I need to accept I'll have to give that up. Sacrifice it, in other words. It will hurt. But, for god's sake, there's a library I can use! And how does a book compare with the fuel bill? Or enough decent food to eat? Or the right size of shoes for your kids? I get Personal Independence Payment. If Starmer and Co take that away, I won't be able to afford those books anyway, but I'll still be able to pay my rent, my fuel bill, my supermarket bill, and so on - just about. Better off by far than a whole lot of people I know who struggle to pay that list I've just set out. I'd rather join the people who fight for fair treatment, taxation that applies to us all with no let-outs for the wealthy, healthcare and education provided for all who live here, good local travel provision,and equality for us all, regardless of gender, colour, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, country of origin, and any other thing that could divide us into separate groups to argue or dispute or hate each other, particularly politics!
I believe we have hit the high tide mark and a sea change is imminent. Take for example robots. Elon Musk bets we will all want to buy one or two to do chores. Automated lawn mowers already exist as do vacuum cleaners. For example I went into my backyard with my small chainsaw today to tidy up some dead trees. Would I want a robot to do that? Of course not. I get exercise and satisfaction. I’m not giving those to a machine.
Thinking about how before the gig economy, the supermarket chain killed a wide area of the local economy, and thus the community, by replacing local vendors with the convenience of having everything under one roof.
Yes! I was talking about this with my husband last night. People used to share resources all the time. Communities working together to help each other was the default.
This is such a prescient message— thank you for this! One thing I’d add: I’m a little uneasy around the wording towards the end, which to me seemed to be saying that we need to grind hard now in order to defeat fascism to one day be able to rest. I think the change we need requires a resistance of paradox: both responding to our systems with the work of collective action, and also prioritizing our rest and spirit. There’s a distinction there between rest and convenience that’s important to note.
I just see a lot of the same disembodied, capitalist grind culture applied to resistance work. But in this context, the carrot on the stick isn’t the promotion or new house, but so called “liberation.”
I’m struck by the Iroquois wisdom that we ought to consider how our actions not just affect us, but affect the next 7 generations. And in that same spirit, I think the legacy burdens we’ve inherited will take at least 7 generations to heal (capitalism, white body supremacy, patriarchy, etc).
And if that’s the case, we’re in this work for the long haul. And that kind of steady commitment requires the wisdom to know when to push, and when to rest.
Just some nuance that I wanted to add, primarily for myself as I metabolize this great word on convenience.
I’m working on a post right now called “A Case for Friction” (as in friction shifters on a bike, but also how supposed bicycle related conveniences are actually a trap, not to mention disempowering). Your post is so timely! (And very good!)
So fascinating! It's noticeable to me that many forms of convenience are based in other people's labor/effort when this isn't the only possibility. For example, instead of making it convenient to get takeout by having Doordash and Uber Eats, we could make neighborhoods more walkable and put homes closer to restaurants. I really like your point about how society being structured differently would mean that corporations wouldn't be able to capitalize on convenience like this because we wouldn't be so in need o fit.
Thank you for writing this. I have been horrified by how people are justifying not boycotting Amazon because it will inconvenience them. The country is on fire, with a pretty transparent takeover of our government by oligarchs, and Americans feel that hunting online or shopping locally for a new vendor is simply too great an inconvenience. It's as if we've been put into a consumer stupor.
Poet and essayist Ross Gay said during a lecture I attended: “Isn’t efficiency almost always at the cost of care?”
I think of this often.
I understand where you're coming from, but for some of us, your 'convenience', is our accessible (delivery of food, medication, and masks are examples for me personally). When people look at the 1955-1956 bus boycott, they forget that it was possible because they worked together to provide each other with transport to work, groceries collection, etc. They didn't leave anyone vulnerable to having to need the harmful option of using the bus. If we are ever to transition from capitalism, we have to ensure the most vulnerable have access for their needs, without having to rely on the current systems of exploitation.
