Cultural Marxism? or Cultural Capitalism--A rebuttal in good faith

[volinbham]

Marx said that capitalism, like other economic systems, has in itself internal conflicts which will eventually result in revolution. One such example of this is that capitalists (i.e., business owners) are constantly seeking to gain more capital, as it is an intrinsic good in the system. A convenient way for them to get more capital is through exploiting the worker somehow--for example, by eliminating staff or by reducing wages. But by doing so, they're reducing the amount of consumers which can buy their products or services. Marx said that without intervention this would ensure that the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

This assumes that some are capitalist and some are workers and those designations are static. History hasn't borne that out and contrary to the "reduction in amount of consumers" we've actually seen an increase as the standard of living rises and more and more people move from sub sustenance to disposable income. Further, that increase in standard of living moves more people into the capital accumulation business and thus the notice of static classes doesn't mirror reality.

 

[LouderVol]

Marx said that capitalism, like other economic systems, has in itself internal conflicts which will eventually result in revolution. One such example of this is that capitalists (i.e., business owners) are constantly seeking to gain more capital, as it is an intrinsic good in the system. A convenient way for them to get more capital is through exploiting the worker somehow--for example, by eliminating staff or by reducing wages. But by doing so, they're reducing the amount of consumers which can buy their products or services. Marx said that without intervention this would ensure that the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

And the poor are kept in their place how? Under capitalism they can become one of those business owners exploiting others work for money.

It's not really a problem if there is a way out. People can also self support if the grind gets them.

 

[Wafflestomper]

This assumes that some are capitalist and some are workers and those designations are static. History hasn't borne that out and contrary to the "reduction in amount of consumers" we've actually seen an increase as the standard of living rises and more and more people move from sub sustenance to disposable income. Further, that increase in standard of living moves more people into the capital accumulation business and thus the notice of static classes doesn't mirror reality.

I don't think it necessarily assumes these roles are static. The example is supposed to point out supposed intrinsic internal conflicts within capitalism which Marx saw as extremely problematic. Marxists might say that the wealth gap in the U.S. has risen steadily in the last several decades and this is largely attributable to the rapid expansion of globalization and capitalists--i.e., those who control the means of production--using cheap labor overseas to produce their products at the expense of domestic workers. I'm not sure if this is actually true or not, but these are the sorts of things they claim.

 

[Wafflestomper]

And the poor are kept in their place how? Under capitalism they can become one of those business owners exploiting others work for money.

It's not really a problem if there is a way out. People can also self support if the grind gets them.

This reply seems to ignore reality in favor of a theoretical counterfactual. The reality is that not everyone can be business owners, because if they were, there wouldn't be any "workers" anymore. Also, there is growing income inequality in this country. Less money is available to be spent by the lower classes paying off debt and increasing their capital. So, yes, there is a way out for some small subset of the poor but it isn't realistic for most of them.

 

[volinbham]

I don't think it necessarily assumes these roles are static. The example is supposed to point out supposed intrinsic internal conflicts within capitalism which Marx saw as extremely problematic. Marxists might say that the wealth gap in the U.S. has risen steadily in the last several decades and this is largely attributable to the rapid expansion of globalization and capitalists--i.e., those who control the means of production--using cheap labor overseas to produce their products at the expense of domestic workers. I'm not sure if this is actually true or not, but these are the sorts of things they claim.

I know you are just representing the viewpoint; not endorsing.

That said, the problem with the assertion that the capitalists accumulate wealth by essentially extracting it from workers (reductions in wages or staff) is that we see the opposite. In places where the capitalist system is operating at least to some extent we actually see growth in the middle class; workers actually begin to accumulate capital. If the argument is that they (the workers) are accumulating capital at the expense of other workers (elsewhere in the world) we don't see that either. Both China and India have seen significant growth of middle class and "workers" turning into capital accumulators without some appreciable increase in poverty elsewhere in the world. The view seems to be that capital/wealth is fixed and for one to have more; another has to have less. We see that in fact there is great wealth creation and while it may disproportionately go to the wealthy, all see there means/capital/standard of living increase.

