At the beginning of the millennium, consumer culture researchers predicted that people would increasingly demand that marketplace actors subscribe to contemporary ethics of liberal democracy. Although their prediction indeed came true, they did not foresee that an algorithm-powered media ecosystem in combination with growing authoritarian movements would soon come to fuel an increasingly polarized political landscape and challenge the very fundament of liberal democracy per se. In this macroscopic, conceptual article, I discuss three assumption-challenging logics—counter-democratic consumer culture, de-dialectical algorithmic manipulation, and growing illiberal consumer resistance—according to which the market increasingly monetizes the conflicts accompanying this polarization and, thereby, reinforces it. I call this new logic a conflict market and illustrate it through three, historically situated and currently conflicting, consumer ideoscapes—the neoblue, the neogreen, and the neobrown—between which consumers engage in marketized conflicts, not in a de-politicizing way, but in an increasingly un-politicizing, de-dialectical, and polarizing way. At the technologically manipulated conflict market, the role of marketers is to monetize politically sensitive topics by creating conflict, knowingly renouncing large groups of consumers, and giving fodder to the political extremes.

在千禧年之初，消费文化研究人员预测，人们将越来越多地要求市场参与者遵守当代自由民主伦理。尽管他们的预测确实实现了，但他们没有预见到，一个由算法驱动的媒体生态系统与日益壮大的威权运动相结合，很快就会推动日益两极分化的政治格局，并挑战自由民主本身的基础。在这篇宏观的概念性文章中，我讨论了三种挑战假设的逻辑——反民主的消费文化、反辩证的算法操纵和日益增长的非自由消费者抵抗——据此，市场越来越多地将伴随这种两极分化的冲突货币化，从而加强它。我称这种新逻辑为冲突市场，并通过三种历史上处于和当前相互冲突的消费者意识形态来说明它——新蓝、新绿和新棕色——消费者在这些意识形态之间参与市场化冲突，不是以去政治化的方式，而是以越来越非政治化的方式。 、反辩证的、两极分化的方式。在技​​术操纵的冲突市场中，营销人员的作用是通过制造冲突、故意放弃大量消费者以及为政治极端提供饲料来将政治敏感话题货币化。