One thing that's important to differentiate is between "capitalism" which is largely just private ownership and control of capital, and "consumerism" which is the almost religious worship of purchasing. The latter is how everything is commodified, and the idea that you can buy anything with money.
Capitalism is a system of economics, consumerism is a cultural phenomenon. The former can be a lot of different things including highly generous and charitable cultures. The latter is about embedding the act and meaning of consumption into the fabric of everyday life and identity.
Consumerism does not necessarily require capitalism. It has occurred in non-capitalist systems such as feudal nobility, socialist authoritarianism, or even non-market systems, though typically not the mass consumerism we see today. Mass consumerism requires mass production, and some sort of mass media that sends a message (intentionally or unintentionally) that it is desirable to have a thing that has some friction to acquire, and most importantly a culture that says acquiring such items is a means to fulfilment and social proof. That said, mass consumerism like we see in the west requires a system that can produce the amount of broad wealth required to support mass consumerism, and the power of mass marketing is relatively unique in world history.
This distinction appears to be irrelevant, but it is highly relevant because otherwise you can end up with an easy category error where you blame capitalism for mass consumerism and assume that if you remove capitalism you will eliminate consumerism when in reality you'll simply remove the wealth that enables it and so consumerism will continue as elite consumerism and most people will materially suffer overall without a real benefit.
For example, if you change back to feudalism and the common man becomes destitute, you will eliminate mass consumerism, but the feudal lords will remain wealthy and will continue to make outlandish purchases to show off to their peers. Social standing never goes away, it's just a matter of how that manifests -- and you can reduce overall wealth to eliminate mass consumerism, but it just means they're destitute and wasteful consumption will continue among the still wealthy elites.
The system in the Americas was pre-capitalist, and in some cases might be considered "tribal communism", but for example the elites would have highly polished bronze mirrors as demonstrations of their power, and the olmec civilization created large totems which may have had religious significance, but I have no doubt also carried an elite consumerist component as well.
Capitalism is a system of economics, consumerism is a cultural phenomenon. The former can be a lot of different things including highly generous and charitable cultures. The latter is about embedding the act and meaning of consumption into the fabric of everyday life and identity.
Consumerism does not necessarily require capitalism. It has occurred in non-capitalist systems such as feudal nobility, socialist authoritarianism, or even non-market systems, though typically not the mass consumerism we see today. Mass consumerism requires mass production, and some sort of mass media that sends a message (intentionally or unintentionally) that it is desirable to have a thing that has some friction to acquire, and most importantly a culture that says acquiring such items is a means to fulfilment and social proof. That said, mass consumerism like we see in the west requires a system that can produce the amount of broad wealth required to support mass consumerism, and the power of mass marketing is relatively unique in world history.
This distinction appears to be irrelevant, but it is highly relevant because otherwise you can end up with an easy category error where you blame capitalism for mass consumerism and assume that if you remove capitalism you will eliminate consumerism when in reality you'll simply remove the wealth that enables it and so consumerism will continue as elite consumerism and most people will materially suffer overall without a real benefit.
For example, if you change back to feudalism and the common man becomes destitute, you will eliminate mass consumerism, but the feudal lords will remain wealthy and will continue to make outlandish purchases to show off to their peers. Social standing never goes away, it's just a matter of how that manifests -- and you can reduce overall wealth to eliminate mass consumerism, but it just means they're destitute and wasteful consumption will continue among the still wealthy elites.
The system in the Americas was pre-capitalist, and in some cases might be considered "tribal communism", but for example the elites would have highly polished bronze mirrors as demonstrations of their power, and the olmec civilization created large totems which may have had religious significance, but I have no doubt also carried an elite consumerist component as well.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1