>

My point was you were attacking consumerism, when your point would be more correct if you were to use the word "materialism" , or something along those lines that fits better. As I said in my original comment, consumerism is simply an observation of how capitalism works. It isn't an economic philosophy, nor an economic model. Just as u/Deft_one said in their comment, consumer societies have existed throughout history, they aren't new. There are economic philosophies based on the theory of consumerism though.
/u/ficiousconscious (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

From some of your other comments, I suspect your definition of "weak" just makes this a tautology. 
I mean, sure, if you define "strong" as "People who aren’t concerned with material consumption or pleasure.", then people who are concerned with material consumption and/or pleasure are "weak", and societies that are concerned with that are "weak". 
But that's not really a definition that anyone uses. I defy you to find a single dictionary with a single definition of "weak" (or "strong") that is even remotely similar to that. >

Do weak people exist? If so, please elaborate on their characteristics. Surely physically weak people exist (obesity in developed countries), so let’s try to define what mentally weak people look like. I’ll start. Impulsive. Superficial. Lacking critical thought. Uneducated. Seems like characteristics of a perfect materialistic society. 
You could argue the U.S. is highly educated. I’d argue schooling isn’t necessarily education, nor is having a ball and chain in the form of debt indicative of a good education. But that’s an entirely separate conversation. Higher education in the US is an industry. Clearly. In fact, I could easily use it to further prove my point, as it’s more of a product than intrinsically valuable, especially because it’s a common meme that schooling permits a higher income, and you guessed it, makes a more efficient consumer. >


Impulsive. Superficial. Lacking critical thought. Uneducated.

Only one of these (impulsive) actually ties to consumerism and what people would define as "weak" in any meaningful way. Superficial, lack of critical thought, uneducated I think either aren't related to any widely held definition of weak, or tied in any meaningful way to consumerism and not other social theories. Or at least can you show how they are? >

Not even that one to be honest.
In a consumerist society you are able to plan way longer ahead and think about future products you might want to buy to make your life better. >

What makes materialism uniquely worse than the criteria you’re claiming it is replacing? Nationalism, religion, and consumerism all have storied histories of exploiting the majority to the benefit of the upper class; cynically, the only difference is the “God” that is worshipped, and the important common factor is that the poors are kept in line.
Similarly, what makes a consumerist society more “weak”? They generally seem strong in the geopolitical sense. Perhaps they would collapse if people stopped hyperconsuming, but only in the same sense that a society based around anything else might collapse if that uniting thing no longer functions—e.g. if a nation no longer exists, or the dominant religious sect is stomped out of existence.
Not to keep beating on this drum but none of the factors you attribute to consumerism seem unique to it. Nations and religions essentially DEFINE—often by law—holidays and acceptable social norms and who it’s acceptable to date and whatnot. People have always been “bombarded” with flags/crosses/statues/ etc. Being judged by “your potential for dialogue” is not a thing that really exists outside of maybe an academic environment; on a practical level, speech is historically as free as the degree of divergence from the norm that your neighbors and government will tolerate.
It’s also worth noting that most of humanity lived and died pretty close to where they were born, their ability to travel or seek out differing perspectives restricted by a lack of things like highways/airplanes/internet. >


The immediate environment is also incredibly isolating. You live in a box. You transport yourself in a box. You purchase boxes inside a massive box known as stores, or you get your boxes shipped to the box you live in.

People have always lived in boxes, that is the shape a house is. Wagons, too, are roughly box-shaped. And then if you're religious you go into a big box called a "church" every Sunday and open a box called "the Bible". This is a bizarre metaphor.

Consumerism makes weak people.

Compared to what, religion? Why doesn't religion make weak people? >

People have not always had separate rooms and separate boxes (TV) for entertainment. Privately owned vehicles are a rather new phenomenon for both society as well as human existence. 
Some religions also make people weak, and it’s for the same reason. It’s the unquestioned assumption of what your behavior should be. For some religion, it’s the notion that you live a particular way laid out by divine golden tablets. Don’t question authority. 
For consumerism, it’s the unquestioned assumption of what your behavior should be. For consumerism, it’s the notion that you work long hours so that you can consume the next product that will make grinding your life away worth it. Never mind that many people could be content with just not suffering. Instead, in order to be happy, you need buy products so you don’t miss out. Entirely focused on the material world, you forget humans are capable of so much more, such as intense dialogue and contemplation. Or just existing in peace. >

I can't think of a single society on Earth that hasn't had what you describe as happening under consumerism. Its most obvious counterpart, feudalism, had people working not even to buy things for themselves - working because if they didn't, they'd starve or be killed. This only stops being the case once you move high up enough on the economic hierarchy, which has been the case in all societies for all time.
The only thing I can think of is a society-less people, living in a small group, probably with 500 or fewer total members. >


The only thing I can think of is a society-less people, living in a small group, probably with 500 or fewer total members.

