The Culture Problem

[Seresan]

I've been doing reading, thinking, observing, and even some examination of elements of society with a question in mind: "Where to begin? What is preventing the revolution? What is preventing true communism from realizing after the revolution?". I think I've found my answer, but I want feedback.

This "Higher Capitalism", as I like to call it, is distinct from Marx's capitalism in three distinct ways:
* The development of a powerful consumer class.
* The total globalization of industry.
* The extent of marketing initiatives.

Guy Debord had it right with his idea of the spectacle. We have been conditioned to see value in commodities as commodities regardless of their actual use value. As I see it, this alienation from humanity and the way that materialism has been embraced by the middle class (which has become a rather large percentage in the western world due to globalization) seeps into culture and shared social beliefs. These values, paradigms, and expectations are suited only to a capitalist society and cannot be shattered easily.


NOW FOR MY MAIN POINT!
So then what do we do? Pray for the global capitalist class to unite in being an unabashed dick so that people see how they are being exploited? No. Capitalism excels in masking it's manipulation and cruelty. Some action must be taken.

I've been thinking that a revolutionary intelligentsia might infiltrate and subvert the media, entertainment and education industries to create a counter-culture that eventually extends into mainstream culture.

Thoughts on the issue?

[Questionable]

Your analysis is correct but your solution sounds a bit like Banquism. If we went to see revolutionary consciousness grow we need to keep in mind both the economic situation and the spread of consciousness. An economic crisis cannot turn into a revolutionary situation without revolutionary consciousness, just as revolutionary consciousness cannot create a revolutionary situation on its own. I don't know if infiltrating the government would do anything for our cause. I find street-level propaganda to be a more effect means of spreading consciousness than hidden messages in the media.

[Positivist]

You are accurate in much of your assessment of "higher capitalism", but it is important to remember that the "consumer class" of the west of the north Atlantic are still proletarian in their productive relation. The "middle class" (the consumer class you refer to) still lack sufficient private property to enter the economy as anything more than exploited laborers, even if the labor they accept has been decreasingly manual. The expansion of marketing and the growth of globalization have definitely altered the political landscape though and are intimately related to the higher standard of living for many western proletarians.

Unfortunately your solution appears to be economically uninformed. You are neglecting that the falling rate of profit coupled with extremely limited space for capital to expand and systemic crisis threaten the continued gap in living standards between the core of capitalism and the periphery. Capital is now moving to focus on increasing Chinese domestic consumption which entails a reduction in operations throughout the west. Here I do not imply that a "rope reversal" is imminent, but rather that as the following decades proceed their will leveling out across the global class structure.

Here lies the key to a future solution. With the effects of capital soon to be globalized as opposed to being stratified between different segkents of its domain, unified proletarian struggle will become possible in a way previously impossible. As this progresses, we as revolutionary leftists should indeed focus on building a "counter-culture" as you suggest, though we should not base it on inflitration of bourgiose institutions, but rather on the development of alternative proletarian institutions taking on an active presence in the streets.

As for the extension or marketing techniques, which I don't really address in my analysis, the affects of this are more confined to shifts in perception and affectation and the corresponding developments of consumer habits which, while important, is not really relevant to a critique of capital focused primarily on the adjustment of revolutionary strategy.

[Rafiq]

I suggest you check out *gulp* Gramsci's (I'm not a fan at all, however...) texts regarding advanced capitalism. I hear the frankfurt school had quite a lot to say as well.

[Comrade #138672]

I've been doing reading, thinking, observing, and even some examination of elements of society with a question in mind: "Where to begin? What is preventing the revolution? What is preventing true communism from realizing after the revolution?". I think I've found my answer, but I want feedback.That's very good. I admire that. Keep it up.


This "Higher Capitalism", as I like to call it, is distinct from Marx's capitalism in three distinct ways:
* The development of a powerful consumer class.The consumer "Class" doesn't really exist. Consumers are still Proletarians and they are not powerful. Capitalists invented new strategies since Marx and made the Proletariat believe that they are powerful (on their own as Individuals) when they are clearly not (at least not more powerful than before, I would say even less).

