You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

rah ,

That’s consumerism rather than capitalism.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Consumerism is fundamental to the functioning of capitalism.

rah ,

I disagree.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Then you don’t understand how capitalism works. Companies exist to create capital for the owners and that’s done by producing goods sold to consumers. The system necessitates consumerism because companies have the constant need to sell goods to continue to stay in business. This is something even a child should be able to understand.

rah ,

The system necessitates consumerism because companies have the constant need to sell goods to continue to stay in business.

Consumerism is excessive consumption. Capitalist enterprises depend on consumption but don’t depend on excessive consumption. Therefore consumerism is not necessitated.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Again, you don’t seem to understand that companies exist to make profit, and making more profit is a positive from the perspective of people who own the companies. Therefore, excessive consumption is preferable. The mechanics of capitalism directly encourage constantly growing consumption because that’s how companies create profit. This is also why stuff like planned obsolescence exists, and why companies have an incentive to make products that don’t last.

It’s absolutely incredible that somebody would have trouble understanding how basic systemic pressures work.

rah ,

excessive consumption is preferable

Of course. But that’s very different from saying it’s either (1) necessitated or (2) fundamental to the functioning of capitalism.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Except it is necessitated and fundamental because these are the behaviors the capitalist system selects for. It can’t function any other way.

rah ,

Except it is necessitated and fundamental because these are the behaviors the capitalist system selects for.

Selecting for a behaviour does not imply that the behaviour is either necessitated or fundamental. What you’re saying doesn’t make sense.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

If you can’t make sense of the idea that an outcome that the system selects for is a quintessential property of the system then what else is there to say to you.

rah ,

an outcome that the system selects for is a quintessential property of the system

You keep changing the words you’re using. I’m not going to keep playing shift the goal posts with you.

I get the idea you’re trying to convey, you’re just wrong.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

My meaning is very clear and you’re being intentionally obtuse here. Consumerism is a necessary outcome of the mechanics of capitalism. You can play all the word games you like, but that’s the fact of the situation. Nobody is shifting any goal posts on you, and you’re just making a clown of yourself here.

rah , (edited )

Consumerism is a necessary outcome of the mechanics of capitalism.

Firstly, that’s not what you said before. What you said before was that “the system necessitates consumerism because companies have the constant need to sell goods to continue to stay in business” which implies that capitalism depends on consumerism. Now you’re saying that consumerism is an outcome of capitalism which implies that consumerism depends on capitalism. You’ve reversed the direction of the dependency.

Secondly, you’re wrong. Consumerism being an outcome of capitalism is not necessary. Likely but not necessary. And to ram the point home: “likely” and “necessary” are two very different concepts.

My meaning is very clear and you’re being intentionally obtuse here.

Your meaning is not clear. That’s one of the problems here. Your writing is very problematic. It’s clear that you’re not used to being rigourous in your communication.

And it’s clear that this lack of rigour in communication reflects a lack of rigour in your thinking. A prime example being what I described above: you’ve completely changed the meaning of what you’re saying by reversing the direction of dependency between consumerism and capitalism and yet you’re presenting this changed meaning as though it’s the same thing that you’ve been arguing before. That you use the two ideas interchangably and can’t see the difference between them shows very clearly a lack of logic and rigour in your thinking.

that’s the fact of the situation

Stamping their foot and saying “I’m right and that’s the fact of the situation” is how children deal with disagreements.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Firstly, that’s not what you said before.

Firstly, that’s exactly what I said before.

“the system necessitates consumerism because companies have the constant need to sell goods to continue to stay in business”

I described the exact mechanism that results in capitalism necessitating consumerism here.

Now you’re saying that consumerism is an outcome of capitalism which implies that consumerism depends on capitalism. You’ve reversed the direction of the dependency.

What you’re doing here is known as sophistry.

Secondly, you’re wrong. Consumerism being an outcome of capitalism is not necessary. Likely but not necessary. And to ram the point home: “likely” and “necessary” are two very different concepts.

Secondly, I am right because that’s precisely what we observe in practice everywhere capitalism has ever been tried. Again, because the mechanics of capitalism directly select for this. Companies that embrace consumerism outcompete companies that don’t because they sell more things which is the fitness function of the capitalist system.

And it’s clear that this lack of rigour in communication reflects a lack of rigour in your thinking.

The only thing that’s clear here is that you don’t understand basic concepts like selection pressures, and given that you’ve got no business questioning the rigour of other people’s thinking. I gave you a clear explanation of why capitalism necessitates consumerism, and repeatedly explained the mechanics of the system to you.

Despite all your bleating here, you’ve yet to produce any coherent counterpoint to anything I’ve said. That’s what actually shows lack of logic and rigour in your own thinking.

To sum up, you’re a troll who is incapable of producing a coherent argument to support your own position, and there is no value attempting to have any further discussion with you.

I suggest that you spend a bit more time working on your critical thinking skills instead of making a clown of yourself here.

Bye.

rah ,

Wow.

What you’re doing here is known as sophistry.

You didn’t address my criticism. What you’ve said here is equivalent to “NO U!”

Take care now.

Justfollowingorders1 ,

You know what doesn’t work?

Communism. LOL

People that believe communism has a chance in today’s society are like neckbeards who describe their ideal Asian girlfriend as if that girl is actually waiting for them out there.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

👆 how to out yourself as an ignoramus

Justfollowingorders1 ,

How to out yourself as a delusional basement dwellers 👆

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • wartaberita
  • uselessserver093
  • Food
  • aaaaaaacccccccce
  • [email protected]
  • test
  • CafeMeta
  • testmag
  • MUD
  • RhythmGameZone
  • RSS
  • dabs
  • TheResearchGuardian
  • Ask_kbincafe
  • KbinCafe
  • Testmaggi
  • Socialism
  • feritale
  • oklahoma
  • SuperSentai
  • KamenRider
  • All magazines
    •