NationStates Jolt Archive

I belive consumerism is a self destroying perversion of capitalism, the same as communism is to socialism. Just wanna hear intelligent opinions.

I belive consumerism is a self destroying perversion of capitalism

um, how?

I belive consumerism is a self destroying perversion of capitalism, the same as communism is to socialism. Just wanna hear intelligent opinions.
i would mostly agree withyou in that consumerism is to capitalism as communism is to socialism, but not why, as communism's the only effective economy.

i think the chart would be kind of like this-

government takes produce
communism | consumerism
|
shared equally------+------used as needed
or |
government division |
|
socialism | capitalism
people take produce

actually, corpratism might fit better in the place where consumerism is

i made it out so that the things would fit approximantly where they would in the political compass

um, how?

How you say? I probably could write a book on the matter, but anyway here's a quick explanation and example. Don't pick out every little loophole cause I don't have the time nor space to smooth them out.

Capitalism, as written in the Wealth of Nations, is supposed to consist of a learned well informed society of consumers. Here, in my beloved USA we have MTV telling us what kind of clothes to buy. we have rap artists telling us what kind of energy drink to drink. How many people out there can tell us what ingredients are in an energy drink and what the long and short term benefits to it are? Honestly, I don't know and thus I don't buy it. Citizens in a consumeristic state are just told what to buy and are rarely ever educated on the matter. This completely negates much of Adam Smith's theories. Not to mention the whole patent system. Adam Smith would have laughed to his death if someone would have thought to tell him the following:
"I water my apples three times a day and fertilize twice, thus no one else in the market should be allowed the same technique because then there apples would taste the same as mine."

Competition of the same products and knowledgeable comsumers are two things which drive capitalism. :headbang: :headbang:

How you say? I probably could write a book on the matter, but anyway here's a quick explanation and example. Don't pick out every little loophole cause I don't have the time nor space to smooth them out.

Capitalism, as written in the Wealth of Nations, is supposed to consist of a learned well informed society of consumers. Here, in my beloved USA we have MTV telling us what kind of clothes to buy. we have rap artists telling us what kind of energy drink to drink. How many people out there can tell us what ingredients are in an energy drink and what the long and short term benefits to it are? Honestly, I don't know and thus I don't buy it. Citizens in a consumeristic state are just told what to buy and are rarely ever educated on the matter. This completely negates much of Adam Smith's theories. Not to mention the whole patent system. Adam Smith would have laughed to his death if someone would have thought to tell him the following:
"I water my apples three times a day and fertilize twice, thus no one else in the market should be allowed the same technique because then there apples would taste the same as mine."

Competition of the same products and knowledgeable comsumers are two things which drive capitalism. :headbang: :headbang:

How does the "...as Communism is to Socialism??" part work then?

Capitalism, as written in the Wealth of Nations, is supposed to consist of a learned well informed society of consumers. Here, in my beloved USA we have MTV telling us what kind of clothes to buy. we have rap artists telling us what kind of energy drink to drink. How many people out there can tell us what ingredients are in an energy drink and what the long and short term benefits to it are? Honestly, I don't know and thus I don't buy it. Citizens in a consumeristic state are just told what to buy and are rarely ever educated on the matter. This completely negates much of Adam Smith's theories. Not to mention the whole patent system. Adam Smith would have laughed to his death if someone would have thought to tell him the following:
"I water my apples three times a day and fertilize twice, thus no one else in the market should be allowed the same technique because then there apples would taste the same as mine.

Or, weirdly enough, you could uhm... read the ingredients list? And then if you don't know what something is or does, you find out with the internet, or an encyclopedia? Amazing, right? How dare corporate America exploit people too lazy to go and find things out for themselves.

Just as Communist Russia was a travesty of the Socialist ideals...

I think our Western world has perverted Capitalism to the max.

- Government involvement (the CIA performing industrial spying for Boeing...)
- Monopolies (Microsoft anyone?)
- Exclusivity contracts (in some metro systems & high-rise buildings, only one cellphone company is allowed to install antennas because they have signed an exclusivity contract)
- Price fixing & conglomerates (when all cereals come from General Mills, they reduce the box formats while increasing the prices....)
- Product line consolidation (=less choice! Quakers was bought by PepsiCo, and now they have "harmonized" their flavors with PepsiCo's cereal products... Dino Eggs cereal products, anyone?)
- Corporate interests pressuring governments (in Canada, the powerful milk industry has influenced the "Food guide" in the 1980s to include more milk than necessary)
- Captive consumers (one phone/cabe company = you pay through the nose and get a shitty service)
- False competition (all major soap brands are made by the same group, so do you really have any choice?)
- Low quality goods, ever changing "standards", arm twisting (I had to dump my cellphone because it has become "obsolete" and wouldn't connect to the network anymore... after only 2 years ; also, had to buy a new printer because there were no available drivers for Windows XP; that's arm twisting consumerism)

And so on...

so your beef with 'consumerism' is that you don't like advertising, corporate mergers, and intellectual property rights. in other words, the perfectly predictable results of capitalism and the ideas of private property that underpin it.

interesting. how do you propose to run capitalism without advertising and without profitable firms buying up everything they believe they can use to create greater profits?

Can't say I agree with the comparison. Consumerism emerges from capitalism, but the same cannot be said for communism and socialism, which are two (similar) separate forms of government.

