3 ms·

I've switched to thinking consumerism is more of a problem than capitalism. Capitalism is just the producer, if what capitalism produced isn't consumered, certa

I've switched to thinking consumerism is more of a problem than capitalism. Capitalism is just the producer, if what capitalism produced isn't consumered, certain things won't be produced. Additionally consumerism is something that we all can influence with our credit cards. Capitalism is largely controlled by large nameless corporations.

wnkrshm 4y ago
Problem is: The larger the wallet, the larger the vote. Also, consumers get manipulated to buy into black boxes all the time. Nobody wants to know how their sausage is made but everyone would buy one. A company that is perfectly transparent about their supply chain would fail.
- Towaway69 4y ago
  Well yes and no, in not purchasing something I am also making a statement. Manipulation has to do with education and sources of information. But as long as the notion that happiness can only be found in purchasing products, then not much will change. Perhaps poverty can be a good thing.
  - wnkrshm 4y ago
    The sources of information are the limit though - to make a better world using this sort of 'consumption vote'[0], businesses and their relationships need to be way more transparent, with possibly a regulated transparency. I wonder whether there could be FOSS business intelligence to a degree that the most likely business relationships of entities will be estimated and published, automatically. And then companies that actually supply data about their supply chains etc. will have a marketing advantage. [0] you cannot organize this vote, since there are anti-boycott laws
    - Towaway69 4y ago
      Anti-boycott laws, but surely only between nation states? Being forced to purchase something would seem little dictatorial. Boycott could also include purchasing an EV - thereby the consumer is boycotting the oil industry. Meaning there does not necessarily need to be transparency of the supply chain to make a consumption vote.
Kbelicius 4y ago
> Capitalism is just the producer I'm having difficulty parsing this part. What does this mean?
- Towaway69 4y ago
  For me there are two parts at play: consumerism and capitalism, without one, neither the other. If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill. (I am thinking of the companies running/ordering from the factories not necessarily the factories themselves, i.e. Chinese factory.) This means that as a consumer, I can influence the system by not purchasing certain products. The larger consumer group, the larger the change.
  - andrekandre 4y ago
    > If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill. thats interesting... so you are saying that it is capitalism itself presupposes that consumers exist, and without it you can't have capitalism...? it kind of makes one ask which came first...
    - Towaway69 4y ago
      I would argue capitalism arose with the invention of money, before that humans bartered. Consumption was the aim of the barter system also, so I would say consumerism came first ;)
      - Kbelicius 4y ago
        > before that humans bartered This account of history of money is largely viewed as bunk by historians since there exist no evidence or description of a barter economy in our history.
  - Kbelicius 4y ago
    I'm still having trouble understanding what you meant by "Capitalism is just the producer" > If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill. What about buying from a socialist factory? Is socialism also just the producer? > This means that as a consumer, I can influence the system by not purchasing certain products. The larger consumer group, the larger the change. This seems like you are talking about markets, not really capitalism.

wnkrshm 4y ago

Problem is: The larger the wallet, the larger the vote. Also, consumers get manipulated to buy into black boxes all the time. Nobody wants to know how their sausage is made but everyone would buy one. A company that is perfectly transparent about their supply chain would fail.

Towaway69 4y ago
Well yes and no, in not purchasing something I am also making a statement. Manipulation has to do with education and sources of information. But as long as the notion that happiness can only be found in purchasing products, then not much will change. Perhaps poverty can be a good thing.
- wnkrshm 4y ago
  The sources of information are the limit though - to make a better world using this sort of 'consumption vote'[0], businesses and their relationships need to be way more transparent, with possibly a regulated transparency. I wonder whether there could be FOSS business intelligence to a degree that the most likely business relationships of entities will be estimated and published, automatically. And then companies that actually supply data about their supply chains etc. will have a marketing advantage. [0] you cannot organize this vote, since there are anti-boycott laws
  - Towaway69 4y ago
    Anti-boycott laws, but surely only between nation states? Being forced to purchase something would seem little dictatorial. Boycott could also include purchasing an EV - thereby the consumer is boycotting the oil industry. Meaning there does not necessarily need to be transparency of the supply chain to make a consumption vote.

Kbelicius 4y ago

> Capitalism is just the producer I'm having difficulty parsing this part. What does this mean?

Towaway69 4y ago
For me there are two parts at play: consumerism and capitalism, without one, neither the other. If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill. (I am thinking of the companies running/ordering from the factories not necessarily the factories themselves, i.e. Chinese factory.) This means that as a consumer, I can influence the system by not purchasing certain products. The larger consumer group, the larger the change.
- andrekandre 4y ago
  > If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill. thats interesting... so you are saying that it is capitalism itself presupposes that consumers exist, and without it you can't have capitalism...? it kind of makes one ask which came first...
  - Towaway69 4y ago
    I would argue capitalism arose with the invention of money, before that humans bartered. Consumption was the aim of the barter system also, so I would say consumerism came first ;)
    - Kbelicius 4y ago
      > before that humans bartered This account of history of money is largely viewed as bunk by historians since there exist no evidence or description of a barter economy in our history.
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  I'm still having trouble understanding what you meant by "Capitalism is just the producer" > If consumers don't purchase the products produced by the capitalist factories then the system would come to a standstill. What about buying from a socialist factory? Is socialism also just the producer? > This means that as a consumer, I can influence the system by not purchasing certain products. The larger consumer group, the larger the change. This seems like you are talking about markets, not really capitalism.