NationStates Jolt Archive

Consumerism has overtaken our society, with luxury consumption (Anything except the basic needs) practically driving the people of Western nations at least the United States into extreme debt. It pervades our entire society, and is the basis for which many people live for. We are bombarded with advertisements, marketing, and brands to a point unprecedented in history. There are more stores than religious buildings, people are more likely to go to a big sale than a political rally. The turnout for Christmas spending is more than the turnout for voting in the Presidential election.

The average American has $10,000 in credit card debt, according to the credit card companies often on luxury goods (they do track spending).

Walk down the toilet paper aisle in a Superstore and you will see over 15 different brands for toilet paper. Even water is branded and sold. The collapse of the real estate market is an example of consumerism, as many spent beyond their means on homes they did not need.

It affects everyone from the common working people who buy their children the latest shoes (cliché example, I know) to even millionaires who in a different form of consumerism spend all of their money, sometimes even into debt, on yachts, massive homes, and extreme luxuries. (Mostly entry-level millionaires)

High Schools and other educational institutes are often paid off to allow marketing to pervade their campuses.

Despite becoming a free thinking society, most Americans do not read books, but watch television and consume most of the time. Look at how many people it takes to read a book to get onto the New York Times Best Seller List, not many.


Has Consumerism beat religion and nationalism (in all its forms) as a mechanism for social control and to "keep the peace", as a sedative for the general population so to speak? It has people distracted even in a free society, without any need for physical control or fear as in other systems.

Overtaken religion, hard to judge in relation to nationalism. I don't think this is a bad thing but in general. Obviously I wish more people read instead of watching so much television and all, but more broadly it is just a necessary by-product of the drive towards a monocultural global society.

Overtaken, yes, but a very LONG time ago. Surely you remember the old Roman formula of bread and circuses to control the people and keep them happy? What is consumerism but that yet again?

Overtaken, yes, but a very LONG time ago. Surely you remember the old Roman formula of bread and circuses to control the people and keep them happy? What is consumerism but that yet again?

Yes, like Reality Shows. It has overtaken music videos, and their on every network now. Seems to be the future of television. Next we will have bloody gladiators again once society is liberal enough. Well that is more Media than consumerism, though I would see Media as an aspect of consumerism. They go hand-in-hand.

After Rome mostly religion and nationalism was used. Rome had a strong religion, and during the Empire the Emperor was worshiped as a god (or made to be worshiped). I would say Nationalism was one of the main things that held Rome together, being a "Citizen of Rome" was everything. No one wanted to see their entire society or Empire destroyed. Such events were used by some of the Emperors to pacify the population.

I agree that the media these days seems very "Bread & Circus". Especially circus! At one time, the USA was the biggest creditor. Now we're by far, the biggest debtor nation. Our savings rate is one of the lowest in the world, our debt, both as a nation and as individuals, is out of control. Right now, I think consumerism is how this country will die!

this has been ancient history since about the mid 60s. the credit thing since at least the mid 80s.

=^^=
.../\...

I don't really buy into this idea of 'social control'. The whole phrase smacks of conspiracy madness.

Controlled by whom?

Like Peepelonia I wouldn't call it social control, but it is definitely one of the biggest forces in global society today, thanks mainly to the increased speed of communication around the world and general expansion of globalization. Now you can be spammed from chinese companies selling you all kinds of things, and the amount of advertising and societal pressure to "conform by being different and buying" is shaping everything as we speak. The biggest forces against globalization fight because they don't want their society and culture to become consumerist.

The US lost that conflict in the 90s (with the Battle of Seattle being the only victory for the anti-consumerists), and Europe and Asia have slowly been getting accustomed to it. The Muslim and Latin American worlds are probably the only ones right now giving an alternative, which is making a cultural clash.

Its an interesting time to be alive, I'll tell ya that.

I don't really buy into this idea of 'social control'. The whole phrase smacks of conspiracy madness.

Controlled by whom?

Guess you have not heard of the term social engineering, and how it is a fairly legitimate term in political science. It is not as if no government has ever tried to manipulate a population. How is that conspiracy madness? Nazi Germany was a conspiracy? Fascism?

Though any way, what I meant was that social control as in keeping people focused on something, or calm. Not social control actively exercised by any institution. I am sure corporations are motivated by the bottom line. I am pretty sure though the Catholic Church was used by nobility to keep the masses under control.

Consumerism is just an result of capitalism.

Consumerism is just an result of capitalism.
Consumerism is capitalism.

Your definition of consumerism sucks. What are "basic needs"? Anything we need to survive? If so, is anything beyond eating gruel and drinking water "consumerism"? Is it therefore bad, or decadent? What is bad about consumerism in the first place? Isn't the hunt for more and cheaper consumer goods what has allowed us to do nice things, like write messages to each other on our computers?

