Has capitalism become the only ideology?

[soulman]

I have already been pretty clear I think

Capitalism = an economic system we currently live within.

Ideology = such things as anarchism, conservatism, liberalism, socialism, fascism etc etc etc - and of those some are supportive ideologies to capitalist economics etc and some aren't.


Do you argue for the sake of it?

Right so capitalism doesn't have an ideological component. It simply is.

Yes sometimes I do argue for the sake of it, passes the time like.

 

[exosculate]

Right so capitalism doesn't have an ideological component. It simply is.

Yes sometimes I do argue for the sake of it, passes the time like.

What do you mean it simply is, you need to read a bit more, you sound very ignorant of basic things like.

 

[toblerone3]

I'm not sure we can go much further because in my view capitalism is NOT an ideology.

My view is that capitalism is an ideology. The fact that it is a dominant ideology makes it appear as a system, holding "neutral" values.

Dominant ideologies appear as "neutral", holding to assumptions that are largely unchallenged. Meanwhile, all other ideologies that differ from the dominant ideology are seen as radical, no matter what the content of their actual vision may be.

 

[soulman]

What do you mean it simply is, you need to read a bit more, you sound very ignorant of basic things like.

It doesn't have an ideological component. That's what you're saying?

 

[soulman]

My view is that capitalism is an ideology. The fact that it is a dominant ideology makes it appear as a system, holding "neutral" values.

Dominant ideologies appear as "neutral", holding to assumptions that are largely unchallenged. Meanwhile, all other ideologies that differ from the dominant ideology are seen as radical, no matter what the content of their actual vision may be.

I would say it certainly has an ideological component, capitalist ideology. The idea that it doesn't, that capitalism is somehow ideologically free is bizarre. That's why I keep asking if that's what exosculate actually means!

 

[elbows]

Nothing lasts forever. If something becomes so powerful that it has no external adversaries capable of threatening its dominance, then eventually it will become its own worst enemy.

When capitalism or whatever you want to call the current system, no longer works for enough people, for example due to resource shortages, it will be replaced.

 

[soulman]

And this will be tried again. However, what has changed is that some crucial ideological props and fastenings (class deference, religious observance, legalism, "respect for authority") have been fatally eroded in many Western societies, particularly Britain - ironically in large part by the operation and needs of market capitalism itself! This may mean that the "necessary sacrifices" are much more strongly questioned and challenged - and we must not forget that this happened - to some extent - even when these props were much stronger in the two Twentieth Century World Wars.

Well I certainly hope that these "necessary sacrifices" are much more strongly questioned and challenged, but if we take for example the erosion of civil liberties and in particular habeas corpus, this doesn't seem to be the case. Instead what appears to be the case is that the state is rolling out more and more oppressive legislation while being faced with little or ineffectual opposition.

And look at how much questioning and resistance there is to this approach - particularly when measures are seen as disguised and dishonest revenue raising measures!

There may be questioning, but steadily these ideas are growing in credence within the middle class, those who can afford the lifestyle changes. You only have to look at the mainstream media to see this is the case. That leaves those who can't afford the "necessary" lifestyle changes. Potentially this can be seen as a positive, as an opportunity, but the reality is apathy rather than opposition. A 'don't give a fuck' attitude. (see below)

I think on the contrary that neo-conservativism can be seen as a last gasp attempt of defenders of their priveleged position who know that the ideological battle is increasingly seen as hogwash by many in the West, so they present the "defence of the West" as a "pragmatic battle" to defend a lesser evil - a lesser evil that some of them spent their earlier years attacking as Trots. That such unprincipled scum can rise to the top of the West and even lead and define it for a period is a signal of the ideological decay of the system and increasing desperation in the face of threats that the real ruling class cannot "personalise" into nasty terrorists or regimes that can be bombed to solve problems.

I agree that many people do see through the lies and propaganda. Most people now realise that the invasion of Iraq was about oil, not some humanitarian jaunt to save the Iraqi people from a nasty dictator. However this isn't translated in to action. Instead in my experience it's met with apathy. "Well we do need the oil anyway. I'm not giving up my car, or all my other goodies"

Well, the key idea is "economic organisations" of the working class. I do not foresee some carbon copy of early 20th Century syndicalism. We may see mass unions, assemblies, councils or other new forms developing - as a response to "particular circumstances" within a global "industrial based capitalist society". What is clear is that there will be resistance and self defence, and any close examination of China for example will show that the state has a major and increasing battle to prevent this resistance and self defence from flourishing there. It is the difference between this process and an international process of ideological/party formation that I was posing - the latter is not likely at the current time as it would be historical cart before a historical horse!

