>

!delta
I stand corrected. Agriculture lead to a surplus of essential goods, which introduced the opportunity for specialization and non-essential goods and services. Industrialization both laminated and bolstered existing conditions. 
However, as I’m sure you are aware, Ancient Egypt, and other emerging civilizations in the Levant and Mesopotamia, didn’t practice individualism as a social theory. Furthermore, individual identity wasn’t defined by the products they consumed, but rather reinforced the identity in which they where either born into or what they contributed to their communities. 
In addition, other factors like religion and interdependence on their primary groups also reinforced their identity, while simultaneously providing meaning and purpose. 
So while you make a good point about consumerism, it doesn’t necessarily disprove or change my overall view that consumerism, especially in its modern form, makes individualism a terrible social theory.
/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. >

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. >

!delta
While I understand the point, it doesn’t fully address my entire perspective. I could easily say that individualism is a rather new social theory, and any societies you or the other commenter would mention as practicing consumerism didn’t maintain individualism as a dominate social theory, so the point is null and void. 
Furthermore, consumerism of those past societies primarily focused on survival, but modern consumerism is for excess profit and pleasure, because industrialization was the primary driver in producing non-essential goods, which is a complete understanding of my view. 
In addition, you have to also factor in that past societies didn’t define identity off the goods and services they purchased. They purchased them to survive, and identity was established by birth or community relations. People often relied on their immediate community for survival, which meant they needed to bring something of practical value to the table as well. Isolated humans that work ambiguous jobs without seeing their direct impact on their community, all while purchasing products to fill the void of meaning and purpose, are made weaker for it, because they don’t have a strong community, nor internal dispositions that took time and effort to build into identity. >


primarily focused on survival, but modern consumerism is for excess profit and pleasure, because industrialization was the primary driver in producing non-essential goods, which is a complete understanding of my view. 

Deft_one here, the person mentioned in the comment: I talked about these things appearing in Ancient Egypt at the beginning of civilization. The moment we progressed enough to have specialists and artists, we have been buying and selling things for excess profit and pleasure, because agriculture was the primary driver in producing non-essential goods. >

!delta
I stand corrected. Agriculture lead to a surplus of essential goods, which introduced the opportunity for specialization and non-essential goods and services. Industrialization both laminated and bolstered existing conditions. 
However, as I’m sure you are aware, Ancient Egypt, and other emerging civilizations in the Levant and Mesopotamia, didn’t practice individualism as a social theory. Furthermore, individual identity wasn’t defined by the products they consumed, but rather reinforced the identity in which they where either born into or what they contributed to their communities. 
In addition, other factors like religion and interdependence on their primary groups also reinforced their identity, while simultaneously providing meaning and purpose. 
So while you make a good point about consumerism, it doesn’t necessarily disprove or change my overall view that consumerism, especially in its modern form, makes individualism a terrible social theory. >


didn’t practice individualism as a social theory

No, they had civil wars instead and centuries of external wars over whose monoculture will dominate. That's not better than what we do now by letting people be who they are. Therefore, Individualism is better than nationalism or religious-ism, or the like. 
Also, mob thinking has been historically disastrous. Hive-minds are more dangerous than disparate individuals coming together, imo.

individual identity wasn’t defined by the products they consumed, but rather reinforced the identity in which they where either born into or what they contributed to their communities. 

I disagree, and I think you do too because you said that people buy things to show class and preference, but that's what all that jewelry and stuff was back in ancient times too.
It's not the poor kids buying designer clothes to communicate their status today, nor was it the peasants wearing jewelry then. To me, it's the same or close enough.

other factors like religion and interdependence on their primary groups also reinforced their identity

But now we seem to find that meaning in our lives is individual, even if that individual goal is to belong to a group. Respect for each other's experiences and dignity as humans is what individualism leads to; disrespect for other's experiences is what comes from forced conformity.
Also, I don't know about you, but I am extremely interdependent on the sewers, roads, electrical grid, railways, airports, etc., etc., etc., and I'm emotionally dependent on talking to people, as they are as well, as you are too ,so I'm not sure what you mean about not being interdependent?

consumerism, especially in its modern form, makes individualism a terrible social theory.