Is it not possible to consume without borrowing money to do so?

Who are you to judge what is and isn't people's needs? Why should needs and wants be considered as seperate at all? Why are one person's needs something another person should be concerned with, but their wants presumably aren't?

You also need to properly define social control, and show how anybody consciously uses it to do anything. The bad decisions that should really have caused massive outcries in recent years (Iraq, Guantanamo etc) were not related to consumerism in any way, and neither was the debate about them. The debates were being stifled with "support our troops" and "terrorists are out to get us", not with "buy X".

I'm sorry, but you've just been throwing buzzwords around.

Guess you have not heard of the term social engineering, and how it is a fairly legitimate term in political science. It is not as if no government has ever tried to manipulate a population. How is that conspiracy madness? Nazi Germany was a conspiracy? Fascism?

Though any way, what I meant was that social control as in keeping people focused on something, or calm. Not social control actively exercised by any institution. I am sure corporations are motivated by the bottom line. I am pretty sure though the Catholic Church was used by nobility to keep the masses under control.

Consumerism is just an result of capitalism.

Well you have a point about Nazi Germany, but I still just don't buy into the second types of social control you mention, I'm almost positive that the Catholic Church was not used as such a control.

Consumerism is capitalism.

Your definition of consumerism sucks. What are "basic needs"? Anything we need to survive? If so, is anything beyond eating gruel and drinking water "consumerism"? Is it therefore bad, or decadent? What is bad about consumerism in the first place? Isn't the hunt for more and cheaper consumer goods what has allowed us to do nice things, like write messages to each other on our computers?

Is it not possible to consume without borrowing money to do so?

Who are you to judge what is and isn't people's needs? Why should needs and wants be considered as seperate at all? Why are one person's needs something another person should be concerned with, but their wants presumably aren't?

You also need to properly define social control, and show how anybody consciously uses it to do anything. The bad decisions that should really have caused massive outcries in recent years (Iraq, Guantanamo etc) were not related to consumerism in any way, and neither was the debate about them. The debates were being stifled with "support our troops" and "terrorists are out to get us", not with "buy X".

I'm sorry, but you've just been throwing buzzwords around.

Yes, I wonder why they did not result in massive outcry? People are caught up in consumerism and entertaining media.

Consumerism is when the majority of the nation is in debt, and according to statistics much of this debt is what people spent on luxury goods. Not groceries (of any kind).

I know quiet a few people who put luxury purses on their credit cards, or even just clothing for their High Schoolers because Abercrombie & Fitch sweaters are $60-$100.

For example, Louis Vuitton purses are marked up 13 times. Often these luxury goods people now covet so much were made in China, then shipped in Italy to attach an Made in Italy logo.

Consumerism is when people are spending so much money on these luxury goods. I am not sure what to call the fact they are made in China, are not very high quality, and are marked up astronomically.

I just say there is something unbalanced with it. I am a consumerist myself, but after reading a few books and research I discovered how much we are paying for low quality goods that are sold simply with an image.

We are bombarded with brands every day.

Yes, I wonder why they did not result in massive outcry? People are caught up in consumerism and entertaining media.
So you're saying that the majority of Americans was not actually in favour of attacking Iraq, they were just busy shopping?

Consumerism is when the majority of the nation is in debt...
That definition is even worse. In fact, it's by far the worst definition of it I have ever seen.

...and according to statistics much of this debt is what people spent on luxury goods. Not groceries (of any kind).
But if everyone bought Caviar, that would be fine?

I know quiet a few people who put luxury purses on their credit cards, or even just clothing for their High Schoolers because Abercrombie & Fitch sweaters are $60-$100.
And I know people who don't.

For example, Louis Vuitton purses are marked up 13 times. Often these luxury goods people now covet so much were made in China, then shipped in Italy to attach an Made in Italy logo.
Which would be illegal, so if you have any evidence, I suggest you contact consumer protection agencies.

It's also irrelevant to your point.

Consumerism is when people are spending so much money on these luxury goods.
So when the ancient Greeks stopped drinking water and figured out that they preferred drinking wine, that was consumerism?

Would you prefer us turn back to neolithical lifestyles? Would that be purifying enough for our spirits for you to feel happy?

I am not sure what to call the fact they are made in China, are not very high quality, and are marked up astronomically.
It's called "finding an optimal use for one's limited resources". I don't think that's a bad thing, to be honest. I know that I wouldn't be able to afford my lifestyle if it wasn't common practice.

I just say there is something unbalanced with it.
There is something unbalanced, namely the budgets of the people who get themselves into debt. But that has nothing to do with consumerism, and everything with people not bothering to handle their money properly.

I am a consumerist myself, but after reading a few books and research I discovered how much we are paying for low quality goods that are sold simply with an image.