Even that falls flat as in that case you replace society and any -isms with Survival. Sure, in a mild summer you may actually be pretty content with what you got and just chilling with your people at a campfire, but the tiny size of that group will make it incredibly vulnerable to any droughts or harsh winters or so on. What you will have to go through then is probably as bad or worse than what a modern soldier may experience. >

I don't exactly know what you mean by "consumerism" or "individualism", but I gather it's whatever happens to people when they're not religious? And that makes us weak?
I know plenty of strong, non-religious people, myself included. How do you explain our existence? Have we somehow escaped the ill effects of consumerism and individualism despite living in and buying various sized boxes? >

Weak people are superficial people, as humans can achieve incredible depths in thought and sympathy. Judging people by what they wear and the artifacts they own is superficial, and it’s common place in consumer societies in which materialism has become a social norm. 
Not all religions, but many make people weak, such as not thinking for themselves, which relieves them of the burden to contemplate and build their own sense of right and wrong. For example, many forms of Buddhism far outweigh/outpace many forms of Christianity, and if you are unfamiliar with what I mean, then you likely haven’t spent your time wisely. I’m not say you’re superficial, but people who have trouble with basic terms like consumerism or individualism likely embody the point I’m making. 
For example, I can recommend one book, Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, that explains everything I’ve mentioned plus more, such as how you and your friends might be participating in capitalism in ways very similar to religious zealots practicing Catholicism. >


Judging people by what they wear and the artifacts they own is superficial, and it’s common place in consumer societies in which materialism has become a social norm. 

Judging people by looks is common place in literally any human society, find a better argument. >

Woah cowboy, restate my argument first. No one said anything about looks hotshot. Artifacts. But to solely focus on this point would be to miss the entire argument. 
Furthermore, it’s a fallacy to argue that just because it happened in the past, or that everyone does it, makes it valid. 
In this case, just because judge people by the products they own, doesn’t make it right or strong. In fact, regardless of the time period, it’s a mentally weak thing to do. There are even cliches, “don’t judge a book by its cover”, to safeguard people against this cognitive impairment. >

Individualism doesn't need any help being a terrible social theory, its more than capable of doing it by itself (shitty joke intended)
I posit that consumerism as you have defined it is a byproduct of individualism, not something that is seperate from it. However I also think individualism is a byproduct as well.
In western culture (especially anglo western culture) there are two ideologies which dominate all others when it comes to how we operate as a society.  The stories and myths that have been used to propagate the nature and scope of these ideas are both deeply embedded and insidious.  Lots of people will know them but few will have ever actually stopped to consider where they learnt them or why they should believe them,  yet will defend them more zealously than any religious person I have ever come across. 
At the same time they are two ideas which have moved us more forward as a society, made us subject to less tyranny or arbitrary rule, and for a while made us much more egalitarian as a culture.
Im talking about Liberalism and Capitalism
Both of these ideas have great positive transformative power for society.. but they both seem to share a common flaw... there's no established 'end' point...  and so are both prone to lead to excesses whose nature is as damaging to a community as their absence was to begin with. 
The problem is that since there is so much good in the early stages of both ideologies any suggestion of limitations is met with an almost rabid defensiveness as if any change at later stages would  completely destroy all the good as a whole.  
Out of this we end up with the just stupidly absurdly wealthy, and the people who will fight to the death to make sure nothing limits that capacity for capital accumulation, even if they will almost never benefit from it and in fact are harmed by it. 
And next to them are the people who argue that doing things that restrict that individuals ability to gain all that wealth, regardless of its negative impact on the community or even themselves, or any attempt to imply that others should be taken into consideration in how that wealth is used and distributed, is to be fought against as if to allow it would imprison us all.
I am so tired of coming across people in political debate and then at a certain point in a discussion realizing... I just don't know how to explain to this person that you are supposed to care about other people... especially when as you move towards excess in these ideas.. to do so actually becomes an immoral act >

Very well said! 👌 >


Consumerism makes weak people

First you need to think about what consumerism actually is. It’s not necessarily the promotion of superficial commodities or excess. Consumerism is  simply the economic theory that spending by consumers on goods and services is the main driver of economic growth. 
While the approaches economies take to increase consumer spending on goods may create problems, the economic theory of consumerism is simply an observation of the functions of a capitalistic economy. It isn’t bad in essence. >

You need to factor in individualism as the dominate social theory in order to complete my view. 
Regardless, it’s disingenuous to ignore the type of goods and services being rendered. In the U.S. economy, there is something called the “90 Day Window”, which means companies ideally want consumers to repurchase the same product within 90 days. Either through planned obsolescence or advanced marketing with slightly more advanced versions. 
The type of consumerism you’d like me to contemplate isn’t what is practiced in modern socio-economic systems, which again, starts to define identity off the goods and services purchased, rather than purchasing the goods and services to then attempt to define identity through more meticulous but meaningful ways like public discourse and discipline.