But authoritarian conformity is worse. I would argue that individualism our best go so far, and that consumerism is just part of being human, as you've agreed. >

The intellectual debates on CMV are truly unrivaled, and I think it’s because the overall purpose, which is to rationalize the arguments for deltas. Regardless, I appreciate the dialogue. 
Now, it’s not clear lacking individualism is what caused these wars. In fact, one of the most bloody and horrendous wars occurred when individualism was in full swing, if you’d agree that the Enlightenment and ensuing wars fought for individual liberty preceded WW2. Regardless, the two atomic bombs dropped on hundreds of thousands of individuals was dropped by the most individualistic culture, while we profited on both sides of the conflict before we intervened, and only because we were attacked. 
Furthermore, the hyper consumerism now coupled with individualism has created a dire situation that likely outweighs any war we’ve seen. I’m talking about a sterile planet, devoid of the vital ecosystems and breathable air. Fertile topsoil. Oceans acidified and full of plastic. It’s not clear that individualism as a social theory will adequately provide a solution, as each individual in developed countries is now over exploiting both biotic and abiotic resources. 
Most individuals want meat. Most individuals want land or a sizable living space. Most individuals want privately owned carbon-emitting vehicles. It’s remains a fact that if everyone lived like Americans or citizens in developed countries, we’d need 3.5 (or more now) earths to sustain such a demand. People see it as their right and freedom to exploit, and good luck making a collective decision that takes hyper consumption away, especially as the last 3 generations have been conditioned by mass advertisement to believe they are unique, special consumers. 
The decision will likely be authoritarian, and it will have to be reinforced, despite what most consumers want. If they can no longer purchase and consume at the rate they’ve been conditioned, there will be civil unrest. Or, we continue to consume at these rates and wait until there is nothing left. Regardless, it’s a terrible social theory for such a massive problem. 
Now, people constantly buy artifacts and products well outside their means. In fact, upwards of 66% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, despite most not being below the poverty line. Credit is designed to allow people to live in such a way that they couldn’t with just hard work. So, your point that people are limited to products within their class isn’t necessarily valid, as people constantly buy things well outside their means, which only furthers my original claim that people use products to define their identity, and they will go into debt to achieve this goal. >

You really think that we dropped a bomb on Japan over individualism and not because they attacked us while trying to spread their violent monoculture? Germany and Japan were trying to spread their monocultures through imperialism. The allies fought against your idea of monocultures. So, in that way, this does show that your idea of monoculture is very dangerous, potentially genocidal.

Furthermore, the hyper consumerism now coupled with individualism has created a dire situation that likely outweighs any war we’ve seen

I don't remember Macy's killing six million Jews to 'preserve' an inhumanly violent monoculture, but ok.
Monocultures create "others" which are then harassed or killed. This is, in my opinion, bad.

I’m talking about a sterile planet, devoid of the vital ecosystems and breathable air. Fertile topsoil. Oceans acidified and full of plastic. It’s not clear that individualism as a social theory will adequately provide a solution, as each individual in developed countries is now over exploiting both biotic and abiotic resources. 

Which has nothing to do with individualism and everything to do with the Industrial revolution and consumerism, which we agreed exists with or without individualist society. Why this back and forth on that which we're already agreed?
You talked about Japan: they were a non-individualist industrial nation, as is China. So this isn't the connection you think it is, it's just hating on America (and rightfully so, in this context) but it's lying by omission about non-individualist cultures.

Most individuals want meat. Most individuals want land or a sizable living space. Most individuals want privately owned carbon-emitting vehicles

Not every culture is like this, and people participate in this stuff because people are not individual enough to resist the pull of our culture. The problem is that people are giving in to society, instead of thinking for themselves and finding individualized solutions.
Again, your problem is the momentum and destruction of a monoculture, not individualism.

People see it as their right and freedom to exploit, and good luck making a collective decision that takes hyper consumption away, especially as the last 3 generations have been conditioned by mass advertisement to believe they are unique, special consumers. 