We are bombarded with brands every day.
Then stop buying them. I don't.

Religion, yes. Nationalism, no.

Of course, nationalism outdid religion a long time ago, at the absolute latest I'd give a date for such a transition as 1871. Consumerism really didn't take serious effect until around 1910.

What is bad about consumerism in the first place?

Anything taken in extremes, even if they provide benefits in moderate amounts, doesn't mean it does so when taken to the extreme.

For example, forced labor workshops. Hardly a new trend, but persisting even to today. But they provide the basis of what consumerism demands. Goods at lower cost and subsequently, prices. That's one result of consumerism taken to the extreme.

Although another aspect of that extreme consumerism would be spiraling debt.

But at the end of the day, consumerism is a little short on the long term planning. Especially in regards to finite resources but infinite demand.

I like consumerism, it brings a great variety of lots of shiny objects for me to play with. It sure as hell beats sitting on a hard wooden pew for hours and waving a flag until my arm falls off. :p

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some money I need to dump into the economy so the government can continue to "control" me.

I don't really buy into this idea of 'social control'. The whole phrase smacks of conspiracy madness.

Controlled by whom?

The evil capitalist jewish globalist right wing corporate fascist cabal, of course.

I like consumerism, it brings a great variety of lots of shiny objects for me to play with. It sure as hell beats sitting on a hard wooden pew for hours and waving a flag until my arm falls off. :p

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some money I need to dump into the economy so the government can continue to "control" me.

Ohhh nice, first post as well. Hold on I got summit for you, wait wait, it's... just... under the ....table.

Ahah yeah, look just blow it off a bit give it a rub and wear your crown with pride!

The evil capitalist jewish globalist right wing corporate fascist cabal, of course.

Ahhh of course them. You know they have all been sooo quite of late I really do forget they are there sometimes.:D

Consumerism is nothing new, people have always been obese with luxury since recorded history.

I don't see consumerism being the main reason for the decline in religion. It's not so much they choose material goods over God, it's more like people don't even believe in God nowadays.

Now advertisement on the other hand is getting out of hand. Poster ads everywhere you go, TV ads, junk mail, spam mail, cold calls, adwares, it's impossible to list them all. With the advancement in the field of social psychology everyday people are really in odds against such a beast. Sure they can't technically "brainwash" but they can certainly promote "learning" and implanting false promises in your head. The AD bombardments nowadays are no different than what Pavlov did with his dog in classical conditioning. People naturally form association because they see the same message over and over again.

Unfortunately not only do we have an increasing amount of ADs, ADs are becoming more and more effective as well.

I remember at one point I read about something like this. "It's best to let people know they are being controlled. It reinforces their belief of powerlessness and create the illusion of choice. It makes people believe that it is their own fault for accepting what you have forced upon them."

Since consumerism is not a form of social control, I would say no.

There's a reason why the Situationists referred to modern capitalist society as
"The Spectacle" during the 60s. And things have only gotten worse since then, with the bombardment of commercialism.

Consumerism certainly has a lot more effect, although I don't know if I'd use a term such as "social control" - getting people to buy things isn't really a means to an end like the others, it is the end.

Personally, I find it difficult to see how it is so big; how so many people can be oblivious to the fact that most of the things they purchase are either crap, a rip off, or a superficially slightly altered version of something they already have. Or all three.

yes, a long time ago.

For example, forced labor workshops. Hardly a new trend, but persisting even to today. But they provide the basis of what consumerism demands. Goods at lower cost and subsequently, prices. That's one result of consumerism taken to the extreme.

Although another aspect of that extreme consumerism would be spiraling debt.
But neither follows from consumerism. You can have consumerism without these things, all it takes is some basic rules on how to treat other people and one's own money.

Just because people who do a lot of drugs can start getting so desperate for cash that they mug people doesn't mean that I can legitimately make an argument against drug use based on statistics on muggings. Though, granted, you wouldn't think so when you look at the media and politicians.

But at the end of the day, consumerism is a little short on the long term planning. Especially in regards to finite resources but infinite demand.
We wouldn't be human beings if we had finite demands. If we'd had finite demands in 5000BC, we would've been happy with a somewhat dry cave and the occasional deer herd walking by and no big cats trying to eat us. We weren't, and that's why we can enjoy living until we're 80+ these days.

We wouldn't be human beings if we had finite demands. If we'd had finite demands in 5000BC, we would've been happy with a somewhat dry cave and the occasional deer herd walking by and no big cats trying to eat us. We weren't, and that's why we can enjoy living until we're 80+ these days.

Tell me, where is the proof of the assertion that people have infinite demands? I've never seen one. Just because we don't know the ceiling of people's demands doesn't mean that the number is infinite. It could very easily be a finite number that is not known.

But neither follows from consumerism. You can have consumerism without these things, all it takes is some basic rules on how to treat other people and one's own money.