More importantly, I see no convincing argument from the Marxist view that those who've seen their situation improve would see greater improvement under some non-Capitalist system or that some non-Capitalist system would lift as many out of poverty as have been lifted.

It seems a philosophy rooted in "he's got more than me and that's not fair". Unfortunately the solution appears to lead to equality of wealth via reducing total wealth.

 

[newarkvol]

I feel like this is the same sort of argument we would get from Marx. Define things in such a way so that you can defeat them even if no one else would ever define them that way. Also like a good Marxist you make things about class to divide the people up. You also remain vague to the ways you are wanting society to change in order to call more attention to the exaggerated wrong doings of the system in place. Unlike Marx you have history to look on where you should know better. But you dont.

I dont know of many who would say the right has won. I dont even know many on the right who would claim the victories you lay at their feet as good/right things. Again you rely on the marxian strategy of playing up your enemies to build moral support for your arguments. Ignoring the realities.

As bham said there are a ton more social programs today than there was in 30s. The accrual of wealth at the top in the last decades has been a direct result of government intervention. Regulations favor the corporations. Just look at the most recent happenings during Covid. Small stores the government has shut down while the big boys of Walmart and Amazon are making money hand over fist.

As long as the government picks winners and losers beyond direct contracts we are too far left to lay blame at the feet of the ideological right.

I don't consider myself a Marxist/ nor capitalist --- I HAVE been revisiting Lasch's work "The Culture of Narcissism" and find it prescient to our current situation ........

But to the point-- these are simply systems (that have become ideologies) of thought on how to best allocate resources for the good of society. It's funny- there used to be a robust critique of capitalism from conservatives as well. Many Conservatives have not always believed or proclaimed with such fervency that the Holy Market is sacrosanct---many warned that you shouldn't reduce large spheres of human existence to such a volatile and destructive system without sufficient debate.

In 1980 George Will wrote: "Will suggested "schizophrenia" in the marriage of convenience between cultural and economic conservatives: “The Republican platform of 1980 stresses two themes that are not as harmonious as Republicans suppose. One is cultural conservatism. The other is capitalist dynamism. The latter dissolves the former. "
But this union between conservatives and Libertarian capitalism- where value is defined as a function of supply and demand, is hostile to self discipline/mastery---a traditional conservative virtue

We are seeing the effects of Unchecked capitalism creating dijunction/disunion-- With the advent of the FAANG corporations mergers and acquisitions the prediction of Marx is increasingly fulfilled: monopolies and oligopolies find few defenders in tough times, and are converted rapidly into agencies of the state---if not becoming "state like"-Private institutions, are in effect governments themselves; they both tax and plan--but simply employ different terminology.

The Libertarian wing of conservatism (Rand, Hayek, Friedman) became republican dogma without addressing the cultural contradictions embedded in "free market." Some conservatives would argue that libertarian capitalism makes people less free by its ability to convert base human desire into products. These critics have pointed to libertarian economics reducing the people to mere consumers at the expense of real citizenship.

It seems that repubs. are unable to connect the cultural trends they deplore to the system they promote uncritically. I would argue that the individualistic identitarian protests you are seeing is an outcome of capitalism that comes with the breakdown of communal and social structures into atomized individuals. Capitalism profits from this social atomization since with more individual identities come more consumers. The claim that we must support this state of affairs because of a misreading of socialism is simplistic and fails to address concerns about unbridled capitalism. To blindly follow a structure that promotes "roles, not persons”, in which a person becomes an object or a "thing." produces a sick society. (Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism")