But why leave out the environmentalism that also exists? Why lie by omission? I've been alive for these past 3 generations (I'm old) and what you're saying is not the cause of pollution. People have been taught environmentalism along with individualism.
And, again, speaking of the past 3 generations, this is the first one where you won't get murdered just for being gay (again, due to the violent monoculture). In my childhood, you couldn't even say it out loud (because of the violent monoculture), but now people are allowed to live their lives... that's good.
Murdering people for straying from the monoculture is... bad.

In fact, upwards of 66% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, despite most not being below the poverty line. Credit is designed to allow people to live in such a way that they couldn’t with just hard work

Can you tell me how someone wanting to be gay and alternative drives up housing prices?
This is a correlation without causation example (just like your bad WWII example) Individualism doesn't cause housing prices to increase, the monoculture of Capitalism does. This is another flaw in monoculture to have to participate in a corrupt housing market.
So, your point that people are limited to products within their class isn’t necessarily valid, as people constantly buy things well outside their means
Actually, they don't. People will not get a loan if they can't pay it back... that's how loans work. And if they can't pay it back, they get fucked, they don't get away with it.
You're pointing to the kid stealing a cookie from the cookie jar, but ignoring the part where the kid gets punished. Again, lying by omission about the situation.

which only furthers my original claim that people use products to define their identity, and they will go into debt to achieve this goal.

People take out loans they can't pay back for houses and the like, which are necessary for survival. Nobody is taking out loans for jackets, and if they are, see above where if they can't pay their loan back, they get fucked.

Nothing you've said changes the fact that the world is far more peaceful now that we've embraced individualism. In fact, we are living through the most peaceful time in human history. That means that the least-peaceful times in history were those that you want to go back to. No thank you. I prefer to be able to be myself without threat of death from a violent monoculture, and your views rely too much on lying by omission, false-correlations, and cherry-picking.
The further back in time you go, the worse things are, and they're worse because of less individualism. >

Economies and societies depend on the exchange of goods and services. At what point does it cross the line into "consumerism," as you're calling it, and become a bad thing? In other words, how are you defining consumerism? >

Consumerism within an industrial context. So that means the consumption of non-essential goods that are primarily produced and consumed for profit. Coupled with individualism and scientific proliferation, it makes people weak, which renders individualism a poor social theory, as community and internal dispositions atrophy and give way too materialism. >

You're throwing out a lot of very subjective opinions without actually defining what you mean. By what metric does consumption make people weak? How are you defining weakness?
The most obvious definition is physical strength, which of course isn't really true. People are likely stronger in the western world than they've ever been just by virtue of the fact that malnourishment is extremely rare. So you must be talking about some other form of weakness, which you need to define.
You then need to explain why this "weakness" is a bad thing to explain why the social theory you say causes it is poor.
You then need to explain what "individualism" means in the context you're using it in, and explain how it causes the weakness you're talking about.
You haven't done any of that so far so no one can really engage with what you're saying. It's a very vague argument. >

Has there even been a time when society was strong?
If so, when?
I would argue that we have been 'consuming' things for most of human history.
I mean, there were jewelers in Ancient Egypt selling things to people so they could show off their class, preferences, etc. So, have we ever not been consumers?
Therefore, if you think society was strong at some point in the past, it, too, was full of consumerism, and so that's not the thing. >

I think OP meant consumerism coupled with individualism, which is a newer concept in society. Though there are exceptions, for most of human history society has been very family/community oriented. However even in modern societies that aren't very individualistic, we still see many of the problems OP mentioned, so it isn't unique to individualism. >


for most of human history society has been very family/community oriented.

We are still family oriented; just watch television commercials for five minutes and you will see couples and families as the ideal. Even hyper-individualist people are seen as sad and as people who will find the right one some day.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel a lot of movies and commercials and shows and conversations outside of media are still very family-oriented or 'you should get a family one day' oriented. My buddy texted me a few minutes ago asking why I don't have kids, lol.

However even in modern societies that aren't very individualistic, we still see many of the problems OP mentioned, so it isn't unique to individualism.

