Communism is a proposed society ideal where everyone “receives equal shares of the benefits derived from labour” (Alia Hoyt, 2008). Communism focuses on political and economic ideas which replace private ownership and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of manufacturing, agriculture and the natural resources of a society (Ball and Dagger, 2019). Virtually everything becomes ‘State owned’ -  no single person profits from any form of ‘higher’ income. 

 

Capitalism is the polar opposite to Communism. It is “an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state” (Allen, 2012).    

Modern day Capitalism was enabled by the emergence of mass production in the West, which resulted in an addiction to consumerism; “the preoccupation of society with the acquisition of goods” (Allen, 2012). The momentum of Capitalism was facilitated by advertising “moulding the ordinary person into a consumer with an unquenchable thirst for its "wonderful stuff".” (Higgs, 2021). 

 

The combined growth of Capitalism and Consumerism have significantly contributed to the current climate crisis. In response to the end of rationing after the Second World War, “developments in large scale garment manufacturing helped to accelerate the growth of mass market fashion, which in turn helped department stores to flourish” (Imperial War Museums, 2018). At the beginning of the current century, living standards continued to improve in many countries and the need for more ‘stuff’ led to the prevalence of a throw-away culture.  

The throw away culture is strongly influenced by consumerism, and could be described as “overconsumption and a preference for short-lived products, which maximise profit, rather than creating durable goods that don't need constant replacing” (Round, 2018). In the current climate crisis, the take-make-dispose linear economy of the developed world could be considered archaic, “It is also the root cause of some of today’s most challenging problems” (Ellen Macarthur, 2018).

Hella Jongerius, a prominent voice regarding sustainability, takes issue with the “vast quantity of “useless”, ephemeral products with no life-span” (Banks, 2015). Jongerius states, “It’s not the design that is the real issue but the amount that is being produced, that is where the evil starts; it just doesn’t really add anything to the world. There’s too much shit design.” (Banks, 2015).

 

Russia, of the Soviet era, under State run enterprise produced a lack of individuality and a focus on utilitarianism, where the great cultural traditions of the Russian Imperial past were suppressed. Despite being under the strict controls of Communism, the Soviet leaders found consumerist culture hard to completely eradicate.  In contrast to the fashion crazes of the West, Soviet fashion was described as “rather dull, uniform and grey” and “ rapid, seasonal changes of fashion just did not fit into the planned economy” (Gronow and Zhuravlev, 2015). State owned fashion houses and publishers tempered Western fashions to accommodate Communist ideals. They favoured European design houses such as Channel, as they were considered classic and moderate with “long-running styles” (Gronow and Zhuravlev, 2015).

 

Communism in China saw even more examples of standardisation where clothing showed no distinction between people of different rank or sex. Cotton cloth uniforms were issued according to your job; city factory workers were given dark blue uniforms of a similar standard to a green military uniform, and office workers were given grey versions of the same clothes. 

‘Patriotic wool’ was also used to make warmer winter clothing. Also called ‘rag wool’,  it was woven from waste threads swept up from workroom floors combined with a small amount of good wool. Because of the scarcity of raw materials it was essential that nothing went to waste and everything was used until the end of its lifetime. A popular saying about the longevity of clothing during the Cultural Revolution in China was “New three years, old three years, sew and mend another three years. Wearing the same clothes for a decade was normal” (WANG, n.d.). 

Communist economic ideals from Soviet fashion are similar to the current environmental need to reduce fashion buying and waste. Current marketing is using environmentally sustainable methods as a unique selling point to justify promotion and consumption of cheap fashion sold in large quantities. A study conducted in 2015 with “30,000 consumers from 60 countries found that 66 percent of them are willing to pay more for products from companies committed to positive social and environmental impact” (Elven, 2018). There has been an expansion of ‘ecolabels’ in the fashion industry which drives environmental purchasing choice, but there is no one scheme that addresses performance in terms of sustainability across the whole global supply chain (Elven, 2018).

Pioneers in fast fashion such as H&M, introduced the ‘Recycled Denim Collection’ in 2021. The project aimed to create a sustainable collection from recycled and leftover materials in recognition that “a new pair of denim requires thousands of litres of water to create.”(H&M, 2020). Another H&M sustainable marketing concept, ‘bottle2fashion’, in partnership with bottled water producer Danone, converts 7.5 million waste plastic PET bottles collected in Indonesia and recycles them into polyester and subsequently into a children’s wear collection (H&M, 2021b).  H&M promotes the environmental benefits of recycled materials and energy efficient maintenance of clothing; they encourage garment recycling when the clothes are ‘outgrown’ (H&M, 2021a). Whilst recycled polyester is undoubtedly a more sustainable option, it is not a perfect solution as the polyester is still relatively non-biodegradable (SustainYourStyle, n.d.).

Issues surrounding the ‘reusing’ of PET into fabric are not so well advertised by clothing retailers. PET bottles are part of a closed-loop recycling system where bottles are recycled a number of times. The clothing industry is taking from this well-established system, moving it into a linear system. It is described as linear as most of the clothes are not recycled but end up in landfill. “Converting plastic from bottles into clothes may actually accelerate its path to the landfill, especially for low-quality, fast-fashion garments which are often discarded after only a few uses.” (Bryce, 2021). 

 

Car manufacture during the Soviet era was under State control - Lada being the defining and iconic poster-car of the Russian automotive industry. Initially manufactured in the 1970s, Lada acquired 80% of the market shares in the USSR, where 1 in 7 families owned a car (The Journal., 2022). The ‘planned Soviet economy’ was not conditioned to meet demand and the “ordinary person could wait years to get the car of their dreams. Once they did, they treasured it.” (Rodgers, 2020).

