Capitalist Ideology in Anti-Capitalist Politics

Print ShareThis Email to a Friend

by: Jean Paul Holmes October 6 2010 tags: capitalism, theory, marxism, consumerism

The ideology of the ruling class so permeates our capitalist society that many anticapitalist activists often accidentally reference that ideology's set of theoretical assumptions when planning their own actions. Karl Marx observed the power of the ruling class to control our mode of thought, or method of thinking, in his work The German Ideology. He wrote: "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas." This control over the individuals' mode of thought is not to be understood simply as control over what an individual thinks of specific issues, such as one's opinion of the "Ground Zero Mosque," or even something as important as the wars in the Middle East. It also refers to the total set of assumptions a person takes-for-granted when judging this

world around him/her, and which presents him/her with what appears to be the only positions available when other positions, or opinions, are indeed possible if only he/she were to have knowledge of this other set of assumptions. The set of assumptions present in each individual may vary, but not to such a degree that it is impossible for social scientists, such as sociologists and marketers, to identify trends in social thought and make approximate predictions based on them. Marx, often credited as being one of the first sociologists, refers to the sum of an individual's assumptions as his/her consciousness. When this consciousness is based on an ideology formulated by a group outside of the individuals' influence, putting them in a position in which they are essentially in another's control, Marx states that they are in a state of false consciousness. Capitalism, as a system defined by class antagonisms, perpetuates false consciousness among the entire subordinate class. Marx's The German Ideology then focuses on the philosophy of Max Stirner, a specific philosopher present in Marx's time whom Marx identified as perpetuating false consciousness. Stirner, an idealist anarchist, did not observe the power of ideology, ignoring material conditions on which it is based, and erroneously postulated that the class problem capitalism presents could be done away with by simply encouraging individuals to adopt a new principles. Marx rightly pointed out that, as consciousness follows ideology and ideology is so controlled by the ruling class, a critical amount of real, material organization to produce a new consciousness would have to come into the control of the working class itself before the majority of that class could adopt a consciousness which would make possible a revolution that would lead to a classless society. Most modern anarchists have cast aside the views of Stirner, as his theoretical predecessors adopted materialist views that recognize individuals' socialization. Regardless, the views of many in contemporary anarchist, and socialist, organizations are still today influenced by capitalist ideology's false consciousness. In the United States, much of this can be blamed on the capitalists' suppression of the peoples' movements of the 1960s. As discussed in Adam Curtis's documentary film series "The Century of the Self," many active in the politically anti-capitalist organizations of that time were demoralized when the oppression of the peoples' movement in 1968 unveiled the complexity of revolutionary action. This caused many of the activists to turn inward, to become preoccupied with new forms of spirituality, and to turn political action into something resembling an individual morality. Simultaneously, political policy experts and corporate marketers were able to, in varying degrees, adapt to what had become but cultural values among the younger generation. It became possible to be rebellious in one's style, and to represent one's values in lifestyles represented by the purchasing of certain products or the mimicking of certain subcultures present in capitalism. Even those who remained politically conscious became influenced by this change, which continues to confound many leftists today. Disconnected from theory, leftists have started to judge actions in and of themselves. Radicals are tempted to judge their

actions based on principles, often resembling a moral system, rather than a timeless, theoretical method. The contemporary theorist Slavoj Zizek commented on this phenomenon when we said, in effect, that he was surprised to find many in the anti-war movement of 2003 to be more interested in taking a stand against the war "to save their beautiful souls," deriving guidance from a personal moral idea of their own, more so than a set of theoretical assumptions that saw the war as an extension of a soon-to-be commonly experienced oppression. The problem with relying on this method to guide one in political action lies not so much in the fact that it has represented itself in a moral form, but that it individuates political action so that it becomes nothing more than a reaction to the actions of capitalism, and further allows the individual to be satisfied with his/her personal actions rather than broadly-felt results. The best example of this can be found within the anti-consumerism idea. Anti-consumerism has a noble goal, encouraging people to look beyond the spectacle marketers build around products and focus on the way in which those products actually come into being. The problem with the current anti-consumerism movement is that it draws from assumptions rooted in false-consciousness, tending to place responsibility for corporate action on individual consumers. The movement against consumerism encourages people simply to not buy products which are produced in ways that harm the environment or violate workers rights. The idea is similar to that which drives boycotts. However, the anti-consumerism movement wants not to influence companies to change specific business practices, but to go so far as to defy practices that are essential to remaining competitive in capitalism. What the movement does not realize is that it is relying on the capitalist concept that the consumer is the determining source of capitalism's features. Popularized by the Austrian School of economics, the notion is that one dollar equals one vote, and that the capitalist economic system is a democracy. This notion is terribly flawed, as it is immediately apparent that some people have far more dollar votes than others. To further complicate the matter, the cheapest commodities also tend to be those produced by the largest, most economically efficient firms. One ends up blaming the very victims of globalization, the poor and all those whose oppressions intersect with poverty, for dependence on commodities produced by such exploitative companies. In response to people's concerns with what they consume, even Starbucks offers a "fairtrade" coffee among its "free-trade" selection now. If one protests using capitalist ideology as a basis, Starbucks can conveniently place blame for their exploitative practices on all those who do not buy their fair-trade coffee, since "the consumer holds the power." Countered by the dominant ideology again and again, individual activists start to lose hope. Many in the anti-consumerism movement, and anti-globalization movement in general, have become fascinated with the concept of living "off the grid." The end result of political action being conceived of as something defined by personal life decisions convinces the individual that removing themselves from the capitalist system is the best