Agreed. I think I was trying to make this part of my point (or maybe the whole point), but you articulated it better. >

I agree that we are still family oriented, but not to the extent that we were in the past. For example, nowadays in the US (and by extension most of western society), multi-generational households are less common than single generation households.  It is commonplace for families to be spread out across countries, rather than living on the same land plot/house as most people used to. >

Good point >

I agree, but I would say it is the lack of spirituality that contributes to the weakness. Everybody worships something. If you worship the false idols of this world, you end up withered and empty. >

The problem is it works right now.  People are literally all better off than they were a few generations ago prior to industrialization and consumerism. It isn't sustainable but that doesn't factor into how humans or really any biological systems actually behave.  We seek the easiest path. >

Religion with doctrine may be declining, but spirituality, especially via drug use, is rising. Anti consumer movements are rising and very popular when people can't really afford much.
We do see many thousands of ads daily, but we tend to remember not even a tiny fraction of them.
You wrote a lot but I don't think any of it supports your closing statement that consumerism makes weak people. Consumerism in capitalism is all about competition. Competition doesn't necessarily lead to weaker people.
I think you could do with some further clarification for this view. >

!delta 
I don’t see how taking drugs necessarily means spirituality is on the rise, especially because drugs are materials, which limits the validity of anyone being spiritual, unless they’ve been permanently affected by the drug, which definitely happens. However, it could also make people complacent and apathetic towards there environment, which I would consider weak. It’s really a toss up. 
Furthermore, when I think of strong people, I think of monks, stoics, hunters or people capable of surviving long periods on their own. People who aren’t concerned with material consumption or pleasure. I don’t think of people at shopping malls. Maybe you think otherwise. Now, what I mean is that monks can easily shop if they wanted, but people who regularly shop likely can’t become monks as easily. Which points towards pain staking development of principles and discipline. 
Competition has always been, regardless of society or situation. What takes more effort, competition for the newest smartphone, or a debate on metaphysical truths? >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Presentalbion (53∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

What secularism lacks is the ability to inspire the will to practice things like prudence. >

You appear to be defining "weak" and "strong" as the spectrum between following societal convention and questioning the problems with those conventions.
The individualistic part of our society is the enabler for strong people by your definition. Individualism has lessened the consequences for defying social conventions across the board, including consumerism.
Our economy in most of the West encourages spending for sure, but our countries also encourage liberalism and choosing our own paths and meaning in life. That can be religious if you want, it can be in material possessions or it can be in something else.
Some of the things you mention as consumerist also have much deeper values and meaning behind them.
Holidays and travel - this can be life changing for people's perspective and understanding of the world.
Dating - love and companionship is one of life's greatest experiences for most people.
Going out - this is primarily about building and enjoying relationships with people. Also about having experiences which are usually about the communal enjoyment of expression of creativity or excellence.
We absolutely want these things and we want as many people as possible to enjoy them.
You're right that this does little to encourage us to step off the hedonic treadmill, although it is not the root cause. We could have absolutely nothing in terms of material wealth, but you'll always end up coveting your neighbour's goat. I completely agree that we ought to want to get off this particular ride, and some religions and spiritual/psychological practices can help with this.
We remain free to engage with those practices and our risk in doing so is minimal, precisely because we have an individualistic society.
The last point I'd contend is that our society makes people materialistic in practice. I don't think it actually does. Most people do not reduce their view of others to what they own, or what they have. That's widely considered to be a childish view that people outgrow as they mature. American Psycho is a book that satirises this perfectly. Patrick Bateman is a despicable psycho precisely because he's the embodiment of this artificial and narrow notion of "success". That it's a farce is something most realise as they mature.
In my view, it appears to be that secular people are desperately looking for purpose and meaning in their lives beyond material possessions and it's manifesting in a highly combative and polarised political environment.  This is a problem for other reasons, but it suggests to me that materialism hasn't got the hold on our society that you think it does. >

I would argue that corporatism and cronyism take away individual freedom, but obscure that fact from people. Individualism is great, it leads to great advancement in the arts and sciences. We need more freedom to choose not less. >

The basic premise of individualism is choice. Choice allows the individual to deny the consumerist lifestyle. >

Not when the individual is born into a socio-economic system that depends on hyper consumption. Social norms, rituals, and endless advertisement cultures that individual into the consumerist lifestyle. What choice? >

