The Inertia of the Status Quo

It is often difficult to explain the existence of complex institutional structures, constituted by the collected (not collective) action of “average” people with varying beliefs and goals, when one rules out the implausible case of a small group of elites secretly controlling everything. When one gets to the heart of any organization or industry, one can always find relations of exploitation that support an overarching structure of domination. If this overarching structure is not being coordinated from above, how can it possibly exist?

The cornerstone of effective social analysis, particularly if one truly follows along historical materialist lines, is the understanding that people employ already-existing realities – relationships, ideologies, material structures – to achieve their goals. We are always constrained in the present by the arrangements that have emerged through prior human activity. Thus, current social realities can always be explained to some extent by historical accident. The key is in understanding how historical accident articulates with particular interests and strategies of domination. Several different types of articulation seem plausible – the last one being the most insidious:

Opportunism
Occasionally, authentically new social-material networks are created (with existing material and social resources) in an effort to address certain problems. Say, for example, members of a community want to keep their youth out of trouble and notice that children do not get any kind of after-school support or supervision. So they pull together some resources and start an after-school youth program, operating out of a local library (already-existing resource). The people who are involved may have varying degrees of self-interest (in our example, a woman agrees to direct the program on a volunteer basis because it looks great on her resume), but are all ultimately supporting the original goal. Eventually, someone spots an opportunity for profit, or a business discovers a way to use the network to shift burdens onto the community or to create a new market or to otherwise serve its own interests. Someone comes along and tells the youth program organizers that they know how to raise a lot of money to get them their own building and supplies. Now businesses are donating items with their company logo strategically displayed. All the youth programs needs to do in return is promote messages about personal responsibility and the merits of competition. Then the businesses, who are looking for some way to reduce their tax burderns, realize that, even if all the money they contribute is not spent, they still receive tax exemptions for their donations; so they quietly place their friends in leadership positions and ensure that only a small percentage of their generous contributions are actually spent on anything. Finally, other people realize that the program can be replicated in other locations, and politicians decide to reduce funding for schools on the premise that some of the resources previously provided by the school system can now be provisioned through these private youth programs (and it’s a win for these politicians who are trying to capitalize on the anti-public school sentiments of their base).

Eventually, the after-school youth program becomes an enduring social institution that occupies its own niche, but nevertheless serves other political and economic purposes. The idea was not formulated in some smokey room by a secret ruling class cabal, yet in the end, powerful interests found a way to use it to their own advantage.

Ideological Conformity
Many people’s social awareness is so clouded by hegemonic assumptions that they may inadvertently draw upon and enhance existing power relationships as a direct consequence of the ideologies that they employ. For example, going back to the youth center: say that they haven’t yet sought corporate sponsorship, and they are trying to delineate an educational vision for their program. It may be in the best interest of the youth to receive political/historical education that will allow them to challenge structures of inequality that oppress them. Yet, the directors of the program have bought into the idea that people can raise themselves out of poverty if they just work hard enough. They might decide, totally on their own, without any outside pressure, to use their program to instill values of self-discipline, goal-setting, and financial responsibility. This program now reinforces one of the most powerful ideologies that justifies an inequitable social order – but not through any manipulation by corporate or political elites, simply through the work of ordinary people.

The discourses and ideologies that, through the speed and extent of their circulation, are always close at hand, are the very the very ones that get taken up and reproduced most easily - thus intensifying their circulation (vicious cycle).

Inertia
This, perhaps, may be one of the most powerful, yet frequently overlooked, forces that creates stability in an unjust system. People may have good intentions, but they do not want to think critically about how their own lifestyles and self interests contribute to the global and domestic suffering of which they are dimly aware. People who have built careers in particular industries – like health care or retirement, for example – like to take pride in the benefits they are providing to vulnerable populations, and so they view their role in society, and the inner mechanics of their industries, in simplistic terms (e.g. “I’m helping sick people get healthy again” or “I’m helping middle class America save for retirement”). Furthermore, because their careers sustain them both financially and socially (status), any potential changes to the institutional environment that might, possibly, threaten their careers are resisted. So they band together in industry associations to lobby and oppose regulations that seek to reform their industries. They will not acknowledge the reality that they are really exploiting already vulnerable people, and participating in the profiteering of hospital, insurance, and pharmaceutical executives (health care) or the financial services industry (retirement).