I didn't say consumerism would automatically require them. But consumerism to its extreme would create such problems. Having the rules means consumerism is limited and not allowed to run to its extreme. At least theoretically.

Tell me, where is the proof of the assertion that people have infinite demands? I've never seen one. Just because we don't know the ceiling of people's demands doesn't mean that the number is infinite. It could very easily be a finite number that is not known.
Well, I learned a bit of a trick in the other thread. Just add the word "effectively" and all my problems go away. ;)

Fact is that there have always been people who weren't happy with what was available for consumption at the time and worked on new ways of changing the world and combining our resources to come up with new consumption goods.

I didn't say consumerism would automatically require them. But consumerism to its extreme would create such problems. Having the rules means consumerism is limited and not allowed to run to its extreme. At least theoretically.
I suppose the problem with this thread is that I may have scared off the OP's author without him having given a proper definition of "consumerism". It's a loaded term and seems to mean something else to every person.

So I guess I'll have to ask you: what is consumerism?

i don't know necessarily about consumerism being a form of control, largely as there is no controller. though it depends on your definition of social control.

however, i would say that the system creates a society of unhappiness, unfulfillment, and inequality. companies create artificial wants in the minds of consumers through advertising and other media. they're very good at doing this. most consumers respond in a vicious circle by basing their worth on the amount of goods - and the type of goods - they purchase. however, consumers are never fulfilled as more wants are continually created, and no amount of these consumer goods will fulfill the self-worth as long as they still have wants being fed to them by the companies.


this does create a dichotomy whereby the companies get rich and the consumers stay poor and unhappy. i guess that's capitalism, and i'm not passing judgement on that bit now. but it does lead to inequality, which could be considered a method of social control, and unhappiness. however, it is systemic, not subversive.

my two cents anyhow

Consumerism is nothing new, people have always been obese with luxury since recorded history.

I don't see consumerism being the main reason for the decline in religion. It's not so much they choose material goods over God, it's more like people don't even believe in God nowadays.

Now advertisement on the other hand is getting out of hand. Poster ads everywhere you go, TV ads, junk mail, spam mail, cold calls, adwares, it's impossible to list them all. With the advancement in the field of social psychology everyday people are really in odds against such a beast. Sure they can't technically "brainwash" but they can certainly promote "learning" and implanting false promises in your head. The AD bombardments nowadays are no different than what Pavlov did with his dog in classical conditioning. People naturally form association because they see the same message over and over again.

Unfortunately not only do we have an increasing amount of ADs, ADs are becoming more and more effective as well.

I remember at one point I read about something like this. "It's best to let people know they are being controlled. It reinforces their belief of powerlessness and create the illusion of choice. It makes people believe that it is their own fault for accepting what you have forced upon them."

I don't know how effective ads are, but I like your reference to Pavlov. I'm at the point where whenever I see/hear an ad, I want to bite someone!

So I guess I'll have to ask you: what is consumerism?

To my best interpretation? A social advent that focuses on providing increasing quality/quantities of amenities, commodities and luxuries to the general public.

I suppose it's a bit like a trend in that aspect. Social expectations and demands to better goods at lower cost.

In itself, it's nothing good or bad. But then there's the extreme versions of it. But extremism in any form is usually bad.

i don't know necessarily about consumerism being a form of control, largely as there is no controller. though it depends on your definition of social control.

however, i would say that the system creates a society of unhappiness, unfulfillment, and inequality. companies create artificial wants in the minds of consumers through advertising and other media. they're very good at doing this. most consumers respond in a vicious circle by basing their worth on the amount of goods - and the type of goods - they purchase. however, consumers are never fulfilled as more wants are continually created, and no amount of these consumer goods will fulfill the self-worth as long as they still have wants being fed to them by the companies.


this does create a dichotomy whereby the companies get rich and the consumers stay poor and unhappy. i guess that's capitalism, and i'm not passing judgement on that bit now. but it does lead to inequality, which could be considered a method of social control, and unhappiness. however, it is systemic, not subversive.

my two cents anyhow


I agree that is pretty much my view of it.

These corporations and advertisements often play on creating an feeling of inadequacy.

Of course, the real question is: where do you draw the line between consumerism and simple want for goods and services? I don't think it's easy to say where that line is or when it is crossed, and it's going to be different for a lot of people.

Of course, the real question is: where do you draw the line between consumerism and simple want for goods and services? I don't think it's easy to say where that line is or when it is crossed, and it's going to be different for a lot of people.

Exactly and this is why it is hard for debates such as this. What you need to survive for you and your own family is probably different then mine.

How also can one make the argument for a need over a want? Does one really need a car when they can walk? Does one really need a large variety of food when you could survive off bread, water with a fruit and a vegetable thrown in.