'I get the basic premise of individualism. The stronger each individual, the stronger the society. '  This is not the premise of individualism. The premise of individualism is that we were born into this world as individuals without any contracts or agreements with the outside world. >

Individualism is a ridiculous concept. For the fact that even your birth is the result of other people's decisions. As a child, you're completely dependent and at the mercy of your environment. Even into adulthood, you are still subject to your environment. Even if you are a very powerful person, there's still soo much out of your control. Individualism is just impossible to uphold. I think it was invented by narcissists to feed their egos.
On the topic of weakness, who cares? The point of a society/community is for a bunch of Individually weak organisms to collectivize and become strong as a unit. Rejecting the strength of community makes you extremely weak and isolated. One isolated person is an easy target, no matter how Individually strong they may be. A community can overpower any individual.
I don't disagree with your observations on consumerism, other than the "weakness" thing. >

There is nothing new under the sun.
Humans have and always will be materialistic consumers.

As the world becomes more secular and humanistic…as religion and spirituality atrophy because scientific understanding becomes more prominent.

What’s your proof of this? Spirituality and religion are not atrophying, but are in fact growing in various parts of the world.
Also science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive. There are many religious or spiritual people who completely agree with all-things science.
Additionally, there are philosophical questions about the universe for which science (so far) has been ill-equipped to answer. Some people find these answers in religion or spirituality. There’s nothing wrong with that. It is for this reason that I think it will never completely “go away.” The number of religious or spiritual people may vary over time, but it will never completely disappear.
Of course modern society comes with its own various societal problems as you mentioned, and which I largely agree with. But every different society has their own unique problems, which are a product of whatever the “flavor” of society is. These problems might make them “weak”, but first; define what you mean when you say weak. >

George Ritzer said this years ago. Mcdonalidization he called it. But he also said that to point the finger at the consumer is to "blame the victim" for obscenities that are far more traceable to processes like mcdonalidization and consumerism and entities like fast food, restaurants, credit cards and the new means of consumption. 
It is in these arenas that the real obscenities lie and it is there that both modernists and postmodernists should focus their attention. >

How about we don’t blame the victims?
Consider this, the issue is not consumerism but the capitalist notion of profit. 
You can say anything you want about how people live but that is not going to change while you have supermarkets or pharmaceutical companies making obscene profits out of vital goods. >


your identity starts to become the very commodities you consume. 

I have to disagree with this. I think who you are dictates what you consume. When or if people are bombarded by the tens of thousands of ads per day as you are claiming, that means they have a lot of options. What do they choose? I think they choose those things which most closely resemble who or what they are or who or what they see themselves as. 
An ad can tell you that a pair of shoes makes you pretty or a leather jacket makes you handsome. That only matters if you care about being either pretty or handsome. The allure of a cute purse is for the person who wants to be cute, a muscle bound car is for the person who wants to be seen as having the muscle. 
The advertisement isn’t anything more than a demonstration of who you might be if you buy the product. You have to want to be that person for the sales pitch to mean anything to you. >

Your point about consumerism making people weak is interesting. Is it consumerism or lack of critical thinking abilities?  Are people not educated enough to be able to understand that the advertising companies/corporations are manipulating them?  
I would blame the education system more than anything as it was developed to create obedience and conformity in the working class to go to work in the factories to make the “things” that we are told we need, and to keep the economic loop alive creating the consumer society we have now. >

Consumerism isn't what makes individualism bad, it's the fact that individualism is directly contrary to human needs and behaviors. Every single human being is born useless and screaming-we have some of the weakest babies in the animal kingdom. Every single person depends on the care, cooperation, and education of others, not just as babies, but throughout their lives. 
So, ignoring the natural order makes individualism a shit ideal, not consumerism. >

People always search for something to relate to, something to base their identity on. Whether it be religion, nationality or now Consumerism as what you're saying. The intent behind your thought is true and I can understand it, but I have a different way of looking at things. Hyper-consumerism combined with the digital world lends power to the hands of the people who can realize what the society wants, leverage people's wishes/discontent towards a particular product to their own advantage or worse those who can subtly influence the interests of a large portion of the digitally dependent public towards their own interests. This power isn't something that has been created, but it has just shifted from say the religious establishments earlier to these new people now. Although the fact that the new people do have more degrees of freedom to steer this power into is something which has to be considered also, atleast compared to suppose what the Church could do with the same power in earlier times. (Agreed, the church never felt the need for more control, but hypothetically speaking the new corporations can do more with the power they have). >