People can consume more because they can loan so much more. These loans deludes these people into thinking that they're more wealthy than they actually are, but by taking these loans they enslave themselves to the Bourgeoisie.


* The total globalization of industry.This isn't beyond Marxism. It's just Marxism on a larger scale.


* The extent of marketing initiatives.This is only confusing the real issue. The main difference is Class Consciousness. In modern society we lack this because of all the complex power-relationships. We assume that nobody is in control and therefore everyone. I believe this helps making us believe in democracy, but it's only an illusion.


Guy Debord had it right with his idea of the spectacle. We have been conditioned to see value in commodities as commodities regardless of their actual use value. As I see it, this alienation from humanity and the way that materialism has been embraced by the middle class (which has become a rather large percentage in the western world due to globalization) seeps into culture and shared social beliefs. These values, paradigms, and expectations are suited only to a capitalist society and cannot be shattered easily.Indeed. As long as they do not really notice the consequence of these debts. Also we need to keep on exploiting Third World countries. Without these countries people would be less likely submit to Capitalism.


NOW FOR MY MAIN POINT!
So then what do we do? Pray for the global capitalist class to unite in being an unabashed dick so that people see how they are being exploited? No. Capitalism excels in masking it's manipulation and cruelty. Some action must be taken.Indeed!


I've been thinking that a revolutionary intelligentsia might infiltrate and subvert the media, entertainment and education industries to create a counter-culture that eventually extends into mainstream culture.I agree, but how do we do that? I've been thinking about that too, but I don't have the connections to be able to something that has any value in this area. At least not for now.

[Marxaveli]

My dad says that there are simply too many different cultures, religious beliefs, ideologies, ways of life, and opinions in general out there to ever implement Socialism or make it work. He is one of those people that always states "you can't even get 4 people in a room to agree on how things should be, so how can you get the whole world to do it?".....what are your guys thoughts on this?

[Rafiq]

My dad says that there are simply too many different cultures, religious beliefs, ideologies, ways of life, and opinions in general out there to ever implement Socialism or make it work. He is one of those people that always states "you can't even get 4 people in a room to agree on how things should be, so how can you get the whole world to do it?".....what are your guys thoughts on this?

Especially in a time where capitalism has gone global, class interest, I'm afraid for him and his convictions, extends and throws aside "culture, religious beliefs, and other ideologies".

What is a way of life? What is the origin of said way of life?

[Marxaveli]

Right. But trying to tell him this is like pulling teeth. Class division precedes and necessitates all other division, but he is of the belief that you need to educate the whole world (or what we would call "class consciousness"), and that this is simply impossible (in his eyes). He thinks too many people believe too strongly in their own cultures or religious beliefs, and will say shit like "try getting all those radical Islams over in the middle east to agree with you, its never gonna happen". Needless to say, he is overly deterministic in his views, and has a very pessimist view of the human species in general.

[Rafiq]

The whole world doesn't have to be "educated", they merely not to develop a mediocre form of class conciousness, which cannot be given to them by the intelligentsia.

You see, this Idealism stems from members of the bourgeoisie who are also communists, who must constantly suppress their own unconscious class interests.

[Marxaveli]

I don't understand the second statement you made. How are members of the bourgeoise also Communists, since by its very nature is not in the class interest of the bourgeoise? My dad owns his own business and has for over 30 years, i guess this would make him part of the petit-bourgeoise - and indeed a Communist society would not be in his class interest, at least not in the short run. But I think this is an abstract point from his stance - even if it WAS in his class interest, and he wanted it to happen, he doesn't think it can ever happen based on the whole Idealism that "you cannot get everyone to agree", which of course is a very common (and fallacious) ruling class argument.

