10 ms·
You really need to re-read the story. Its only towards the bottom, in a couple of sentences, where the author even talks about how people got by for tens of tho
by geuis 16y ago
You really need to re-read the story. Its only towards the bottom, in a couple of sentences, where the author even talks about how people got by for tens of thousands of years without "buying" things in the modern sense. Its even stated very plainly that the author does not promote a return to tribalism.
This is very simply about changing the terminology we to describe our relationship as people to corporations.
100 years ago, "consumption" was the name for tuberculosis. As a person, I find being defined as a "consumer" offensive. It brings to mind images of sickness and pigs gorging from slop troughs. That imagery, when applied to the couple billion people that make today's industrial society, is meant to demean.
- theorique 16y agoExactly! Here's another nice indictment of the term "consumer" as it is applied to humans / citizens / creative people. So the customers who once looked you in the eye while hefting your wares in the market were transformed into consumers. In the words of industry analyst Jerry Michalski, a consumer was no more than "a gullet whose only purpose in life is to gulp products and crap cash." Power swung so decisively to the supply side that "market" became a verb: something you do to customers. http://www.cluetrain.com/book/markets.html http://www.cluetrain.com/book/markets.html
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]