The Culture of Capitalism

This is an essay I wrote last summer. It's something I strongly believe and felt I had to put up for people to read. I've eliminated the citations to make it easier to read, but if anyone wants the references, I can get them for you. It's a little long and maybe a little dense at points, but I hope it all makes sense.

In feudalism, land and the production of goods from it was run following a system where lords allowed peasants to use land in exchange for a share of what was produced on that land, as well as loyalty and service. Trade in this system was restricted (by necessity, not decree) to local exchange of goods, with some monetary exchange, for practical goods and services and some long-distance trade for rare and exotic luxuries for the elite. In this system, while the elite lords held a monopoly on wealth, the general population had access to the necessities of life. As long-distance trade became more frequent and easier due to improved technology in shipping, the peoples of the world became more and more in contact. It was from this contact, most specifically the contact between Europeans with Asian, African, and American cultures, that led to the expansion of trade centered on the acquisition of goods for European markets.

What I see as key to the development of the culture of capitalism from this set of circumstances was combination of the rise of nation-state ideologies, the subsequent rise in competition for control of goods and resources from around the world by the burgeoning European states, and the increase in military forces sent out to control and maintain these goods and resources for their European owners. Thus, it was the combination of a rise in the access of luxury goods for the feudal elite, the expansion of mercantile interests around the globe, and the onset of colonialism that set the stage for the emergence of the culture of capitalism.

As the new nation-states of Europe expanded their territorial control of areas throughout the world and transportation technology (both local and global) improved, it became apparent that control of land meant control of those who work it and, also, control of the means of production. Such things as the Enclosure Acts in England, which took common lands away from people and placed them in private hands, indicated the importance upon which the state placed land in the production of wealth for a select few. What resulted was a landless populace forced to sell their labour to the owners of the land they previously had worked as a commons or venture to the cities to sell their labour to the burgeoning factories. Thus, people no longer grew their own food or made their own goods because they no longer had access to the means to do so and had to earn money through the sale of their labour in order to purchase food, housing, etc.

Ideology was extremely important in this process as people who had been forced from the land and required to sell their labour were needed to change their desires. Whereas in the past, people had been content to produce what they needed, in order for a system of perpetual growth, as capitalism calls for, to occur, the general public needed to want more than just what enabled them to survive. Through the promotion the products of colonial enterprises, such as sugar, the creation of laws which lower prices making them more available to the public, profits from overseas plantations grew, as did the dependancy on, and desire for, manufactured foodstuffs and goods.

It was through this active promotion of products that the primary ideological mode of our time developed: advertising. Over the past 100 years, the advertising industry has grown from simply pushing the use of products to promoting ways of life which can be achieved through the use of products or services. What I see as the major way of life promoted, a way of life that assumes the truth behind the idea of perpetual growth, is the idea that every person, regardless of his or her socioeconomic position, can become independently wealthy and able to live a life of leisure and happiness through the use of, and investment in, goods and services. In other words, I believe the culture of capitalism is based on the ideology that everyone can live the idealized life of a feudal lord, but without any sort of responsibility for anything but one’s own happiness. The promotion of this way of life has been evident in advertising since the beginning, as evidenced by early fashion magazines setting standards using royalty, the wealthy, and celebrities as models and can even be found earlier, through the example of sugar being used to emulate the wealthy -- sugar was a sign of status.

The influence of the culture of capitalism has grown to such pervasiveness that, despite copious evidence to the contrary, we, and the vast majority of the people in the world, have allowed ourselves to be convinced that through our continued participation and active promotion of capitalism, can live in a leisurely world where all our wants and needs are satisfied with little to no further work on our part or consequences to others, the environment, or our ourselves. This conviction has been actively manufactured through institutional means, mass media, including, but not exclusively, advertising. The pervasiveness of the culture of capitalism and the lust for luxury, called commodity fetishism by Marx, is summed up by the fact that parents are naming their children after consumer products they aspire to own, but will likely never afford.

Capitalism, in theory, is supposed to create equality through the trickle down effect brought about by competition and the supposed apolitical and unbiased nature of the free and open market. It does not. One of the major flaws in the system is that those with control over wealth and power will do everything possible to maintain and maximize that control, such as creating laws which promote the accumulation of land and resources in a small number of hands or using violence against those who attempt to take or circumvent some of that power or wealth for themselves or against those who simply attempt to live outside the capitalist system altogether. The result is a system of enforced inequality which actively markets itself as a great equalizer, a system of violence pretending to be a system of peace, a system which vocally touts the benefits of democracy yet places control in the unelected hands of the few.

