The price of progress: China’s Gen X and the burden of consumerism

I was born in the 1970s. Thus, I witnessed the post-Cultural Revolution era of economic ruin in my childhood, the vibrant and turbulent reform and opening up period in my youth, and the information technology revolution alongside the rise of the Four Asian Tigers in my early adulthood. My adulthood coincided with China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the ensuing surge of globalisation. 

In today’s post-globalisation era, our generation faces a crucial choice about the future. Some argue that globalisation has led to American hegemony, and that this order should be overturned and replaced. Others, advocating a return to conservatism, claim that globalisation has harmed national interests and should be abandoned. What does the future hold? Will we, in our twilight years, witness the return of an “iron curtain”?

Times are changing, with conservatives and reformers trading places. The poor have prospered, while the rich have become transnational “supermen”. Nation-states cling fiercely to borders, even as Stalinist figures emerge. Meanwhile, social democracies, trapped in populism and infighting, appear to lack the decisive leadership of figures like Reagan, Bush, or Thatcher, contributing to a sense of intellectual shallowness and societal drift. 

Furthermore, our era is defined by individualism and consumerism, influencing us all regardless of our ideologies — a product of both circumstance and inherent societal trends.

In Europe, the emergence of the individual was a historical accident, attributed to Paul the Apostle and the subsequent Reformation (Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual (2021)). The progression from clan-based, agrarian, industrial and capitalist societies to consumerism reflects the steady advancement of human productivity — “a well-stocked granary ensures good conduct”. 

When survival doesn’t depend on the group, valuing individuality and personal freedom becomes a fundamental human need, driven by increased productivity.

Individualism is rooted in our nature and modernity. Short of returning to inefficient, collective societies like agrarian or clan-based ones, individualism is here to stay. The contrast between agrarian North Korea and consumerist South Korea, two nations with shared ancestry, demonstrates this without needing a history lesson.

Consumerism also stems from modernity. Zygmunt Bauman argues that “modernisation is modernity”, and that the goal of consumerism is further modernisation. I agree; consumerism is both a byproduct and a tool for modernity.

The most effective way to accelerate modernisation is to promote consumerism. Constantly stimulating consumer desire not only triggers hormones like dopamine and generates happiness, but also drives technological advancement and further modernisation. 

The pursuit of individual happiness drives us. The Soviet Union’s collapse shows that even societies focused on collective well-being will inevitably embrace individualism as they become more productive (or face disruptions). This shift is driven by both external pressures and internal economic development.

Having witnessed the dazzling lifestyles of “developed” nations, who would not want themselves and their children to enjoy the best products and services the world has to offer? For most, self-interest trumps altruism. Today, self-interest fuels societal progress, with consumerism as its engine. Anyone who dares attempt to reverse this course will be crushed beneath the wheels of progress.

Consumerism, like any stage of human development, has its downsides: debt, migration, waste and pollution, to name a few. But the negatives do not negate its benefits, just as health problems do not diminish a person’s worth. Many consumerism-related issues boil down to a lack of restraint — specifically, excessive consumption.

Overconsumption traps us in a Huxley-esque Brave New World, numbing us with insatiable desires and endless self-indulgence. Yet governments still prioritise stimulating consumption, emphasising our duty to consume while ignoring the role of public policy. Instead of fuelling the fire, policymakers should focus on establishing reasonable social safety nets and regulating runaway global capital to address the root causes of excessive consumerism.

The US publishes weekly unemployment, consumer price index and producer price index macroeconomic figures. However, it remains oblivious to inherent social problems that were already present during the 2000 and 2008 economic crises, particularly wealth disparity.

In June 2024, Elon Musk secured shareholder approval for his own US$56 billion salary package, despite a state court ruling against it. While we cannot know his motives, the exorbitant salary he demanded highlighted the staggering degree of wealth inequality, as well as how ingrained it is in society. However, many — mostly Musk fans — deem such disparity justified. 

This attitude represents a failure of public policy, and is a disgrace for the wealthy. In Work, Consumerism and the New Poor, Bauman quoted Naomi Klein (No Logo (2001)) as saying that we live in a global village in which “multinationals… are in the process of mining the planet’s poorest back country for unimaginable profits. This is the village where Bill Gates lives, amassing a fortune of $55 billion while a third of his workforce is classified as temporary workers”. With complicity from various governments, profit trumps social responsibility for the super-rich, and the global village becomes a “pasture for capitalism” (Bauman).

Meanwhile, in post-Covid China, public policy has emphasised “stimulating domestic demand” and “internal circulation”, echoing the policies of other capitalist nations. In times of economic hardship, the immediate focus is on consumers’ wallets, while necessary social welfare reforms are neglected. 

Today, retirement pensions for Chinese citizens vary drastically. Rural farmers receive a meagre 135 RMB per month, as reported in “Elderly Farmers Collapse in Cornfields Under Scorching Heat”, Sanlian LifeWeek, 2024 issue 40, while my parents, ordinary urban retirees, receive around 3,000 RMB on average. State employees receive around 10,000 RMB.

Social welfare has, in effect, become a tool to maintain the privileges of certain groups. This “instrumentalisation” of social welfare and consumerism — treating people as allocatable resources and ignoring (and even opposing) fundamental rights and individualism — is another form of alienated “consumerism”; essentially “crony capitalism”.

History is both inevitable and contingent. In this age, I believe that social change can only occur if it is built upon individualism and consumerism. This is the path that is aligned with both human nature and the advancement of social productivity.

But if public resources are misused for private gain, and populist narratives disguise regressive policies as progress, the best we can hope for is stagnation, while the worst-case scenario is a societal disaster, not reform. This is true for any nation at a critical juncture.

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “我们这一代中国人的未来”.

Related: How can China rethink its history of humiliation? | Can the West preserve US hegemony?