Culture within consumer overly-commercialized society is characterized by “the release of the individual from traditional restraints and family/community ties so that he could ‘make’ of himself what he willed.” Again, in our atomized overly-individualistic country: “the expression and remaking of the ‘self’ in order to achieve self-realization and self-fulfillment.” Therefore there are no longer “any limits or boundaries to experience”, and within its sphere “nothing is forbidden, all is to be explored.”“self-gratification”, and it is now “anti-institutional and antinomian in that the individual is taken to be the measure of satisfaction, and his feelings, sentiments, and judgments, not some objective standard of quality and value, determine the worth of cultural objects.” (Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism"). Does this remind anyone of the identity politics on display on both sides of the aisle.---Many would argue and I would agree that this is a result of a failing socioeconomic system.

The Culture of Narcissism - Wikipedia
Daniel Bell - Wikipedia

 

[LouderVol]

This reply seems to ignore reality in favor of a theoretical counterfactual. The reality is that not everyone can be business owners, because if they were, there wouldn't be any "workers" anymore. Also, there is growing income inequality in this country. Less money is available to be spent by the lower classes paying off debt and increasing their capital. So, yes, there is a way out for some small subset of the poor but it isn't realistic for most of them.

1. Dont get in debt. Not very many people are going into debt buying food and other truly basic survival needs. What you actually need to spend money on is very little. And no the single mother with 5 kids doesnt weigh the equation any more than the DINKs does. Live within your means. It's that freaking simple. Doesnt take advanced degrees, or special lawyers to do so.
2. You ignored the working for yourself bit. Grow crops, make widgets, find some other place that will buy your crops or widgets. Even doesnt even have to be functional. Plenty of money spent on the arts.
3. Rich people still buy stuff. Business owners typically dont make everything they need to live. So even if there were no "workers" it wouldnt be an issue as people could still have money to spend.
4. You are attributing non capitalistic results of our nation to capitalism. That's not the argument. Debt is pushed by our government via banks. Our economy is based on certain levels of debt. And in moderation is fine. But as we found out during the various bubbles our government dont care about the iffy if not dont right illegal for you and me, activities of the corporations. As soon as the governments involved ITS NOT CAPITALISM. So again dont attribute our nation to be an exemplar of capitalism.
5. Of course it's possible for most of them. Depending on whatever timeline you want to use humans have still spent more time sustenance farming than grocery store shopping. It can be done, has been done, and isnt unreasonable. But because of the various social safety nets we encourage people not to support themselves but instead leach off of society.

Your argument is based on capitalistic quality of life but socialist support. You dont get to pick and choose.

 

[volinbham]

I don't consider myself a Marxist/ nor capitalist --- I HAVE been revisiting Lasch's work "The Culture of Narcissism" and find it prescient to our current situation ........

But to the point-- these are simply systems (that have become ideologies) of thought on how to best allocate resources for the good of society. It's funny- there used to be a robust critique of capitalism from conservatives as well. Many Conservatives have not always believed or proclaimed with such fervency that the Holy Market is sacrosanct---many warned that you shouldn't reduce large spheres of human existence to such a volatile and destructive system without sufficient debate.

In 1980 George Will wrote: "Will suggested "schizophrenia" in the marriage of convenience between cultural and economic conservatives: “The Republican platform of 1980 stresses two themes that are not as harmonious as Republicans suppose. One is cultural conservatism. The other is capitalist dynamism. The latter dissolves the former. "
But this union between conservatives and Libertarian capitalism- where value is defined as a function of supply and demand, is hostile to self discipline/mastery---a traditional conservative virtue

We are seeing the effects of Unchecked capitalism creating dijunction/disunion-- With the advent of the FAANG corporations mergers and acquisitions the prediction of Marx is increasingly fulfilled: monopolies and oligopolies find few defenders in tough times, and are converted rapidly into agencies of the state---if not becoming "state like"-Private institutions, are in effect governments themselves; they both tax and plan--but simply employ different terminology.