Well, no. We should make ourselves useful to the development of fighting organisations within, across and around workplaces, either at home or abroad, wherever the conditions are right. Political activity, whilst useful and necessary (if done properly!) should be secondary to this major task.

Well good luck with your economic organisation of the working class. As a benefit claimant I doubt I will be part of that organisation. It remains to be seen whether the working class choose to be part of your economic organisation, choose a form of self-organisation, or do fuck all to help themselves.

 

[exosculate]

It doesn't have an ideological component. That's what you're saying?

It has ideology underpinning it like liberalism, but it is not of itself an ideology.

Would you argue feudalism was an ideology? Or Roman slave society was an ideology? Or a the Greek city states of old were an ideology?

 

[exosculate]

My view is that capitalism is an ideology. The fact that it is a dominant ideology makes it appear as a system, holding "neutral" values.

Dominant ideologies appear as "neutral", holding to assumptions that are largely unchallenged. Meanwhile, all other ideologies that differ from the dominant ideology are seen as radical, no matter what the content of their actual vision may be.

You are talking nonsense. It's got nothing to do with arguing about capitalism being neutral or seen as normal. Capitalism is clearly underpinned by dominant ideologies like liberalism or more particularly neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism I accept is an ideology.

 

[soulman]

It has ideology underpinning it like liberalism, but it is not of itself an ideology.

Would you argue feudalism was an ideology? Or Roman slave society was an ideology? Or a the Greek city states of old were an ideology?

You are hard work. I'm arguing that ideology is part and parcel of any dominant political or economic regime. As such it becomes the dominant ideology. My opening post was to ask if capitalist ideology, the dominant ideology, has become the only option now available to people. Has capitalism become so all encompassing that other ideologies don't get a look in.

From your response it would appear it has, as you don't even see capitalism as having an ideological component.

 

[exosculate]

You are hard work. I'm arguing that ideology is part and parcel of any dominant political or economic regime. As such it becomes the dominant ideology. My opening post was to ask if capitalist ideology, the dominant ideology, has become the only option now available to people. Has capitalism become so all encompassing that other ideologies don't get a look in.

From your response it would appear it has, as you don't even see capitalism as having an ideological component.

Could you answer my basic questions please? And you say I'm hard work.

Additional question - do you think capitalism now is the same as the 1950s or 1850s for that matter?

 

[soulman]

Would you argue feudalism was an ideology? Or Roman slave society was an ideology? Or a the Greek city states of old were an ideology?

I would argue that there was a set of ideas, an ideology, that was introduced by those in power to try to ensure they remained in power. That would be the dominant ideology of the time.

 

[soulman]

Additional question - do you think capitalism now is the same as the 1950s or 1850s for that matter?

No of course I don't think it's the same. Capitalism like any other political or economic regime has to be fluid. It has to keep moving. That means that the dominant ideology also has to be fluid and able to recuperate any attacks on it.

 

[exosculate]

I would argue that there was a set of ideas, an ideology, that was introduced by those in power to try to ensure they remained in power. That would be the dominant ideology of the time.

You are either

a) Very young
b) Very stupid
c) Taking the piss

 

[exosculate]

No of course I don't think it's the same. Capitalism like any other political or economic regime has to be fluid. It has to keep moving. That means that the dominant ideology also has to be fluid and able to recuperate any attacks on it.

I refer to the answer I gave some moments ago.

I'm not continuing this nonsense with an idiot frankly.

 

[soulman]

I refer to the answer I gave some moments ago.

I'm not continuing this nonsense with an idiot frankly.

I gave you the opportunity to leave the thread earlier, without being personally abusive. Shame you didn't take it.

*waves

 

[toblerone3]

You are either

a) Very young
b) Very stupid
c) Taking the piss

This comment ^^ is patronising and stupid. Soulman made a perfectly valid point.

 

[exosculate]

This comment ^^ is patronising and stupid. Soulman made a perfectly valid point.

No he didn't and frankly you are as stupid as he is.

 

[Kanda]

Ignoring the above argument....

Ideally it'd be great to avoid capitalism, I'm not sure you can though. I think you can do your best to resist it whilst in the *system*.

It's here to stay, it's a fantasy to think it will be beaten.

Credit crunch for instance? Meh, the system has had worse and beaten it before....

 

[dennisr]

It's here to stay, it's a fantasy to think it will be beaten.

Credit crunch for instance? Meh, the system has had worse and beaten it before....

