I don't think consumerism and capitalism are related in this way. Consumerism just happens to be what people want to do. Capitalism as a better substrate allows people to do more of what they want to do... people in different systems (like Soviet Union) for the most part were just as "consumerist", they simply couldn't do as much consumption because the system sucked. That "consumerism" is bad is your personal value judgement (and mine, but I recognize it as such).

It's kinda like, most major cultures wanted to, let's say, (among other things) study the stars and enslave other people. Primitive technology and economy produced a lot of cultures with calendars and simple systems of slavery. Stable empire like e.g. Caliphate was able to leverage their economy and better technology to do better at astronomy, and to do some real large-scale enslaving. Western countries eventually used even better technology and economic system to do things like send people to other planets and do some truly industrial-scale slavery. Everything just works better with technology - what you choose to do and how to change values to want astronomy and not want slavery is a separate question. Ditto capitalism vs consumerism.

Capitalism is a system dependent on perpetual GDP growth. GDP growth is an increase in trade of newly produced products or services or the inclusion of already provided goods and services into the transaction based economy.

Short lived products create a greater increase in GDP than longer lives products. For GDP growth to continue the additional output must be consumed or otherwise less and less people who insist on full time jobs will be needed to provide for the needs of everyone. Unemployment is the result of an inefficient allocation of entire 40 hour work weeks. We are unable to trade an increase in productivity into more free time.

"Capitalism is a system dependent on perpetual GDP growth" is it? If it is, why does GDP matter - GDP is a highly abstract metric, so what is the underlying thing that capitalism needs? And to the extent that it exists, is it unique in that?

I am not sure why you are claiming that in particular, that's why I'm asking.

Also planned obsolescence doesn't have anything to do with a goal to increase GDP, it is an example of a somewhat perverse incentive, not a systemic issue. I mean people wouldn't buy a phone that breaks in a week, but they are indifferent between the one that breaks in 2 years or 10 years - there's a balance. It again has to do more with material success - my grandma used to constantly tell us to not throw away any glass jars - not out of high moral impulse to reuse/reduce/recycle, because she lived in the USSR where they apparently were hard to come by for pickling and making jams. I on the other hand just yesterday couldn't find my paint brushes, so to touch up a wall, instead of reorganizing the shed I ordered new ones on Amazon for $15. I can afford the waste. The way to make me care about preserving my paint brush instead of obsoleting it, or jars for jam, is to make me poor. Same is apparently true for most people.

> Capitalism is a system dependent on perpetual GDP growth.

Disagree. I'm a big fan of capitalism, and recognize that it can take different forms.

https://muslimheritage.com/capitalist-early-arab-islamic-civ... argues that "the capitalistic system indeed was the prevailing mode of economic activities in the early Islamic civilization."

Arab capitalism in this era did not depend on perpetual GDP growth.

Western capitalism, like so much of Western thought from around the Renaissance, draws deeply on the Arab tradition.

To go back to definitions, "capitalism" was defined by Max Webber. He saw it as part of the Reformation, individuals finding their own connection to God not mediated by the church. Not much GDP growth in that.