To what do I owe this lengthy blogpost? Hmmm.
Spirited discussions with a cat, a carrot, and a wayward android perhaps.
Also the need to clarify/elaborate on my position on such issues, probably.
Let's see if we can mitigate the perception that I'm so heartless, shall we?
"Why do you hate the poor so much?"
"You dehumanize people to make your position look better."
"So comfort is something that only rich people are deserving of?"
"Go back to your cubicle, worker bee and obey your corporate master."
A small sample of misattributions and attacks levied against me when having discussions about capitalism, particularly in a socioeconomic context. Being more moderate to conservative in disposition, I've had my fair share of clashes with those of a more liberal persuasion, as it is oh-so-fashionable these days to be well on the left side of the spectrum. Flirting with socialist or even communistic doctrines are in vogue and widely-accepted, with the wildfire popularity of 'Feeling the Bern' being a strong indication of such. Needless to say, anyone that has read my blog or are personally familiar with me knows that I am a strong proponent of capitalism, and that I think communism is entirely bereft of credibility in every sense, with socialism falling not too far behind. The basis for my contempt of these doctrines lie in my distaste for Marxist theory, on which they are predicated upon.
Now, I could just bunker up and be the strong, infallible pillar of my beloved capitalism, reading material that only serves to bolster my position and corroborate my world view. But I don't like that strategy; turtling is boring and doesn't help you grow as a person. Besides, I want to better understand my opponents so that I may defeat them, or help them if they're my friends (sometimes I try to help my opponents too, if I feel like it). Towards this end, I've decided to take a short detour from pursuing my fascination with post-structuralism and took up exploring the leftist mindset instead. The 1% unfairly control the nation's wealth. People should not be wage slaves. Workers are oppressed and need to revolt against their corporate masters. From where do these commonly-heard critiques of capitalism arise?
My investigations led me in the direction of Michael Moore's 2009 documentary Capitalism: A Love Story. It was here that--hah, no. Sorry. It's my bad sense of humor acting up again. Though I'm sure the film has its merit and gets a few things right, the sentiments that I'm hearing have their origins in something a bit further into the past. More like the 1960s (somewhat predictable, with all the radicalization that took place during the era), when the writings of one Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School took prominence and consequently inspired an entire generation of leftist thinkers. "Okay, so what is the Frankfurt School?" I'm glad you asked. The Frankfurt School is essentially a bunch of Neo-Marxist thinkers that assembled in none other than Frankfurt, Germany during the 1930s. Because of the Nazis' rise to power, they were forced to relocate to Geneva, Switzerland and then to New York, USA where they setup shop in Colombia University. One of the major contributions the Frankfurt School made to academia was establishing the field of critical theory, in which their ultimate aim was to liberate people from the oppressive elements that are inherent to a capitalistic culture.
------- Marxism & Neo-Marxism -------
I feel that I cannot offer a proper articulation of the Frankfurt School's critiques and my responses to them without first defining just what it means to be a Marxist or a Neo-Marxist. So we'll immediately get right into that, but first! A little Hegel. Right, so there's the concept of the Hegelian dialectic that posits that change inevitably occurs throughout history in the form of a three stages of a cycle: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. The thesis is what 'is', the antithesis is the opposition to what 'is' and the synthesis is the result of the antithesis overtaking the thesis. The synthesis then becomes the thesis and the process begins again. An illustrative example would be nation A coming to power (the thesis), an opposing nation B attempting to conquer it (the antithesis), and nation B successfully conquering and annexing nation A to form nation C (the synthesis). That new, nation C is now considered the thesis and the cycle repeats.
(Quick interjection here, but to those that have fully completed NieR: Automata, you could see the fatalism of the concept masterfully illustrated but potentially challenged when the very beginning of the game ("Everything that lives is designed to end. We are perpetually trapped in a never-ending spiral of life and death.") is taken into consideration with The [E]nd of YoRHa.)
The reason why this concept is important is because Marx, in crafting his theory, borrowed the Hegelian dialectic model of history, put a materialist/economic spin on it, and re-branded it as the Marxist dialectic. Under the Marxist dialectic, the exact same cycle occurs, only wars and revolutions are framed in an interaction between a ruling elite and an exploited class of people, i.e. class struggle, with then-implemented economic systems being the cause. The exploited class (the antithesis), attacks the ruling class (the thesis), and outcome is a new ruling class that is kinder to the previously exploited class (the synthesis). That ruling class will come to exploit another class and the cycle repeats itself. This is absolutely critical to Marxist thought, as proponents of Marxism believe that the industrial, working class will inevitably rise up, overthrow the bourgeois, and implement a new economic system that will put an end to this terrible cycle. Remember, Marxist theory entered the consciousness of the intelligentsia around 1840-something, while the Industrial Revolution was sweeping across Europe.