I agree with your ultimate point though, the whole world does not need to educated, just enough to make revolutionary circumstances possible, which of course, is very possible since it has occurred in the past, and even if it hadn't it would be a affirmation of the consequent fallacy to suggest it cannot. I have explained to him that differences in cultures are not relevant to establishing socialism, rather each culture must recognize who their true oppressors are.

[el_chavista]

I've been thinking that a revolutionary intelligentsia might ... create a counter-culture that eventually extends into mainstream culture.
This sounds like Marxist social-democracy: Kautsky's "road to power"? :lol:

[Positivist]

My dad says that there are simply too many different cultures, religious beliefs, ideologies, ways of life, and opinions in general out there to ever implement Socialism or make it work. He is one of those people that always states "you can't even get 4 people in a room to agree on how things should be, so how can you get the whole world to do it?".....what are your guys thoughts on this?

You could explain that the only "necessary" education for the functioning of a socialist economy would be technical which generally isn't disputed according to cultural differences. If you are referring to the necessary development of conscioussness for revolution to occur than you need to emphasize that conscioussness is specific to class and that by articulating the sentiments inherent to the proletarian class, with mild cloaking in different cultural "flavors."

[Os Cangaceiros]

I've been thinking that a revolutionary intelligentsia might infiltrate and subvert the media, entertainment and education industries to create a counter-culture that eventually extends into mainstream culture.

This was actually the exact strategy of many on the "new left" during the 60's/70's (Abbie Hoffman etc.)


There's an extremely chaotic situation which revolutionaries can take full advantage of. For instance, there's a gap between the mass media and the administration. We're beginning to get an overlay between some liberal elements in the mass media and the underground press. I think this is an important development. It should be encouraged.

I am highly skeptical of this strategy, though.

[Rafiq]

This was actually the exact strategy of many on the "new left" during the 60's/70's (Abbie Hoffman etc.)


Indeed, and look what happened. Now we live in a post-68 society that is almost ironic in regards.

All of the things that successfully were imported into mainstream culture became defiled by capital.

Sexual Revolution - Yeah, plus the massive sexism.

romanticism of revolutionary leaders - Che Shirts, Lenin themed restaurants, etc.

Ecological Romanticism - Now we have "green capitalist" ideology

Public outcry against Imperialism, world starvation, etc - Charity, Liberal Anti Sweatshop rhetoric

Didn't Zizek cover this? Yes, in his video, First as tragedy, second as farce. I recommend you check it out.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This "Higher Capitalism", as I like to call it, is distinct from Marx's capitalism in three distinct ways:

Well I think I'll start my comments with the above because I don't think it actually holds up. I think there have been these changes but largley it's a differnce of quantity or surface features, not fundamental or qualitative differences - at least not to the extent that the situation for revolution by workers is alterned because of these factors anyway.


* The development of a powerful consumer class.

How is this class defined? What is the basis for this class. What are the disticnt interests of this class?

In the US, the "land of the consumer" supposedly, 40% of the population controlls something like .2% of the wealth or:


Average net worth of the bottom 40% of wage earners: $1900
(Edward N. Wolff, "Recent Trends in Wealth Ownership, 1983-1998," April 2000)

So this is not unlike the wealth distribution and RELATIVE consumer power of people before the 1930s when there was a lot more class struggle than today - but not constantly, it goes up and down due to numerous and varrying reasons.


* The total globalization of industry.

Well this is true and has an impact, but I think this one is an example of a quantitative but not qualitative change. In fact in many ways, this makes things more favorable for workers in the long-run because so much more of the human population is already connected due to capitalism - the problem is how this is organized and who has the power in this process.

But Marx recognized this and predicted this, so while there are specific effects of this process - right now the main one being the new competition between the rising new capitalist centers and the powers currently on top. But labor migration, global trade, moving manufacturing to suit the needs of capital, etc have been major parts of the system from the begining.


* The extent of marketing initiatives.