Good point, Tamara, but it doesn't negate the rest of the argument. I would love to believe that there is a world in which the necessaries of life can be made accessible to all, but not at the cost detailed above. Convenient grocery delivery is completely consistent with having a healthy local grocery store ecosystem. But Amazon is busily putting our healthy ecosystems out of whack. And like the author, I say this is someone who takes part in this ecosystem. It is distressing on so many levels!
I completely agree, and I wasn't trying to negate the argument. Only add the nuance that until we can learn to care for each other as individuals, we have no hope of getting to a world that doesn't need to exploit others.
Definitely! I have several people in my life whose lives have been made so much easier by technology and the convenience it offers. But I also see so many people who are stressed out by the thing that is supposed to make our lives easier.
With all due respect, that is a gross distortion of the hardships faced by the Montgomery Bus boycotters. White citizens retaliated against the Black community by bombing homes, threatening boycotters, and firing people from their jobs. Police arrested protesters and charged some with conspiring to interfere with business; they harassed carpool drivers and arrested taxi drivers who helped Black residents. Snipers shot at them. I think those hardships--and enduring them for over a year--rather greatly outflank changing some vendors and consumption patterns.
You are right that I didn't go into the hardships the Black Community faced for that boycott (and generally for existing). But my point was not about how difficult it was for them, but about how it was only possible to force change because the community came together and helped one another during that time - something our individualist society cannot currently seem to do (and why boycotts are rarely long term in the way they need to be to actually affect change).
What I see from people saying that they can't join in the Amazon boycott, in particular, is precisely that it would be too great an inconvenience for them to change their purchasing patterns. To revert again to the Montgomery boycott, which lasted for 381 days,some individuals walked long distances to and from manual labor. It was extremely "inconvenient" for them. And they did it alone, at great risk. I think it's deeply misguided to suggest that they had it easier, somehow, than we do if we have to figure out how to do something that everyone did just a few years ago. That could mean reaching out to someone to help--rather than insisting that people are too individualist.
I'm not saying they had it easier, they most definitely did not. But, from experience, I know that vulnerable and disabled people will be forgotten and die due to everyone else focusing so much on individual actions (and judging each other, rather than putting the blame where it belongs - on the billionaires, companies, and governments that could make more than a drop in the ocean change).
Unfortunately, the reality is that those who are not suffering, are unlikely to give up the conveniences of streaming, cars, every food in the supermarket, skincare, fast fashion, etc. And those who are struggling for survival have very little to give up, as their lives are already one inconvenience after another to try and stay alive.
I appreciate your passion for change, I just don't think judging others for not doing enough is the way to get them to do more. Especially when consumerism choices is the smallest, least important action, that can lead to sustainability in our lifetimes.
To people with enough income, Lyft or Uber might be a convenience. But there are many people who can’t afford hundreds of dollars a month for a car payment and insurance and gasoline. A microwave may be a convenience for some, but it’s today’s hot plate for those who can only rent a room, no kitchen. Even a cheap cell phone is an absolute necessity which is why many homeless and thoroughly disenfranchised poor have one. There are more examples of looking at our “conveniences” this way, but you get the idea.
Hope Harris
Tamara hit on a critical element that I believe is central to how this brilliant model works, and it’s that we don’t simply leave the vulnerable among us to fend for themselves. No more “every man for himself” isolation in our homes and cars and with faces in our phones. Ultimately that’s so good/healthy for each of us. Love this article, btw - I wish everyone would read it.
Yes, solidarity instead of every man for himself. SPSC has the slogan "No-one Left Behind" to support people arrested for pro-Palestinian activities
Convenience has an environmental footprint too. The Walmart you have to drive to, with it's huge parking lot, rather than the walkable shopping district. All the mining for manufacturing technology. The data centers with their immense cooling and electrical needs. Etc.
