"Ideology Of Mass Consumption"

A former friend of mine in California, who was a Marxist, told me that people in capitalism were involved in the “ideology of mass consumption.” My question is, Is this really an ideology?

Many people want wealth without it being ideological. Let's face it, wealth is attractive. It is even attractive to people who have not had ideological indoctrination into capitalism or anything of the sort. It was attractive for example to Soviet residents living under Communism. So is this really ideological, or are we dealing with something that people simply want?

Certainly there are times when it is done in a coercive manner. People are taught that they need to have lots of wealth or they are losers. When I wanted money it was not for the sake of money itself but for the sake of credibility. I was under the impression that nobody would take my views seriously unless I had lots of wealth. I have since found out that there are a number of ways to credibility, money being only one of them, and others including such things as wisdom and strength.

Is there an ideology of mass consumption going on? I think that there are a number of things going on. One, once again, is that wealth is simply attractive and will continue to attract people who want it whatever their ideology. Another is that when we have coercion toward wealth, we have negative results. Everyone wants to become wealthy. Nobody wants to do tasks that do not generate much wealth for themselves but have vast benefit. Scientists, teachers, military, police and any number of others do not make very much money, but their contributions are vast.

Are these people losers because they don't make very much money? No, they are not. Without the scientist the businessman would have very little to sell. Without the teacher the businessman would not have the knowledge that he needs to do his job, and most workers would be unemployable. Without the military and the police there would be no protection for property rights. Some see such people as losers or even irresponsible. They are neither. They need them.

If you have been lead to believe that you are a loser unless you have millions of dollars, think again. Many of the most significant contributors did not make very much money. Nikolai Tesla died in poverty. Thomas Jefferson died deeply in debt. Karl Marx was poor, yet for a long time two thirds of the world followed his ideas. Some people who make significant contributions are rewarded monetarily in their lifetimes, others are not. Once again, some would see such people as losers. Yet they have made bigger contributions than have the people who believe such a thing.

Most things that are good can be used for wrong. It does not damn the value; it damns its misuse. With money, what we see is a good thing that can be used for wrong. We see the same thing with such things as beauty and intelligence. It is important to separate the value from the misuses of the value.

So that while it may very well be undesirable for people to be under coercion to make lots of money, it is however not an ideology. One again, wealth is attractive. I expect that it will continue to be attractive. Some people may very well make an ideology of it and use it for wrongdoing. But I anticipate that many people will want to be wealthy whatever their ideology.

 

Mass consumption, like capitalism, is not an ideology on it's own, it's a tool used by an ideology to accomplish it's goals.

Unlike capitalism however, which is clearly defined, scientists are still figuring out what mass consumption is basically.

It's real but the effects of it will take time to study as its relatively a new thing.

 

Pretty stupid to confuse mass consumption with individual wealth and consumption. And probably even more stupid to use the term " mass consumption" without even attempting a definition.

 

To me mass consumption is people buying a lot of stuff, and six months later they're selling it in a garage sale for a nickel on the dollar to get a little more cash to go buy more stuff.

 

Capitalism is the result of individuals who want the freedom to be successful. The amount you're able to consume is a result of that success, though having a bunch of things isn't the only marker of success, but it's a good indication considering how easily basic needs (and things which aren't needed) are met today when that hasn't always been case.

It's up to the individual, we're not forced to see who can accumulate and consume the most... so no... capitalism isn't necessarily an "ideology of consumption".

 

Mass consumption has little to do with wealth, or even economics. Some of the most prodigious consumers are not wealthy (by First World standards). It's a 'habit', if you will.

 

That's essentially what it is. It's a spastic impulse .. an 'addiction'.

 

That begs the question: what is success? And who defines who is successful and who isn't?

 

Accumulation equals success in the eyes of many, in both the eyes of those who have nothing, and those who have nearly as much as those that they view as successful.

Again, I'm not trying to say that purchasing power is the ultimate gauge by which we should judge each other.

Obtaining wealth, and thereby the ability to "mass consume", takes immense effort.

 

So it is a quantitative criteria?
I thought, assuming by your avatar, you would say something like "to be happy".

 

Believe that is called " compusive shopping disorder" not mass consumption.

 

Oh no, it truly is a big mass and mess of consumption by weight.

 

wealth drives mass consumption which drives wealth... perpetual motion has finally found it's place...

 

Financial success is a willing buyer buying a product or service from a willing seller at the agreed upon or menu price. If the seller can produce enough they're going to be successful.

Success is making payroll with some leftover for yourself.

 

Not in the 21stC First World. It's actually tilting the other way, now.

The poorest are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods and processed foods. Their consumption outstrips their income significantly, whereas rich peoples' consumption is usually below their income. So technically, poor people are the biggest spenders.

 

Yeah but it's rich people who lend them the money.

 

So poor people aren't just buying 'stuff', they're also buying more money to buy more stuff. They really are the biggest spenders!

 

To have more wealth one needs to consume less and save money...

 

What are they buying money with?

 

Of course. It's not what you earn, but what you SPEND, which determines whether you'll sink or swim.

I like to invoke the story of an old friend who lived by that creed for decades, and ended up quite wealthy. She worked a very low paying job, and never had a promotion in her entire working life. So, instead of moving out of home and having to pay rent on some crappy apartment, she stayed at home with her widowed mother in the old family house, long since paid off. She rarely spent money. In about 10 years (by the time she was 30) she'd saved enough for a down payment on an investment property. Another 5 years on and she had the leverage power to buy two more investment properties. And so on and so on. Last time I spoke to her she had many, all paying for themselves AND paying her a good profit.

The only 'advantage' she had was working class but civilised and decent parents who had been stable and wise enough to pay off the modest family home - thus able to provide free accommodation to their adult children for as long as the children needed or wanted it. The mother in particular benefited from this situation, because in her widowed latter years, she had the companionship and assistance of her daughter.

 

I don't know. But they ARE buying it. It's just another consumable, after all. A luxury item.

 

pre paid plastic... buying 'state quarters' at 3-5 times their value from qvc, then some time later using them at the local package store for a pack of butts...

 

A person who is 5'8" tall weighing 600 pounds massively consumes food. The likelihood of this person being a Marxist is slim because Marxists become poor and can't afford food.

 

Yet almost all morbidly obese people are poor. Before, and after.

 

Not before, but after. Actually, morbidly obese people come from all walks of the economy. Even the Coneheads consumed mass quantities of food and other stuff