Lifestyle is just as important as career. The middle and upper classes of industrialized societies have so thoroughly absorbed the Ideology of Progress (which assures them that material comforts are a natural outcomes of human progress, not products of exploitative relationships) and so enjoy their luxuries (which they cannot even see as luxuries) that they are utterly resistant to lifestyle changes. At most, they may shop at Whole Foods (corporation) or buy energy-efficient light bulbs – maybe even a hybrid vehicle. The few people who go so far as to grow their own food, forego the latest technology, or live somewhat “off the grid” are perceived as crazy fringe radicals (the type of people who might have Marxist blogs...?). Yet, it is these lifestyles that sustain the global capitalist system – the market is crucial. An equitable social order would preclude any such extravagance. As long as the relatively well-off are unwilling to change their consumption patterns, social change will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.

In sum, then, it is obvious that powerful economic and political interests are able to co-opt existing structures and exacerbate inequality. Yet ordinary people also contribute in a very powerful way: through their inability to challenge hegemonic ideas, jeopardize their careers, or change their lifestyles.

The Feminization of Consumption

It recently struck me that the act of consumption is considered to be inherently feminine. I mean, obviously the archetypal woman loves going to the mall and shopping. But I started to notice how, in movies and tv shows and advertisements, men don't even know how to shop. They don't need to buy things. They are content with what they have. Unless Father's Day is approaching, in which case they need new tools. But if they need to pick out a ring or something, god help them.

I started to think more about this as I viewed this advertisement. In a subtle way, the ad implies that knowing how to shop well is a feminine trait.

This idea may have germinated in the post-WW2 era, when the necessities of capitalist expansion brought women more deeply into the productive and consumptive spheres. Once women started to work outside of the home (providing their conveniently cheap labor) they provided a ready market for time-saving domestic devices (washing machines, microwaves, etc.). This was a boon to the economy.

It seems that this felicitous trend was further exploited by capitalist forces, which have insisted that women need to be beautiful and well-dressed to be successful. So women spend their paychecks on tanning, hair dye, mani/pedis, jewelry, handbags, shoes, make-up, age-defying moisturizers, and on and on.

Of course, as the natural homemakers and interior designers, women have a knack for picking out the kitchenware, the decor, the linens, and the furniture. And, when kids are involved, they are the most concerned about choosing the right baby formulas, diapers, toys, food, and clothes.

So it appears that capitalist interests have been able to use gender to drive consumption. They helped to create the narrative that women have a lot of needs (pertaining to their outward appearance and domestic well-being). And then women, who already, as a group, make less money than men, are supposed to sustain the levels of consumption required by the capitalist system.

Elderly People are Expensive

A few posts ago (Population and Contraception, Part 2) I brought up the idea that capitalism/industrialization drastically increases the cost of raising a child. That would be one instance of a more general principle, which I have already mentioned, that capitalism increases the cost of the base requisites of living. For people of the underdeveloped Majority World, this means that the effects of being paid less than the value of their labor are greatly magnified. For those in the industrialized core, where consumption is very much more pronounced, it means that people can hardly afford to provide for much more than the costs of their own individual existence (stay tuned for upcoming post on individualism). Not only does this affect attitudes toward children, but it also shapes the relationship between the working generation and the elderly.

Simply put, most people cannot bear all of the costs of caring for their elderly relatives. In non-capitalist societies, this is not the case, and in fact, elderly folks are not responsible for their own provisioning. In industrialized societies, on the other hand, particularly to the extent that the more employer-based pension system has eroded in favor of plans that require contributions from employees (more on this in the next couple posts), individuals are responsible for accumulating the resources for their own retirement in advance. Where individuals cannot provide for themselves, they have recourse to public funds via social security, medicare, and so forth. These government services diffuse the costs incurred by elderly people in a way that makes it more manageable at the individual level.

However, what this means is that, as individual and public resources dry up, industrial societies are faced with their own inability to bear the costs of their elderly population.

Of course, I am not saying anything particularly new or earth-shattering. Yet, even as this predicament is publicly discussed, and with great concern, there is no acknowledgement that the whole situation is, in fact, caused by the inherent principles of capitalism. It is capitalism that makes elderly people too expensive to care for.

Holidays and Capitalism

From my limited study of the history of feast days and fetes, I can surmise that such occasions used to consist mainly of: going to church, dressing nicely, and eating a large meal. Perhaps some drinking and merrymaking, and maybe even some specific rituals. Holidays can serve a variety of purposes, and in the early history of the U.S. they primarily functioned as a vehicle for nationalist propoganda (and thus covertly supported the agenda of the federalists, who represented one of the two main political parties at the time). Accordingly, speeches and prayers pervaded with nationalist sentiments were one of the most salient characteristics of these events.

Now, in the U.S. major holidays have transformed into seasons and they serve capitalist, rather than political, ends (as if the two can really be distinguished). People talk about "Hallmark holidays" (holidays that were supposedly created by greeting card companies just so they could sell more cards), but this understates the reach of capitalism into our ritual life.

Each holiday comes with its own set of products that people are expected to buy: special decorations, food, and candy, for example. Halloween also necessitates costumes, pumpkins, and fun-size candybars; Easter: baskets, egg-decorating kits, stuffed bunnies; 4th of July: American flags, fireworks, sparklers, patriotic gear; Valentine's day: boxes of valentines, candy hearts, teddy bears. The list goes on. Companies create special holiday-season-themed products to increase sales, like pumpkin spice lattes and shamrock shakes.

Christmas, of course, is the biggest cash cow. It is a capitalist's best friend. First, a number of expensive decorations are required: at the very least, christmas trees, ornaments, lights, wreaths, garlands, stockings, candles, and, for the religiously inclined, advent calendars and nativity scenes. Then, there are all the traditional Christmas treats: candy canes, gingerbread, sugar cookies, egg nog, christmas-themed candybars, etc. And of course there are the movies, tv specials, and music (you can make some good money off a Christmas album!). Most importantly, though, is the tradition of buying gifts for friends and family. From what I can tell (especially talking to people of my parents' generation) both the variety of the decorations and holiday-themed goodies, as well as the expectations for gift-giving (from perhaps one or two toys per child to hundreds of dollars per child), has increased at an exponential pace. Add to this the fact that the Christmas season keeps extending itself further back into the fall (when I was young Christmas season did not start until after Thanksgiving - end of November; now it begins on November 1, the day after Halloween), and it is apparent the stark rate at which Christmas-related consumption has been increasing throughout the decades.

In fact, a lot of U.S.-based capitalist interests have come to absolutely depend on Christmas. It is a sort of crutch, to guarantee sales even in a sluggish economy.

This is yet another manifestation of the crisis of overproduction in which we now find ourselves. Capitalists struggle to get more from what they invest in labor, as well as (somewhat contradictorily) find ways to generate demand: from enormous investments in adevertising, coupons, and specials, to the cultivation of fads and obsolescence. The promotion of holiday-themed consumption is another way in which demand is manufactured against the general momentum of economic contraction.

I am a bit curious to what extent American holiday trends have been reproduced internationally. I realize that Americans tend to be more fanatical about holidays than, say, Europeans, but I have a feeling that the general forces of capitalism may be creating similar sorts of circumstances in other parts of the world.

I must end, however, with a confession. Capitalist ploy or not, I wholeheartedly buy into (literally) the holiday phenomenon. In some sense I find it grotesque, but I also love me some holiday-themed candy and decorations.

Capitalism is Inherently Unstable

One of Marx's most fundamental arguments is that capitalism is characterized by a number of inherent contradictions. Such as:

1.  Increasing investment in technology reduces the rate of accumulation of surplus value (the amount of human labor in excess of the wages actually paid), and hence, profit.  This is because technology reduces the proportion of human labor embedded in each commodity. Also, as technology develops, production cycles become ever more rapid. This means that there is a greater likelihood that any given technology will become competitively obsolete before the capitalist is able to recoup the cost of the investment (let alone profit from it).

2.  The profit motive seeks to lower wages and expand demand. In other words, workers have less purchasing power, but are expected to buy more.

As a result of these factors, capitalism is subject to continuous cycles of expansion and contraction.  Crises are inevitable.

In addition, for any person who wishes to start a capitalist enterprise, the risks and costs of initial investment become more prohibitive as capitalism develops, for the following reasons:

• the shortening cycles of production mentioned above
• globally organized vertical integration (to be most efficient, you must have all stages of the production process under your control)
• following from the quickening pace of production cycles, the increasing importance of Research & Development (constantly finding new ways to out-do competitors) also raises the investment costs and potential risks (unfruitful research)

Because of the heightened difficulties of realizing surplus value and maintaining profitability, capitalist interests resort to two ultimately self-destructive strategies:  limiting competition and trying to manufacture demand (e.g. Keynesianism). According to Marx, the results of these dynamics are:

1.  Increasing centralization of capital (monopolies, huge corporate conglomerates)

2.  Expanding state interventions (subsidies, credit expansion, inflation)

3.  Increasing personal, public, and private indebtedness (since personal and public "deficit spending" is encouraged in order to prop up demand)

State interventions and debt-fueled booms (bubbles) can only slow down the decline of capitalist accumulation for so long.

Ultimately, capitalism is difficult to sustain because, while the total value (corresponding to the total number of hours of labor available) remains fixed, an increasingly small number of people are enabled to draw upon a larger proportion of the pool, thus straining the entire system.  If the pool is fixed there must be limits to the accumulation of wealth, while capitalist accumulation constantly strives to push beyond these limits. Capitalists try to sustain their profits in the face of this reality by driving unnecessary consumption and massive indebtedness:  obviously not a viable solution in the long run.

Thus, capitalism is ultimately unsustainable.