 

Lada was infamous for its simple, cheap design and basic technology - “It was so simple that any housewife could fix it on the kitchen table” (Dunai, 2009). Lada vehicles have been described as “a precursor to an SUV” and “a boxy tractor-style” with “old-fashioned safety systems {…} it was not a flashy vehicle.”(The Journal., 2022).

The lack of competition meant that innovation was limited and “cars could often stay in production, with barely any modification, for 20 years.”(Dunai, 2009). This meant that materials and parts were available for many years and the need, and opportunity, for upgrades was non-existent, although the possibility of repairs were endless. Despite its lack of reliability, “Lada’s had a reputation for breaking down a lot” (The Journal., 2022), the life-span of the Lada was remarkable and it should be noted that “any car that can survive 50 years of Russia's severe winters, and Russia's notoriously potholed roads, will obviously earn respect.”(Rodgers, 2020).

The automotive industry in Soviet era Russia is in stark contrast to the car culture of the West, characterised by the excessive use of bigger and more technologically advanced motor vehicles. Whilst cars in Communist Russia are noted for their simplicity, ease of repair and lack of reliability, this is not the case for Western buyers where recent surveys show that “more than 90 per cent of respondents say that they value reliability and quality over everything else” (Car Keys, 2017). 

It seems that Western car manufacturers deem it necessary to include excessive technology, such as electronic handbrakes and remote control boot open/close functions, over manual versions. These additions add to the impact on the environment and their failures and costly specialist-only repairs contribute to the reasons for cars being sold on or scrapped. More simple manual alternatives, such as wind-down windows, would be much easier to repair and give longevity to the vehicle as “the emphasis put on things like the latest equipment and technology seemingly having a relatively small effect on making people actually go out and buy a car.”(Car Keys, 2017). Could this be another case of “There’s too much shit design”?(Banks, 2015).

If we took this simplistic stance on design and manufacture, as adopted under communism, we could thoroughly implement Circular Economy principles to minimise waste and to ensure longevity of  products. These standards could be incorporated into other areas such as furniture, where design could embrace a minimal collection range made only from one material (or recyclable ones) with Knock Down fittings (KD Fittings).  Whilst IKEA uses vast amounts of KD Fittings, their concepts could be pushed further so that elements of their furniture could be repaired, replaced, or upgraded meaning the furniture can last longer. If IKEA took this sustainable ideal further they would stop the use of manufactured boards and have better recycling and reusing programs similar to Patagonia.

 

A company who has grown massively due, or despite their sustainable goals is Patagonia. Their mission statement which was used since 1973, “Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire, and implement solutions to the environmental crisis” (Explain,2020) was more recently replaced with “We’re in business to save our home planet” (Patagonia, 2021).

It is striking that in a capitalist and consumer-obsessed world, Patagonia appears ‘anti-consumerist’ using provocative headlines such as ‘Don’t Buy This Jacket’ in the hope that people buy less and are more considerate about what is bought. This promotion of “conscious consumption” (Deshmukh, 2021) resulted in a 30% increase in sales - showing that “profit can be made from doing good”(Deshmukh, 2021).

Patagonia is known for their lifetime guarantee on their high-end outdoor clothing; if their product does not perform it can be returned to store for repair, replacement or refund - they also repair wear and tear damage for a small cost. An important part of Patagonia’s business is the strong market for used clothing, ‘Worn Wear’, and their zero-tolerance policy of their used clothing going to landfill. Patagonia encourages repairs! Even posting online video tutorials such as zipper and buckle replacement. Who would not want a Patagonia product? Their design and performance is unrivalled and they probably have some of the highest standards of sustainability, however “before you buy their products, think about whether you really need it — they’re designed to last a lifetime” (Explains, 2020).

 

Whilst it is easy to hold the current generation of consumers and manufacturers accountable for the vast amount of ‘stuff ‘ that is bought, the concept of ‘planned obsolescence “ was born in the US during the 1930s depression as a way to get the economy moving again by compelling people to buy more stuff” (Vince, 2012). An explosion in consumerism without the need for obsolescence can be identified by the mobile phone market where almost all “new phones purchased are ‘upgrades’, replacing functioning phones simply for reasons of fashion or for technological additions” (Vince, 2012).

It would be naive and somewhat idealistic to assume that communism could eradicate our conscious and subconscious consumerism and reverse the associated environmental damage. The lack of choice and competition was imposed upon the population by the State under communism - “it does not provide the opportunity or incentive for the common man to satisfy his own greed” and that “Greed can manifest itself even as the desire for alternatives or greater options.”  (News24, 2014)   

 

 

Even during the Communist era in China, the population were able to demonstrate the need for individualism by slight modifications of the standardised clothing by discreetly adding pleats, tucks and pockets, without being obviously modern or different; “it became generally understood that it was not patriotic to dress fashionably.”(www.encyclopedia.com, n.d.). The need to break free from conformity under Soviet communism was more conspicuous in Hungary in the way vast estates of uniform housing were decorated on their external facades with brightly coloured geometric shapes and patterns - a very obvious opposition to ‘communist grey’.

 

‘The Responsible Company’, a book by Yvon Chouinard, founder and owner of Patagonia, quotes the leaders of the Haida, a First Nations tribe in Western Canada, “The most important right we have is the right to be responsible” (Farra, 2021). 

 

​

Imagine a society where it is patriotic to be sustainable. 

Imagine unenforced sustainability on a global scale.