WW1 and WW@ were good examples of how capitalism stabilised

How about the state of the environment - how do you think it will 'beat' that?

 

[butchersapron]

Man Verses Nature: The Road To Victory

 

[ViolentPanda]

WW1 and WW@ were good examples of how capitalism stabilised.

Well, I'd say not so much "stabilised", as shifted to an alternative mode.

How about the state of the environment - how do you think it will 'beat' that?

It can't, and that galls corporate capitalism to the core.

 

[exosculate]

Well, I'd say not so much "stabilised", as shifted to an alternative mode.

It can't, and that galls corporate capitalism to the core.

Tell Al Gore that.

 

[exosculate]

WW1 and WW@ were good examples of how capitalism stabilised

How about the state of the environment - how do you think it will 'beat' that?

I would say the elite shifted to an ideology of centrally controlled planning. War socialism sort of.

 

[exosculate]

Man Verses Nature: The Road To Victory

What is that?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Tell Al Gore that.

Gore speaks of what he knows and understands, which is that capital must remain the only game in town. He may have a few environmental tics, but he's much more about remediation and amelioration of the post-exploitation environment than he's ever been about preservation of the pre-exploitation environment.

 

[trevhagl]

Is it now so enshrined within the psyche of people that they can see no alternative?

A valid point, thats why i asked "when did the working class turn right wing?"

How can anyone be so shallow as to change their politics to suit what the newspapers tell them?

I am actually not against capitalism as such, just the big business capitalism. I have no problem at all with market traders, corner shops, etc, but big business has got totally out of hand, they even control governments

 

[ViolentPanda]

A valid point, thats why i asked "when did the working class turn right wing?"

How can anyone be so shallow as to change their politics to suit what the newspapers tell them?

I am actually not against capitalism as such, just the big business capitalism. I have no problem at all with market traders, corner shops, etc, but big business has got totally out of hand, they even control governments

IMO the way you have to look at it is that most of us who were born in the UK spent our formative years being indoctrinated with "work hard at school so you can get a good job", "if you don't do well you'll end up being a roadsweeper" and all that crap, so by the time you're ready for the education market, you're already primed with ideas about your self-worth being tied to your earnings (in other words to your ability to consume), and what the media does is reinforce that indoctrination to the point that it became the dominant discourse. So it's not so much that people change their politics to suit what the media tells them, more that they're primed to be more susceptible to accepting what the media tell them, and that's not just w/c folk I'm talking about, it's every social class.

 

[exosculate]

IMO the way you have to look at it is that most of us who were born in the UK spent our formative years being indoctrinated with "work hard at school so you can get a good job", "if you don't do well you'll end up being a roadsweeper" and all that crap, so by the time you're ready for the education market, you're already primed with ideas about your self-worth being tied to your earnings (in other words to your ability to consume), and what the media does is reinforce that indoctrination to the point that it became the dominant discourse. So it's not so much that people change their politics to suit what the media tells them, more that they're primed to be more susceptible to accepting what the media tell them, and that's not just w/c folk I'm talking about, it's every social class.

Agreed. The fact that people don't get this, is the real problem. When challenged many people have trouble turning their world view on the head because they cannot cope with the idea that they have been bludgeoned with propaganda since the day they were born which may have then influenced their free thinking.

 

[soulman]

For some reason I missed this reply you posted earlier in the thread. Apologies if it throws the thread out of kilter a bit but I think you make some really good points here.

Variants of capitalist ideology (I still see "belief" as being a more accurate description than "ideology") are ingrained, but fortunately some people don't wish to/can't accept their primacy. Most usually it's those who benefit least who struggle against it the most.

I understand why you say belief, but I prefer the word ideology because, for me at least, it helps to explain that it's something that is imposed.

Unless some brave capitalist sponsors matter conversion research (otherwise known as "alchemy" ), then I believe that capitalism will indeed be the cause of it's own demise. I'm not saying we'll revert to a barter economy, but that mass-production, at current scales, will no longer exist.

I agree with you on this. I also agree with parts of Greenman's analysis, especially the points about why the state is insistent on introducing ID cards, the databases, and ever more intrusive forms of surveillance.

Of the mass-production sort, anyway. I still see room for "cottage industry"-scale industrial activity, and possibly the fulfillment of Lester Bangs's (hilarious in the 1970s) barbiturate dream of people mining old landfill sites for metals to re-smelt etc.

I wonder if the skills needed for this have been lost, particularly to the younger generations who have grown up in the 'throwaway' society the capitalists have created.