The problem with Marxism and it's anticipated revolution is that, well, the revolution never came. The Soviet Revolution that occurred in Russia during 1917 was the closest approximate, but it occurred in what was largely an agrarian, non-industrial country. Moreover, the type of Marxism implemented was not pure Marxism, but a form of Marxism-Leninism. During the Interwar period, Marxists either clung on to the hope that the revolution would occur at some point, abandoned the ideology altogether, or critiqued it's doctrines and combined it with the prevailing schools of thought at the time (psychoanalysis, existentialism and phenomenology, both stressing individual freedom and subjectivity), resulting in Neo-Marxism. You can think of it as this strange, more humanistic approach to the sterile, materialistic doctrines of traditional Marxism. Marxism with soul. The reason why the working class failed to catalyze the revolution, the Frankfurt School theorized, is because there was a problem of class consciousness. The capitalistic system by the time of the Frankfurt School's founding, dazzling with it's technological advancements and wealth-generation, had managed to pacify the common worker with empty, materialistic rewards in exchange for his unwitting, continued participation in a covertly totalitarian system that continues to oppress and suppress.
Right, background history lesson over. Let's get into it, let's address the points the Frankfurt School (specifically the claims of Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and Max Horkheimer) make regarding capitalistic society.
------- Frankfurt School Arguments -------
"You are born into and live in a capitalistic society which conditions you to behave as nothing more than a worker and a consumer. A cog to keep the capitalistic wheels turning. When people ask to tell them about yourself, the first thing most people say is their profession (that is the work they engage in to earn money so that they may consume) and their hobbies (what they like to consume). You're meant to be a good, tax-paying, productive citizen, your days destined to be nothing more than going to work and returning home to consume just enough so that you may do the same thing tomorrow."
Right out of hand, I dismiss the notion that thinking of oneself as a worker and a consumer is somehow indoctrinated by a capitalistic society. I think that people tend to naturally identify with their work so closely because it's something that they take a certain degree of pride in, no matter how lowly the job may be. The work you do is the external manifestation of your will, concentrated effort, and skill in the world, how could one not identify with that? Even someone that hates their job, a roofer for instance, would never deny that they are a roofer after having sunk in hours of sweaty, strenuous physical labor towards the completion of some task. In the past, in pre-capitalistic societies, people still identified with their profession simply because it was the predominant way that they contributed to society at large. A 12th century English knight identified as a knight because that is what is most visible and salient in the public eye, illustrating well the nature of the services he renders towards society.
Now, for the consumer part, I believe that to be a natural process of the human experience. We have dopaminergic circuitry in our nervous systems, much like any other vertebrate animal. As such, we engage in behavior that is (potentially) good for us and we are in turn awarded sensations of pleasure to increase the probability that we engage in the behavior again. That includes consuming things, whether it be as visceral as indulging in some crème brûlée (the mint garnish is non-negotiable), as intellectually stimulating as reading a good novel, or light-heartedly enjoyable as going out with friends for a movie and a drink. So intrinsic to us is the act of consuming that it's codified universally in all cultures. To indulge in the products of one's culture isn't exclusive to capitalistic society, but universal of any society.
With the claim of indoctrination out of the way, I can address the most pernicious aspect of the argument, namely the part that implies that people within a capitalistic society 'are nothing more than a worker and a consumer'. This is so patently untrue that I feel it's hardly worth addressing, but let's do it anyway for completeness' sake. It doesn't take someone with a doctorate in economics to know that one of the main mechanisms by which capitalistic societies generate wealth is through technological innovation and enterprise. That is, through creation. In my estimation, this is the most damning counterpoint to this entire argument, the fact that capitalism encourages people not to merely be common workers or consumers, but to be creators. Even the Frankfurt School thinkers recognize this creative capacity in every man; I'll discuss it later in the fourth argument.
"Capitalism has indeed resulted in unprecedented technological advancement in our time, but I ask you, at what a cost? What of all the people who are toiling away, unhappy at their nine-to-five, going home day-in and day-out feeling empty, isolated and unfulfilled?"
This argument is such a strong appeal to emotion, as it plays off of the loneliness and emptiness that most of us are prone to feeling at one time or another. However I will say that it is--technically--capitalism's fault for enabling us to feel this way in the first place, but it isn't as a direct consequence of its evil machinations depriving us of our soul and humanity.
