- McSpotlight -

Try looking round the site

Posted by: Cathy ( UK ) on July 28, 1997 at 00:46:22:

In Reply to: What alternative is McSpotlight suggesting? posted by Helen, Oz on June 30, 1997 at 11:39:01:

Dear Helen,

Hope it's rained where you are since you sent your message. I haven't visited the Debating rooms for a while now so I didn't know your message was there. I checked for a reply to my message for the next couple of days after posting it, but then forgot about it.

: It's interesting what people read into comments. I never suggested it was fair, or unfair, that so many people end up working for multinationals in order to achieve prosperity. It just IS.
: It is possible to achieve prosperity in other ways, but one has to be very smart, and already have good resources, to do so.

Your original comment implied either that it was pointless to work on/for McSpotlight, or that people who worked on McSpotlight were hypocrites, because they would all eventually end up working for multinationals. I made the point that even if they did end up working for multinationals, it didn't make McSpotlight pointless, and nor did it make them hypocrites. It makes them victims of circumstance. i.e. because a minority have stolen nearly all the land and resources in the world from the rest of us, they can usually force us to work for them if we want to survive. I certainly wouldn't call this prosperity, more like slavery.

: When you can think of a way to generate prosperity for all, and distribute it fairly, do let us know because the majority of people in the world would welcome it. The trouble is, not one single system of technology developed beyond the Stone Age technologies of gathering and hunting has guaranteed an equal share for all. As soon as farming was invented, disparities in wealth developed. And that was more than 6,000 years ago.

I'd like to try a system where people have control of their own communities and local environment and where the land and resources are shared by all. Where food is grown to be shared among the community, not for profit, and where money just doesn't exist, because its totally unnecessary.

Whether or not all social systems throughout the world have had disparities in wealth that doesn't mean we should give up trying for something better. There have always been people commiting murder throughout the ages, but does that mean we should give up trying to discourage people from murdering others? The world we live in is in a pretty dire state, with absolutely massive disparity in wealth, people starving, serious environmental problems etc etc. Who is to blame for that? Obviously whoever is currently in control, i.e. multinational companies and governments. So isn't it time we tried something new instead.

:What is McSpotlight suggesting instead?

I think there is a brief suggestion of alternatives in the 'issues' section of McSpotlight.

:McDonald's, in contrast to 100 years of failed communism or socialism, has brought a low-cost, easy-to-find, high-energy food to all in a democratic way. Just add a side salad, and you have a complete meal representing all the food groups.

This would be hilarious were it not for the fact that you appear to be serious. McDonald's food is not low cost, you could make a much more nutritious meal for a lot cheaper if you bought the basic ingredients and cooked it yourself, (and that includes the cost of the cooking too). I'll agree with you that its easy to find, because unfortunately we are all bombarded by their advertising. High-energy food - yes because it's high in calories, but those calories are mainly in the form of fat, and saturated fat, which as we all know just aint good for our hearts. The food is not available to all, there's plenty of people around the world who couldn't afford to buy it (probably the only form of benefit their poverty brings to them), and I don't see how its democratic. Perhaps you could explain that.

As for adding a side salad and having a complete meal representing all the food groups, that's just plain wrong too if its supposed to suggest the food is nutritious. The fact is that there's very little in the way of fruit and veg, which all health advice bodies say we should eat more of. There's stacks of fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar, which all health advice bodies say we should eat less of. Come on, even the Judge in the trial said the food isn't nutritious, how on earth can you stick up for it.

: Moreover, working for McDonald's has brought work experience, income and a career path to thousands. All this concentration on McDonald's through McLibel and McSpotlight is bizarre. Is it simply elitist political correctness which is attracting all this attention to McDonald's?

The only work experience McDonald's brings is how to be totally subordinate and put up with being treated like shit, which may well help you to get a job with other companies that treat you the same way, but at the end of the day wouldn't you rather be working for yourself and the good of the community rather than to help some parasites get rich off your back. The income it brings is peanuts, way below most jobs, even though the company could easily afford to pay more out of its profits. All in all anyone who gets stuck working there has my sympathy.
As for concentration on McDonald's, well the company did ask for it by launching a lawsuit. But not only that, they asked for it by exploiting their workers, by being anti-union, by bombarding us with idiotic advertisements, by invading our communities and trying to get us hooked on food that could lead us to an early grave, by littering our streets with their idiotic packaging, by exploiting people in the third world, by causing the destruction of forests, by causing the horrendous lives and deaths of millions of animals. Yeah, sure there's other companies that are just as bad, but then there's other campaigns against many of those companies too.

Not really sure what you're trying to say with your jibe about 'political correctness'. Funny, it's a phrase I've only ever heard from people who are trying to justify continuing with something immoral or oppressive. I've never heard any campaigner say 'oh we're calling for this because its politically correct'. Campaigners always give a real reason for what they're fighting for or against. You can hardly say that this site doesn't explain the objections to McDonald's. I suggest if you hadn't noticed that you take a look around it.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup