Previously in Rhizome 12/14/14:
“Can you delineate on how it’s [Capitalism as I see it] control? What about other economic systems? Are they not control, also?
I think Capitalism is the most natural economical system there is, i.e., the most consistent with the natural world, as I pointed out before.”
“That said, I will break down your argument and address each issue point by point, and try to get as much as I can in the window I have. First of all:”
“Can you delineate on how it’s control?”
“Note the way that Capitalism has become a new kind of religion. Whereas it use to be:
“Pray hard and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Now it’s:
“Work hard and you too may enter the kingdom of success.”
And both are based on mythologies developed to sustain a system in which the individual must be willing to endure their own hardships for the sake of a higher principle that, ultimately, only serves the purposes of those who are gaining advantage from it.”
To zero in on the point above, Erik: the very idea that Capitalism must be presented as a kind of religion (the hegemony involved (suggests that it requires an uncritically accepted higher principle in order to sustain it (along with the advantages it means to its benefactors (even among those who for whom it is not working out so well. I would note here, Weber’s point in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (a book I need to tap into BTW (of how much of the discourse surrounding the economy tends to refer to a kind of watered down Calvinism: the notion that one’s standing with God is reflected in their material wealth. This basically serves the purpose of writing off any problem an individual might have with Capitalism as little more than a product of a moral failure on the part of the individual. This strikes me as a form of operationalism in the sense of Marcuse, but which is articulated by Layotard in The Postmodern Condition when he points to the contemporary tendency to win language games not by making a better argument, but rather by controlling the rules of the game. I would note, for instance, the popular tactic on FOX News of referring to anyone who takes issue with their economic situation as little more than “whining”. But, as I pointed out concerning the comparison between Capitalism and religion:
“And both are based on mythologies developed to sustain a system in which the individual must be willing to endure their own hardships for the sake of a higher principle that, ultimately, only serves the purposes of those who are gaining advantage from it.”
And the assumptions that FOX News work from (the Calvinistic mandate (are based on pure mythology which can be shown to be such when you look at the inherent logic or mechanics of Capitalism.
Now the whole thing is propped up on this utopian fantasy of a world where everyone just works a little harder and finds their place in the market. Then, of course, everything will work like a fine tuned machine in which everyone will be happy. But what this fails to recognize is that the success of any act we can engage in in Capitalism is always dependent on the failure of others to do the same. For instance, I took out 5 years from my studies to achieve several certifications that has landed me a job that situates me a lot better than a lot of other people. I can’t complain. But, at the same time, I recognize that the only reason that has value (market value (is because not everyone is willing to commit 9 months of their life to, for instance, study for a 3rd grade engineer’s license.
But let’s suppose, for a moment, that everyone suddenly got a wild hair up their ass and decided to study for a 3rd grade engineer’s license. Now how would that affect me? Well, given the dynamic of supply and demand, it would basically render my license the equivalent of a high school diploma or ass-wipe. It would devalue the effort involved and thereby lower the financial feedback I could expect from it.
Now granted, in the real world, this effect is deferred by the complexity of our economy and the many different kinds of expertise and certification required to keep it running. But that expertise is always only important and of value if it is demanded by multiple people. And you have to ask how many experts this world really needs. In other words, if everyone suddenly got ambitious and took the routes that FOX news suggests they should to solve their personal problems, all that would result is a lot of ambitious and certified people living in the same shit conditions many people do. An increase in supply (even with intellectual capital (does not lead to an increase in demand. It just lowers the value of all efforts.
Anyway, I’m hoping to push deeper into this with a model I’ve been playing w/ lately: the idea of a simple society that consists of several families that address simple needs: one of farmers, one of doctors, one of Carpenters and woodworkers, and one of iron workers. I just think it would be interesting to compare such a society to ours to see what insights we can get from it.