Yes, we need to understand we have to give up things. We have to give up privilege, but first of all we need to acknowledge we ARE privileged. Most of us don't. We're used to it - think it's 'normal'. It's normal for me to be able to buy books every month. So I need to accept I'll have to give that up. Sacrifice it, in other words. It will hurt. But, for god's sake, there's a library I can use! And how does a book compare with the fuel bill? Or enough decent food to eat? Or the right size of shoes for your kids? I get Personal Independence Payment. If Starmer and Co take that away, I won't be able to afford those books anyway, but I'll still be able to pay my rent, my fuel bill, my supermarket bill, and so on - just about. Better off by far than a whole lot of people I know who struggle to pay that list I've just set out. I'd rather join the people who fight for fair treatment, taxation that applies to us all with no let-outs for the wealthy, healthcare and education provided for all who live here, good local travel provision,and equality for us all, regardless of gender, colour, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, country of origin, and any other thing that could divide us into separate groups to argue or dispute or hate each other, particularly politics!
There! Rant over.
Absolutely! I'd vote / protest / revolt for a society like that ✊🏽❤️🕊️,Dx
I believe we have hit the high tide mark and a sea change is imminent. Take for example robots. Elon Musk bets we will all want to buy one or two to do chores. Automated lawn mowers already exist as do vacuum cleaners. For example I went into my backyard with my small chainsaw today to tidy up some dead trees. Would I want a robot to do that? Of course not. I get exercise and satisfaction. I’m not giving those to a machine.
I like convenience, but not at the expense of workers. I don't patronize Amazon, Lyft or Uber.
Thinking about how before the gig economy, the supermarket chain killed a wide area of the local economy, and thus the community, by replacing local vendors with the convenience of having everything under one roof.
Yes! I was talking about this with my husband last night. People used to share resources all the time. Communities working together to help each other was the default.
It's the dramatic of not asking your friends a lift to the airport
The Dead Kennedys' album title - Give Me Convenience or Give Me Death - feels awfully prophetic some 35-40 years after its release...
This is such a prescient message— thank you for this! One thing I’d add: I’m a little uneasy around the wording towards the end, which to me seemed to be saying that we need to grind hard now in order to defeat fascism to one day be able to rest. I think the change we need requires a resistance of paradox: both responding to our systems with the work of collective action, and also prioritizing our rest and spirit. There’s a distinction there between rest and convenience that’s important to note.
I just see a lot of the same disembodied, capitalist grind culture applied to resistance work. But in this context, the carrot on the stick isn’t the promotion or new house, but so called “liberation.”
I’m struck by the Iroquois wisdom that we ought to consider how our actions not just affect us, but affect the next 7 generations. And in that same spirit, I think the legacy burdens we’ve inherited will take at least 7 generations to heal (capitalism, white body supremacy, patriarchy, etc).
And if that’s the case, we’re in this work for the long haul. And that kind of steady commitment requires the wisdom to know when to push, and when to rest.
Just some nuance that I wanted to add, primarily for myself as I metabolize this great word on convenience.
Thank you for putting something I've been trying to communicate to people for years into such an elegant article.
I’m working on a post right now called “A Case for Friction” (as in friction shifters on a bike, but also how supposed bicycle related conveniences are actually a trap, not to mention disempowering). Your post is so timely! (And very good!)
So fascinating! It's noticeable to me that many forms of convenience are based in other people's labor/effort when this isn't the only possibility. For example, instead of making it convenient to get takeout by having Doordash and Uber Eats, we could make neighborhoods more walkable and put homes closer to restaurants. I really like your point about how society being structured differently would mean that corporations wouldn't be able to capitalize on convenience like this because we wouldn't be so in need o fit.
Thank you for writing this. I have been horrified by how people are justifying not boycotting Amazon because it will inconvenience them. The country is on fire, with a pretty transparent takeover of our government by oligarchs, and Americans feel that hunting online or shopping locally for a new vendor is simply too great an inconvenience. It's as if we've been put into a consumer stupor.
the inconvenient truth