Rather, it's because of how much time and labor it saves us, granting us more leisure time.
If you'd kindly turn your attention to this handy little site: https://ourworldindata.org/working-hours
You'll quickly see that that full-time, non-agricultural workers in 1870s US averaged about 62 hours per week at work, with UK workers averaging 56.9. Contrast this to a full century later, with each country clocking in 38.8 and 42 hours, respectively.
"Okay, so what does that have to do with capitalism leaving people unfulfilled?". Quite a bit, actually. See, I'm of the mind that people are responsible for their own happiness and fulfillment. To place it in the hands of another not only risks enslaving the individual relinquishing the responsibility, but it also imposes an unfair burden to the 3rd party (institution OR other individual) taking up the responsibility. Capitalism has, as the data illustrates, made more free time for people to spend as they please, whether that be towards non-work duty, personal leisure time, family time--it's all up for grabs and increasingly becoming plentiful as capitalism brings us closer to full-on automation.
If people are feeling unfulfilled, lonely, and alienated, then that isn't something to place at the feet of capitalism. That's a problem each and every individual needs to contend with on a personal basis, rather than blaming it on insidious, mysterious, systematic oppressors. If you're feeling unhappy and lonely, then you should take a critical lens to what it is that you're doing in your spare time. All too often I find that the people that complain the most about the 'system' are complete and utter addicts to empty distractions such as television, video games, pornography, social media, etc. This is one area that I feel conservatives and traditionalists have the edge over their liberal, progressive counterparts, as they retain their connection to institutions (i.e. organized religion) that have historically provided mankind with a sense of purpose and community. Not to mention that they tend to attribute failings internally, rather than to external factors, giving them a greater sense of agency and dominion over their own lives.
That's not conjecture either. Conservatives are generally happier than their liberal counterparts:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S009265661100170X
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550618768241
How about that? You stop feeling like a miserable wretch of a victim when you quit acting like one.
I will say this: the fact that capitalism has made more and more leisure time for mankind presents some interesting insight into its psychology. Pascal's remark in Pensées (Post ID: 20171025) rings all too true, especially in the more industrious and introspective among us. It certainly is a first-world problem, isn't it? Having so much free time that one is able to think themselves into unhappiness. Existential crisis is something of a luxury in that regard. It begs the suggestion that perhaps man is better off and happiest when he is toiling away (as Albert Camus keenly proposes), rather than remaining idle. I know of a particular Greek General that would agree with this sentiment.
"But 2B, you're not addressing Marcuse's full argument. Man is unhappy because of the nature of his work; it's mind-numbingly tedious and your worker is just another step in a process, never really feeling accomplished as he never sets his gaze on a final, completed product. He is deprived of the pleasure of single-handedly giving rise to and witnessing the fruits of his labor."
Trust, but verify, I think Marx also made this argument in Das Kapital. This, this is a harsh reality of the capitalistic system. For the sake of efficiency, production processes that had historically been delegated to a single skilled person--an artisan--have been compartmentalized and parceled off to unskilled workers of an assembly line. As a consequence no one person gains the satisfaction in knowing that they had crafted a product; most don't even see the final product. That being said, I ask in return: where is the injustice in that? An unskilled worker does not deserve the satisfaction of single-handedly crafting a product, because he didn't and is incapable of it. He's an unskilled worker, afterall. If one wishes to be reunited more fully with the products of his vocation, then one should become skilled and specialized. This is where formal education and vocational training is important, as professionals from these domains very rarely feel disconnected or unfulfilled from their work, as they should. They've bothered to adapt and become skilled; that deserves reward. Some might see this as cruel, as it leaves those less intellectually capable effectively dispossessed. Luckily, we have not reached that tipping point yet (AGI when?), where only the hyper-intelligent of us are afforded to opportunity to engage in meaningful, creative work.
And, even if we did, we'd still have all of the free time afforded to us by the capitalistic system to engage in activities we find fulfilling--theoretically. Again, the question of how one spends their leisure time and the quality thereof is left to the discretion of the individual. If someone were to be so dull that they were absolutely incapable of responding to specialization or training of any sort, then I'd imagine such an individual wouldn't mind the mind-numbing nature of their unskilled work. In this case, I'd see it as advantageous that capitalism can afford a role and occupation for someone that would otherwise be deemed as useless.