The inequality in wealth and power caused by the culture of capitalism means that the necessities of life, such as food, water, shelter, education, and health care, are available only to those who can afford them. Thus, the poor and marginalized, due to their inability within a capitalist system to obtain money (leading to an inability to exert demand for and obtain the above mentioned necessities), face poverty, hunger, sickness and death. In the lingo of commerce, these consequences are simply market externalities.

The ideologies of consumption and perpetual growth in combination with the remnants of colonialist attitudes and the growing dominance of fundamentalist religious beliefs that the world exists to be exploited solely for human benefits, as well as the belief that, as the apocalypse is imminent, any environmental damage is moot has led to rapid environmental destruction. The interrelation of these ideologies has created a world where the people within it seek to obtain and consume more and more in the belief that the resources of the planet, from agricultural products and water to forests and animals to oil and minerals, exist to be exploited and any neglect in exploiting them constitutes a waste of resources. As well, these resources were placed here and put under human control to used and exploited as we see fit. Thus, it is an escalating pattern of consumption and destruction based on the naturalization of constructed ideologies placing human economic needs as the foremost concern of the planet in general.

While the destruction of the environment is a global problem that affects everyone, it affects the poor and marginalized more so than the rich. The exportation of pollution, both accidental and intended, to Third World countries is well documented. Within both Third World and core countries, the problems of unclean water and air, deforestation, the ruination of land, and loss of plant diversity fall squarely on the shoulders of the poor and marginalized. The expansion of the sugar and beef industries, both colonialist enterprises immersed in the belief of limitless growth potential and fueled by the supposed superiority of modern Europe are excellent examples of ways in which the externalization of the consequences of the culture of capitalism never detrimentally affected those who benefitted most from capitalism, only those who could be most easily pushed aside; the marginal.

Violence is a major means of enforcing these externalities upon the marginalized and, while often committed in the express interest of trade, as exemplified by the experience of Guaraní people of Paraguay, is more frequently masked as being in the interest of political stability or democracy. U.S. foreign policy around the world since the end of the second World War is a prime example of this, with the invasion of Iraq and the continuous support of Israel in Palestine serving as striking exemplifications of violence being used to control resources and politics while masquerading as attempts to bring democracy to the world. Again, while there are certainly losses amongst the forces of the rich nations instigating this violence, the ones who bear the brunt of it are the marginalized.

The violence that occurs comes as a result of capitalist and colonial policies, but also occurs within the borders of marginalized nations as local groups, marginalized by the world economy for centuries, fight with one another over the resources available in order to be able to join in the world economy and realize their mythical portion of the limitless bounty that capitalism indoctrinates as being available. The events in Rwanda and Yugoslavia, as well as Palestine, highlight this only too poignantly.

Resistance to the culture of capitalism has occurred from the beginning and continues to this day. The types of resistance have varied from open and armed rebellion against the state to passive and symbolic resistance to specific perceived causes of the problems inherent in capitalism. It is clear that, to this point, the resistance has not succeeded in appreciably changing capitalism into a more universally beneficial system nor in bringing it down. While some have asserted that the system we live under today is unsustainable and cannot last, it is apparent that it is not going to be changed or removed without a concerted effort by a united opposition of the diversity of people who see and experience the consequences of capitalism, some more directly than others.

This is not to say that, to date, all resistance has been futile. This is clearly not the case. The revolt over the privatization of water in Bolivia shows just how potent a rebellion from below can be, as do the movements in Argentina among the factory workers and neighborhood assemblies in Buenos Aires and the rural communities outside the city and the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas, Mexico. As well, the consistent resistance by communities against larger, powerful national forces has shown the resolve that communities can have in the face of immense odds against them.

However, with a few exceptions, resistance has been focussed on the symptoms of the culture of capitalism, such as privatization, low wages, poor working conditions, environmental destruction, etc., but very little resistance has attacked the culture of capitalism directly. Some have argued that fundamentalis religions appear to be the only viable alternative to the culture of capitalism as they are organized, influential, and active in their opposition. While it must be acknowledged that fundamentalisms do represent one possible alternative, it is highly debatable as to whether they are the only viable alternative, especially in light of the movements in Argentina and Chiapas. Further, I do not believe that fundamentalisms are viable alternatives as it has been shown that they are highly reactionary, hierarchical and controlling, not to mention exclusionary and discriminatory against those who do not follow the specific beliefs of the religion in control.