While it can be 'scary' to imagine people being individualistic, secular, and defining their lives for themselves, the fear that people will fill the 'void' with  meaningless nonsense like shopping and gifts is preposterous. Humans are social and always have been, we will fill the 'void' with love of our family  and friends. People 'go out' to spend time with people they care about  no one goes out to dinner alone, or to a movie alone; the point is to spend time with loved ones. Many people just as often have their friends and family in their homes.      
As secularism increases, love and care don't decrease. Don't think so little of us all >

/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. >

!delta 
Anthropologist and evolutionary psychologists have claimed that the original affluence was in the form of hunting and gathering. The Noble Savage theory was spun and contorted in unsavory ways, but the basic idea is that individual autonomy was almost certain, while social hierarchies were likely not encouraged, and people often lived quite leisurely, given there was no social strife between members. However, social strife meant the risk of the whole tribe, so the community dealt with it quickly.
Regardless, while consumerism existed in most societies, individualism as a social theory certainly did not. You have to also understand that purpose and meaning was hardly in doubt, as science hadn’t made a major, systemic debut until ~1500s, which meant religion provided undisputed answers to many of the universal questions we still ask today, such as what is the meaning of life? Etc. That void was ripped open by science, and people like Nietzsche believed it was the driving factor behind the two world wars that happened after his death, as he predicted millions would die because we killed the concept of god with our new scientific knowledge of the cosmos. >

You have my appreciation for the delta. I absolutely agree with you that individualism as a concept, as far as we've been able to tell, did not exist until this key turning point in our evolution. I'll further agree that it stuck around because it blossomed in an area that had embraced the sciences and, in doing so, experienced a technological revolution that put it so far ahead of the power curve compared to other nations that it extends to today.
To continue on this topic - though I confess it is only indulgent on my part because it is not specifically relevant to your OP - I can't help but wonder Nietzche was aware of the role tht religion played in warfare, specifically religious fanaticism.
We see this now with the Middle East, with fanatical militants literally willing to kill themselves to harm others and inspire fear. They do this because, well, their religion tells them that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for doing so. I don't mean to suggest that if individualism hadn't taken hold in Europe we would've had two world wars that ended in nuclear fire instead of a nuclear-cloaked ceasefire, but I wonder in what other pathway we might have developed if we hadn't been so individualistic thanks to the onrush of science, the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the rise of the merchant class over the entrenched by-birth nobility class, and the philosophical works of Descarte, Locke, and similar Enlightenment contemporaries in the mid-milennia period. >

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. >

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. >

!delta
While I understand the point, it doesn’t fully address my entire perspective. I could easily say that individualism is a rather new social theory, and any societies you or the other commenter would mention as practicing consumerism didn’t maintain individualism as a dominate social theory, so the point is null and void. 
Furthermore, consumerism of those past societies primarily focused on survival, but modern consumerism is for excess profit and pleasure, because industrialization was the primary driver in producing non-essential goods, which is a complete understanding of my view. 
In addition, you have to also factor in that past societies didn’t define identity off the goods and services they purchased. They purchased them to survive, and identity was established by birth or community relations. People often relied on their immediate community for survival, which meant they needed to bring something of practical value to the table as well. Isolated humans that work ambiguous jobs without seeing their direct impact on their community, all while purchasing products to fill the void of meaning and purpose, are made weaker for it, because they don’t have a strong community, nor internal dispositions that took time and effort to build into identity. >


primarily focused on survival, but modern consumerism is for excess profit and pleasure, because industrialization was the primary driver in producing non-essential goods, which is a complete understanding of my view. 

Deft_one here, the person mentioned in the comment: I talked about these things appearing in Ancient Egypt at the beginning of civilization. The moment we progressed enough to have specialists and artists, we have been buying and selling things for excess profit and pleasure, because agriculture was the primary driver in producing non-essential goods.