The Libertarian wing of conservatism (Rand, Hayek, Friedman) became republican dogma without addressing the cultural contradictions embedded in "free market." Some conservatives would argue that libertarian capitalism makes people less free by its ability to convert base human desire into products. These critics have pointed to libertarian economics reducing the people to mere consumers at the expense of real citizenship.

It seems that repubs. are unable to connect the cultural trends they deplore to the system they promote uncritically. I would argue that the individualistic identitarian protests you are seeing is an outcome of capitalism that comes with the breakdown of communal and social structures into atomized individuals. Capitalism profits from this social atomization since with more individual identities come more consumers. The claim that we must support this state of affairs because of a misreading of socialism is simplistic and fails to address concerns about unbridled capitalism. To blindly follow a structure that promotes "roles, not persons”, in which a person becomes an object or a "thing." produces a sick society. (Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism")

Culture within consumer overly-commercialized society is characterized by “the release of the individual from traditional restraints and family/community ties so that he could ‘make’ of himself what he willed.” Again, in our atomized overly-individualistic country: “the expression and remaking of the ‘self’ in order to achieve self-realization and self-fulfillment.” Therefore there are no longer “any limits or boundaries to experience”, and within its sphere “nothing is forbidden, all is to be explored.”“self-gratification”, and it is now “anti-institutional and antinomian in that the individual is taken to be the measure of satisfaction, and his feelings, sentiments, and judgments, not some objective standard of quality and value, determine the worth of cultural objects.” (Bell, Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism"). Does this remind anyone of the identity politics on display on both sides of the aisle.---Many would argue and I would agree that this is a result of a failing socioeconomic system.

The Culture of Narcissism - Wikipedia
Daniel Bell - Wikipedia

To the two bolded points - I could argue that the love of the State as provider is a key (the key) mechanism of breaking down communal and social structures. You are absolved of responsibility as the State provides for you and your family. Wasn't it Pelosi that argued that essentially people should be freed from responsibilities so they could become painters, artists, etc? The State substitutes for family and more intimate social structures.

In other words, taking the "identitarian protests" that are parroting the philosophy of Critical Race Theory (that is bound to Marxism) and saying that instead it's the result of Capitalism is a massive stretch and ignores a much more direct evidentiary path.

More broadly you make statements such as "unchecked capitalism". We are not and have not experienced unchecked capitalism. You claim no conservatives question aspects of capitalism yet the example you use of the FAANG has drawn criticism from conservatives for being an accumulation of power.

 

[volinbham]

This reply seems to ignore reality in favor of a theoretical counterfactual. The reality is that not everyone can be business owners, because if they were, there wouldn't be any "workers" anymore. Also, there is growing income inequality in this country. Less money is available to be spent by the lower classes paying off debt and increasing their capital. So, yes, there is a way out for some small subset of the poor but it isn't realistic for most of them.

with a gig economy you could see much more of this than before - each person could be business owner and worker providing goods and services to other such pairings.

likewise getting to my static comment earlier, while not everyone can be a business owner at the exact same time what we see is people moving in and out of the business owner role and worker role.

finally, one need not be business owner to accumulate capital and as we see the vast majority of capital accumulators are not business owners but rather workers and in plenty of cases workers have more capital than business owners (if you look across industry rather than within)

 

[midnight orange]

Capitalism is not a system as much as it’s a lack of system. All capitalism is is the free exchange of goods and services. Of course conservatives and progressives hate this because if we a had a truly free market, it would not afford them opportunity to “craft” society towards their preferences and extract their pound of flesh from people peacefully trading goods and services.

 

[LouderVol]

One is cultural conservatism. The other is capitalist dynamism. The latter dissolves the former. "
But this union between conservatives and Libertarian capitalism- where value is defined as a function of supply and demand, is hostile to self discipline/mastery---a traditional conservative virtue
]

I deleted all but this bit because this seemed like the crux of the argument. I completely disagree with it.