These empty material distractions, the mindless entertainment, video games, pornography, and social media that you mentioned, those are products of the capitalistic system. Those are the only options afforded to us and meant to keep us pacified, docile, and contained. This is the 'culture industry' that Adorno and Horkheimer warned us about. It keeps us happy enough to keep going, the tragic consequence being that we help create more of these enslaving products to further suppress ourselves and others.
To this point, I will grant that capitalism does shed a dim light on the nature of man, and this is sort of where the Marxist-Leninists have some validity in their assertion that the working class needs to be led by a vanguard party of intelligent leaders. What I'm getting at is this: man, for the most part, will follow the path of least resistance. If he is comfortable, he will not revolt, or do much of anything else for that matter. This is why the great proletariat revolution never occurred in industrial capitalist societies during the 19th-20th century; workers simply had it too good. As such, this isn't a problem with capitalism, but a problem with mankind in general, with capitalism only serving to highlight it and bring it into sharp focus.
And I'm sure it's quite easy to see anecdotally. Think of yourself, your family, your friends. How often is it that sometimes you or they want to indulge in mindless entertainment? An activity that doesn't require much energy mentally or physically to enjoy, and doesn't necessarily result in anything productive or tangible. That's perfectly fine, no moral judgement here. But by no means is this propensity absolutely deterministic. I'm sure you can think of an individual in your life, you might even see it in yourself, that chooses to do something more productive in their leisure time. They might choose to take on extra coursework through MOOCs, independently develop a new app on the side, practice a musical instrument, or engage in physical training. That's the important element that I think this argument fails to consider: the existence of the element of conscious choice. It's those individuals that choose to be productive or self-improve in their leisure hours that this capitalistic system rightfully chooses to reward. And that's an emphatic rightful because by becoming more intelligent, by becoming more physically fit, by becoming artistically masterful, by creating goods/services to meet a need, you are working in concordance to your best interest. Not only are you personally in a better position to live a richer life, but you may also be in a better position to enrich the life of and serve others. What could be more noble than the person that is willing AND capable of lifting others up with him?
This is where I think the Neo-Marxists fall completely apart in their argument. To me, the critiques levied against capitalistic society is a cover-up for the painfully mediocre, average, and passive characteristics of the everyday man. Not everyone can be as brilliant as Tesla, shrewd as Carnegie, or visionary as Musk. That's what makes these people special: they're rare. They're outliers. They do what most people wouldn't or couldn't do. No, not everyone needs to operate at that high of a level to succeed, but one does need to put in more effort if they wish to rise upon the norm. It's also exactly on this point where the Neo-Marxists seemingly contradict themselves. Remember how I mentioned that Neo-Marxism is essentially Marxist theory, with a humanistic spin on it? Marxism with soul, I think I said. Part of that soul was derived from the incorporation of psychoanalytic concepts; the favorite of Marcuse, Adorno, and Horkheimer's being the concept of the Freudian Eros. In short, the Eros refers to the impulse that exists in every man to create. Not only to procreate (c'mon, it's Freud), but to be productive, to create things, to manifest his will in the world materially and tangibly.
What the Frankfurt School posits is that these empty cultural artifacts are distractions and suppressants of man exercising his Eros, wholesale. This is so patently untrue for, if this were the case, any economy based on a capitalistic framework would surely collapse. The propensity for mankind to exercise creativity is the very engine that keeps the system turning. Entrepreneurship is a form of creation, that commodifies the intellectual and artistic creations of other people. Now, I will admit that plenty of these so-called empty cultural artifacts do present themselves as a very seductive trap to your everyday man; the capitalistic system is Darwinian by nature (or should be, depending on level of governmental meddling), and the most successful entertainment and products that are bred from it appeal to as many people as possible. They're meant to tickle those dopaminergic systems that everyone has in their brain just right; that's why Twinkies are so popular. That's why League of Legends (unfortunately) is so popular. That's why the pornography industry is worth $97 billion (?!).
Ultimately, I cede to the Frankfort School that capitalism, as a side-effect, does produce products and industries that can bring out the worst in man, including feelings of loneliness and alienation. What is the solution to this? Interestingly enough, this is exactly where I wholeheartedly agree with the Frankfurt school. Even more interesting, this is the part that most leftists and critics of capitalistic society leave out. With good reason; it involves the adoption of that crushing weight of personal responsibility and it runs contrary to the identity and intersectional politics that are quite popular these days.