course of action. In a society defined by capitalist ideology, the individual removes themselves from society. The capitalist class could be no happier. To challenge capitalism requires more than personal conviction. It requires real, mass action. It requires class consciousness. Class consciousness is not only the knowledge of how capitalism splits people into haves and have-nots, but the actual realization of the fact that one is in a class with other people. Marx focuses on this in this early works, where he calls for the end of discrimination and a realization that all people, regardless of race, nationality, sex, gender and economic class, ought to be self-determining. Lenin expounds on this idea in his book What Is To Be Done?, declaring that Communists are to not to merely fight for the aid of the workers in the economic field, but to lead to their emancipation, along with the emancipation of minority groups experiencing ethnic discrimination, and those who, in his time, were affected by the criminalization of youth associations. All oppressed people are included in the what Marxists call the proletariat, distinguished from the capitalist class by the ways in which they lack power and by their common claim to self-determination. Once this is understood, anti-capitalist politics are redefined. Politics is recognized as more than just the sum of acts of performed by individuals, but as something that make individuals accountable to their class. If one does not recognize class, and the importance of mass action, it is tempting to view the revolutionary process as nothing more than a series of proclamations, and do little more than seek to capitalize on the spontaneous uprisings of the oppressed. The movement is isolated, anti-capitalist sentiment ebs and flows, and "leaders" preach among whatever choir exists at any given time. As real, whole class consciousness goes unrecognized, strategy takes backstage to tactics, and opportunities to build an anticapitalist movement are squandered. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx explains that this type of anti-capitalist action is the result of revolutionaries still relying on the capitalist ideology, and labels the activists engaged in such actions as petty-bourgeois revolutionaries. The proletariat forms stronger bonds, but does not recognize itself. Expanding on this idea, Lenin distinguished between what he called "doctrinaire" Marxists and "orthodox" Marxists in a pamphlet titled Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder. Lenin criticized political movements of the doctrinaire type, who used the Marxist label but who represented Marxism as a set of principles rather than a guiding theory. This led such parties to shun all reform, to shirk responsibility for their communities by refusing to participate in politics (including electoral work) when such engagement would have yielded positive results for the oppressed, and to damage their own movement by refusing to build toward socialism in steps that would have expanded democratic power. As emancipation is the goal of those seeking the overthrow of capitalism, the people themselves must be the guide of political action. At the end of Marx and Engels'

Communist manifesto it is written that Communist parties are not to be separate from the proletariat, but are to be active within in the proletariat, guiding while, at the same time, representing the class at whatever stage of struggle they are in. Lenin, repeated this sentiment when he countered doctrinaire reluctance to work in reactionary trade unions. He wrote that it was even more importance for Communists to work among those still harboring petty chauvinisms, because that is the only way such chauvinisms can be countered and eradicated. In our current situation, we in the anti-capitalist movement cannot count on the mere dissemination of our ideas to bring about change. The overwhelming majority of socialization in our society results from individuals' involvement in the consumption of ideologically capitalist media, in capitalist work places, in capitalist defined recreationally activity, etc. Our ideas have to be linked with action, and we must engage in struggles which afford us the opportunity to mingle with others in our class the proletariat. Practical action to build our influence must be undertaken, and if popular reforms lead to our increased influence, we must unabashedly use reform to further class consciousness. Theory is what allows for strategy, and tactics one's actions must adapt with regard to the stage of struggle the people themselves are engaged in in any given time and place. As ideology is the result of socialization, and the means of any form of production, exchange, and other social organization performs socialization and builds ideology, we must not retreat from our current society, scared or repulsed by its current manifestation, but engage it with a transformative theory drawn from our class experience.