How does the "...as Communism is to Socialism??" part work then?

maybe they think communism is the perfectly predictable outcome of socialism?

No, consumerism is an aspect of capitalism (like egalitarianism is an aspect of socialism) whereas communism is a kind of socialism (like objectivism is a kind of capitalism).

You can still hate advertising and be adamantly capitalist. Just because I'm a strong supporter of capitalism doesn't mean I have to love the MTV crap or any other annoying corporate advertising. I don't care much about so-called indoctrination, but I do find the entire MTV culture fucking annoying as hell. I haven't seen one thing on MTV worth watching. I HATE IT.

You can still hate advertising and be adamantly capitalist. Just because I'm a strong supporter of capitalism doesn't mean I have to love the MTV crap or any other annoying corporate advertising. I don't care much about so-called indoctrination, but I do find the entire MTV culture fucking annoying as hell. I haven't seen one thing on MTV worth watching. I HATE IT.

Maddox gives the "MTV culture" a deep analysis:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=trippin

No, consumerism is an aspect of capitalism (like egalitarianism is an aspect of socialism) whereas communism is a kind of socialism (like objectivism is a kind of capitalism).
socialism is the in between action of communism. socialists want it to remain at that action, not then switching to communism, so communism is the end result, being entirely different from socialism.

I disagree with the statement because consumerism and capitalism concern different aspects of the same ideology, while communism and socialism are two very different ideologies. Socialism is not "educated communism", while capitalism can be described as "educated consumerism". Your statement therefore is invalid. I rest my case.

Can't say I agree with the comparison. Consumerism emerges from capitalism, but the same cannot be said for communism and socialism, which are two (similar) separate forms of government.

Unless of course you ask a communist who will tell you that Socialism is merely a progressive step toward their ultimate goal which is Communism.

socialism is the in between action of communism. socialists want it to remain at that action, not then switching to communism, so communism is the end result, being entirely different from socialism.

Actually, socialism is basically the opposite of capitalism. Everyone from Marxists to anarchists considers themselves a socialist but the only thing that they have in common is a beef with capitalism. More accurately, socialism basically strives for a more democratic arrangement of the economy, meaning less social stratification and more input from the workers. How far this goes (all the way in anarchism, part of the way in democratic socialism) varies.

I disagree with the statement because consumerism and capitalism concern different aspects of the same ideology, while communism and socialism are two very different ideologies. Socialism is not "educated communism", while capitalism can be described as "educated consumerism". Your statement therefore is invalid. I rest my case.

I would like to clarify a comment I made which you obviously preferred not to listen to. I could write (and need) a book on the topic yet to save read time I made a few quick summaries and I politely asked not to nitpick loop holes. Maybe for all who are not open minded enough to contemplate the possiblity, (*Cough* A common happening on these forums) I might entertain the thought. In my opinion, consumerism is an interpretation of capitalism, one in which a few manipulate the ignorance of the populous. Moreso than just manipulating, but many of these controllers also attempt to keep information out of the public(For example, Dr. Atkins and his useless diet). They attack critics and are capable of silencing them. If I needed to catagorize on the political compass, Socialism would be bottom left, Capitalism:bottom right, Communism:Upper left, Consumerism:Upper right.

I don't know about the whole "Communism is to Socialism" idea, but "Consumerism" where people make uninformed decisions is a driving force behind a capitalistic economy, not a destructive force. The fact that uninformed people make poor decisions allows for those who are most efficient with money to be the one's who are controlling the majority of it.

socialism is the in between action of communism. socialists want it to remain at that action, not then switching to communism, so communism is the end result, being entirely different from socialism.

Well the term communism has also been used do describe elitist socialist that think that a small elite should be in control until communism is archieved. That I think has been the most common definition even if of course not all communist stand be hand that idea.

So the comparision between consumerism and communist in that sens would be better if you switch to plutocracy and communism. Because plutocracy is that a small group of wealthy people have the pover. And plutocracy will always be a part of capitalism. Even if of course it can vary how mutch, but for example in my country "socialist" sweden the wealthy have a lot of power like for example they can move there factory and affect the life of thousand of people and the fact that most media is rightwing even if the people is divided roughly 50/50.

Socialism is a methodology by a government to provide for all of its citizens and adequately distribute wealth and eliminate social ills. Communism, by definition, is a state in which government no longer exists because society shares its wealth, and industry and economy are run by the factories, and additionally the agricultural regions, themselves. Communism in the world is not communism, simply because fascist-traits weren't on Marx's theory. Communism in the world seems to mirror fascism, which it supposedly abhors.

Perhaps you should define what consumerism means to you in a clearer sense, I'm not sure how you equate it.

In response to Volvo, in a capitalist society, it is best to use the term "oligarchy" in place of plutocracy. Yes, the most powerful in our society are the wealthy industrialists and businessmen. However, they perpetuate themselves, and concentrate power tightly.

ACtually, the underlying reason that your statement is false is that you have failed to make the proper distinctions between economic systems and political systems. Capitalism and Communism are economic systems. Socialism is a political system. Consumerism is neither an economic nor a political system, but an aspect of a society utilising Capitalism. Socialism is not necessarily tied to Communism any more than Fascism is tied to Capitalism.

Case in point: The Socialist Party of the United States of American (SPUSA) is a Democratic Socialist party existing (and intended to exist) as part of a Capitalist economic system.

--dunerat, Dominar of EvaMade