------- The Great Refusal -------
As famously put by Marcuse, The Great Refusal is "The protest against that which is.". A surface reading of the quote would make one, as it does for so many others, conclude that it is a mandate to rebel violently against the currently established capitalistic society and culture that is repressing/suppressing people. This is the interpretation that most so-called 'activists' take, both old 1960s and current 2010s alike. To me, it's all too comical; the Frankfurt School asserts that capitalistic society is a covertly totalitarian society, oppressing and repressing people, pitting the common person against each other in an overly-aggressive, ruthlessly competitive environment while being fueled by artificial desires brainwashed into them by marketing. That's not the comical part, however. Instead, it lies in the fact that Marcuse explicitly warns people from falling into the trap of becoming exactly as that which they are rebelling against, yet activists inspired from his work ignore those warnings.
An example of this is the #BlackLivesMatter movement or the more extreme elements of the campaign for LGBTQ rights. How often are people silenced by these groups from voicing opinions contrary to their ideology? How often are people told that their thoughts are invalid simply on the basis that they do not hold membership to the appropriate racial or sexuality group? It's an absolute shield against any criticism, making open discussion a non-starter like that. On the violence front, we have organizations such as Antifa who, much like the fascism they purport to fight against, often times turn violent against people not in-line with their ideology. A common trend in these three examples is sociopolitical ideology supplanting capitalistic marketing in instilling people with false desires, telling them what to want and telling them what to do in order to achieve those wants. It is because of this exact behavior, Marcuse asserts that perhaps socialism isn't for man as he is now, but man as he will be; a direct nod to Nietzsche's ubermensch.
Pessimistic as the sentiment might seem, all hope for people living now--all too human as they are--is not entirely lost. Marcuse (this is where he gains my endorsement) recommends that people introspect and analyze their own nature, drives, instincts, and senses. The aim of which is to form an individualistic sense of identity, identify their own biases and inclinations, and to generally better themselves as people. Furthermore, he advocates for people to spend time with family, foster real human connection with others, and spend more time engaging in creative endeavor rather than endlessly consuming things. I must admit, it's sparse advice, and Marcuse never really elaborated on actionable steps to take to fulfill the Great Refusal. But I think the advice generates quite a tall order as is; if people took an inward lens to themselves in earnest, they'd quickly find the numerous ways in which they are preventing their own happiness and their own sense of fulfillment. The tricky part isn't finding them at all; I could tell you a million things wrong with me, I can point out a thousand faults in you. The tricky part is in taking these personal shortcomings upon your own shoulders and working hard to correct them, resisting the temptation to externalize them onto the sociocultural landscape. That's personal responsibility, and sometimes it can be a real bitch to come to terms with. Then, and only then, can someone maybe take steps to change the world for the better.
------- Conclusion -------
I have to admit, I do love discussing this topic and sharing with people the origins and genealogy of popular, contemporary ideas. While reading about the Frankfurt School, I realized that the novel/film Fight Club was essentially a love letter to their teachings. It's one of my favorite movies, and now I know exactly why, the attractive Edward Norton and Brad Pitt notwithstanding. Honestly, I could go on and on about this particular subject; as much as I have a distaste for Marxist theory, I find it to be very interesting and thought-provoking. The most exciting part of all this is seeing how post-structuralism found it's roots in Kant's skeptical epistemology combined with Rousseauian/Marxist social theory. It's an extremely strange mixture to be honest, but it accounts for a lot of the odd anti-realist, anti-rationality, relativistic claims that post-structuralist intellectuals and activists make. Some of it leaks into the common, public domain in the form of outright idiocy, such as this:
https://twitter.com/IndyaMoore/status/1096816028200460290
While on the subject of Twitter, there was also an element of Heideggerian anti-technological sentiment to Marcuse's writing, some of which I largely agree with. However, it wasn't really salient to the topic. The short of it is that Heidegger thinks that technology has gone runaway in a sense as mankind uses it not to 'reveal' nature (as it originally is intended to be used) but to 'control' it. Marcuse goes on to say that in his attempt to control nature, mankind has successfully used it to control other men, who are part of that very nature. It's a very compelling thought that I think warrants further development. Perhaps some other time, in another post.
As I mentioned in the beginning, this investigation was spurred on by conversation I've had with friends and peers. It was my intention to illustrate that a fair amount of the arguments that pot-smoking hippies, welfare queens, SJW Tumblrinas, Bernie bros, and soyboy cucks have against capitalistic/Western culture do have some credible, substantive, intellectual teeth to them; they're just often times represented glibly, unfortunately. As I've said, I wanted to better understand these arguments for myself, so I went to the source. Can't say I'm entirely convinced, but I've certainly been given more than enough food for thought, and hopefully you, dear reader, can help me clear our plate.
[end transmission]