I believe a system is necessary that not only acknowledges the essential rights of everyone to equal access to food, shelter, water, health services, and education, but one which acknowledges the diversity of humanity and does not attempt to apply universalized or naturalized ideologies upon the world’s citizens. What it comes down to is that localized community systems capable of providing access to the above stated necessities, such as those which emerged following the economic crisis in Argentina, are the most viable systems as they devolve power away from large scale governance, which has proven itself to be incapable of providing for all and prone to corruption. Interconnected community based systems which grow their own food, manage their own resources according to the needs of the community, and provide their own education and health care services would be ideal, and have been shown to work in Argentina, and given the chance, could work just as well anywhere else in the world.

The word interconnected, as it appears in the previous sentence, is highly important. It must be recognized that the global connectivity which has occurred cannot, and should not, I believe, be undone. Communication between diverse discourses is essential to a working community system. The issue is the emphasis on economics and the competition for dominance thereof, currently in that communication. A balance needs to be struck between the economic, political, and social needs of the community as well as with the environment.

I would argue that global trade needs to be abolished due to the massive detrimental impact it has had on a huge portion of humanity and the environment. It is unnecessary, as well, since every inhabited region of the world is capable of supporting a population with locally produced food and other goods if properly managed and have done just that for thousands of years. I, however, am not arguing for regional isolationism. Global contact needs to be sustained in order to exchange ideas and information but also to allow for such things as the application of emergency aid in case of crisis within a community such as a natural disaster. Further highlighting the need for interconnectedness of communities is the fact that not every geographic region of the world is equally endowed with natural resources and that there may be times one one community or locality prospers while another falters. This can only be mitigated by a reciprocal system of distribution, not the system of debt patronage currently in place, as it is only if each community is aware of the other that they can be prepared to help one another in times of need.

This brings about the issue of cooperation between individuals and communities. The culture of capitalism has promoted the ideology of individualism, competition, and survival of the fittest. These are ideologies which are not compatible at all with the model I am proposing. For my model to work, the concepts of trust, cooperation, and reciprocity need to be relearned at the community level. Despite the assertions of economic globalists and neoliberalists entrenched in the promotion of the culture of capitalism, greed and competition are not natural amongst humans, they are learned concepts. I am not proposing that trust, cooperation, and reciprocity are natural, either. What I am asserting is that, if an ideology of competition and individualism can be learned in the relatively short time it has been, then an ideology of cooperation and trust can also be. For me, the choice is not a difficult one to make as to which ideology will benefit humanity, and the planet, the most. It may take time, but it can happen and possibly sooner than we may realize.

It all needs to start locally, and the realization needs to be made that this is a process which does not have an end result. It is a system which is malleable and open to diverse opinions and one that should encourage and incorporate debate as an essential aspect to its survival. It is a system which is completely reliant on active participation of each individual in the community and places an equal weight on the opinions of all. It must, after the necessities are provided for, follow the will of the majority in the community and cannot be ruled by any one individual or minority group, but by the people themselves. The key, though, is scale. All important decisions must be made by the community, for the community and must not overstep its own community level authority. Again, this is why intercommunity and intracommunity communication is so important.

An arrival at this type of system will not be easy. The system we exist in now allows for a select few to claim an exorbitantly large share of wealth and power, and they are not likely to simply let it go in a fit of altruism. Opposition to their power could very well incur dire consequences from imprisonment to bodily violence and so forth. In resisting this system of dominance, we must be assured in what it is we are seeking. Are we seeking to take power or to eliminate the control of power among the few? I believe that we should be seeking an equalization of power, not seeking to take it ourselves. We all have power, and that is what should be acknowledged. Do we succumb to those with coercive power-over us, or utilize our own power-to to create our own community based, caring societies?

The examples of how to implement such a system exist. As the people of Buenos Aires realized, all it takes is going out into your neighborhood and getting to know your neighbours. The people of Cochabamba, Bolivia, showed that in the face of deprivation, the people have the power, not the corporations. We need to take back the power we have allowed to be taken from us through acting together as communities with common goals and the power to act to address them. The world can no longer be run as poorly as it is. The culture of capitalism has taken too much and has not given back. It is time for reciprocity and it is up to us, every one of us, to ensure it occurs.

Guy Duke