Again, I don't know how materially true this is. While there is quite a bit of marketing these days, it isn't really a "boom" as much as reinvention and new techniques. If marketing had a dampening effect, then the early 20th century would have been just as lacking in class struggle as today since they actually experienced going from very little mass-marketing to the radio, better photographic reproduction, film, television, mass newspapers, etc. But again the early modern era with rapid increases in marketing and consumer products and so on actually was a time of mass revolts and upheavals.


NOW FOR MY MAIN POINT!
So then what do we do? Pray for the global capitalist class to unite in being an unabashed dick so that people see how they are being exploited? No. Capitalism excels in masking it's manipulation and cruelty. Some action must be taken.

I've been thinking that a revolutionary intelligentsia might infiltrate and subvert the media, entertainment and education industries to create a counter-culture that eventually extends into mainstream culture.

Thoughts on the issue?I actually just don't agree with the view that people have been duped or tricked by mass culture. In most people it produces cynacism, not acceptance of the system or propaganda. Commericials are more likely to make people not believe anything.

So on that level "creating a new culture" to sort of de-porgram people just wouldn't do much IMO. It could rally together people who are already more or less thinking along these lines, but this is what pretty much all leftists try to do anyway.

But more importantly, I think such a strategy treats workers as passive recipenets: either of "good" or "bad" propaganda. But really I think the lack of struggle is not as much just ideas alone, but lack of organizing and sense of ability to actually change things. So I think creating a sort of counter-hegemonic force that can pull people towards working class struggle requires actually organizing in communities, organizing where people are already having class struggles against the system and trying to build networks of organizers and rank and file workers and community members and allies and so on. Out of that base in society, a sort of "counter-culture" might emerge: this happened with the IWW, but the IWW was the result of decades of fits and starts in labor organizing that eventually produced a radical worker's movement which began to create as sort of oppositional culture among some groups of workers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

@Seresan - and sorry if my post comes off like I'm crapping in your soup or something, I only mean to be frank and give my perspective on the ideas you put forward. But the question you ask is the most important, how can we help revive some opposition and struggle by workers?


I suggest you check out *gulp* Gramsci's (I'm not a fan at all, however...) texts regarding advanced capitalism. I hear the frankfurt school had quite a lot to say as well.

I second the Gramsci recommendation - he was trying to grapple with these questions of how to defeat ruling class hegemony over society. Most of the time our rulers don't need tanks and cops to stop us from action, most of the time our own self-doubts and ideas pushed on us from capitalist ideas prevents us from fighting: oh well what can you do, is what most people say.

That's why I think movements are important because they can say: "here, this is what you can do - we did it by working together, going on strike or whatnot".

[MarxSchmarx]

Right. But trying to tell him this is like pulling teeth. Class division precedes and necessitates all other division, but he is of the belief that you need to educate the whole world (or what we would call "class consciousness"), and that this is simply impossible (in his eyes). He thinks too many people believe too strongly in their own cultures or religious beliefs, and will say shit like "try getting all those radical Islams over in the middle east to agree with you, its never gonna happen". Needless to say, he is overly deterministic in his views, and has a very pessimist view of the human species in general.

It's rather like driving. We all have our favorite cars, we have our styles (some people go a little faster than the speed limit, some people stick to it, some people go a little slower), some people honk when they are annoyed, etc... Occasionally you have crashes, drunks that mess it all up, but on the whole the rules of the road by and large work.

Why? Because people share common ground where it matters - red means stop and green means go, you take your turn at the roundabout/intersection, etc... Their fundamental self-interests, in getting from point A to point B, lets them set aside all the crazy differences that just fade to the background when you're talking about what matters. Whether a worker is a Muslim or an atheist then is more like whether they drive a convertable or a truck. Quite important to the person driving the car, but only marginally relevant (e.g., large semis have to be more careful making turns, just as perhaps some religions are less conducive to socialism) to the social arrangement that exists that allows them to cooperate and agree to let the traffic flow.