3 ms·

> 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.