Capitalism itself doesnt reduce people to mere consumers. The people have the right to choose that path. But it is not required in any measure for capitalism to succeed.

There is no real "peak" capitalism. It's a living breathing system of ups downs and sideways. Ascribing the goal of success to ultimate end of capitalism is wrong. Again the system of capitalism doesnt require that end goal to be achieved to say it works like a more communist or socialist system would.

The misunderstanding/semantics here seems to be the confusion of what capitalism is. As used by Marx, or the arguments presented here, it's the accumulation of wealth to the nth degree. But instead I would argue its actually the free movement of goods/money/wealth/whatever. ANYTHING that artificially interferes with that movement isnt capitalism. As bham has said there is no closed system of wealth where the rich can accrue an amount that actually, under capitalism, says there is nothing left for others.

It's as simple as supply and demand. Capitalism allows for that supply and demand beyond the scope of wealth or specific goods. We think of it in our current American understanding of it. Where we tie to the almighty dollar. But again that's a corruption based on the system replaced by our governemnt to set value only to the dollar.

Even if the rich could take away stuff, which I dont think they can, they cant take any of the other inherit medias we have as humans. Again at least to the point where one could say people have lost "value" to the point of the system failing or being invalidated.

To someone living a simple life that could be all the wealth they need and capitalism has worked for them just as much as scrooge mcduck swimming thru lakes of gold coins.

Under capitalism you are free to value whatever you like. Under other systems the valuables are set artificially by the system or whoever is in control. And in that situation the accrurual of wealth by some could be a failure. But it's not under capitalism.

 

[midnight orange]

I deleted all but this bit because this seemed like the crux of the argument. I completely disagree with it.

Capitalism itself doesnt reduce people to mere consumers. The people have the right to choose that path. But it is not required in any measure for capitalism to succeed.

There is no real "peak" capitalism. It's a living breathing system of ups downs and sideways. Ascribing the goal of success to ultimate end of capitalism is wrong. Again the system of capitalism doesnt require that end goal to be achieved to say it works like a more communist or socialist system would.

The misunderstanding/semantics here seems to be the confusion of what capitalism is. As used by Marx, or the arguments presented here, it's the accumulation of wealth to the nth degree. But instead I would argue its actually the free movement of goods/money/wealth/whatever. ANYTHING that artificially interferes with that movement isnt capitalism. As bham has said there is no closed system of wealth where the rich can accrue an amount that actually, under capitalism, says there is nothing left for others.

It's as simple as supply and demand. Capitalism allows for that supply and demand beyond the scope of wealth or specific goods. We think of it in our current American understanding of it. Where we tie to the almighty dollar. But again that's a corruption based on the system replaced by our governemnt to set value only to the dollar.

Even if the rich could take away stuff, which I dont think they can, they cant take any of the other inherit medias we have as humans. Again at least to the point where one could say people have lost "value" to the point of the system failing or being invalidated.

To someone living a simple life that could be all the wealth they need and capitalism has worked for them just as much as scrooge mcduck swimming thru lakes of gold coins.

Under capitalism you are free to value whatever you like. Under other systems the valuables are set artificially by the system or whoever is in control. And in that situation the accrurual of wealth by some could be a failure. But it's not under capitalism.

As you stated, it’s hard for peps to wrap their minds around the concept that people have different preferences and priorities. I might value being home more than my coworker who values overtime. He will have a bigger paycheck and I will have more family time.

 

[LouderVol]

As you stated, it’s hard for peps to wrap their minds around the concept that people have different preferences and priorities. I might value being home more than my coworker who values overtime. He will have a bigger paycheck and I will have more family time.

Agreed.

Their argument against capitalism is the unlikely hood of everyone being trillionaires, and if everyone's a trillionaire, no ones a trilionaire.

When capitalism doesnt require that.

You get to set your own values, while under other systems that choice is removed. And somehow that is better if everyone is given the same value or standard