Capitalism and Culture: Dollar Signs, Opportunity, And Freak Shows
posted by Lightfiend | April 21, 2010
- Login or register to post comments
- Print this page
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
Capitalism is a great economic institution for all kinds of rebels, freaks, extremists, stooges, and jackasses. As long as you can make yourself marketable, you can become a self-made man; and what is more marketable than being the scum of the Earth, the absolute lowest of the low, the deformed, the crippled, the sick, the demented, the senseless? What are the advantages and disadvantages to this laissez-faire approach to society? Why are the freaks and rebels a good sign of a healthy culture?
Censorship!
In the context of art, culture, and people's individual tastes, a laissez-faire (hands off!) society shouldn't be allowed to censor any form of self-expression. The only exception in which government intervention should be allowed is if that form of expression inhibits someone's rights, meaning: the taking of one's life, the taking of one's property, physical harassment and abuse, or fraud.
Other than those exceptions, people's sensitive whims are not a righteous method of choice between who or what should be censored. A laissez-faire society recognizes these rights. It gives all walks of life a chance to prosper in their own way. In this sense, capitalism celebrates the diversity of men and women.
How Much $$$ Is Your Soul?
On the other hand people love pointing out that capitalism can be exploitative. The profit incentive makes people change or sacrifice their art for the sake of business or money. How often do you hear others say how a particular band or artist "sold out?" We always think people are doing things solely for the money, and maybe sometimes they are.
However, who are we to judge? Most of us probably do something "just for the money"... because that is just a part of living. We can't expect others to simply take care of us from cradle-to-grave; instead, we need to prove our worth to society or become self-sufficient. It may sound crude or shallow, but this is what people naturally expect from others. "If you don't pull some sort of load, you don't get to eat with us." This idea existed long before capitalism, and it doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.
So instead of framing capitalism as a system that makes people sell their souls, we should think of it as a system that gives people the most free choice on how they want to make a living. The right to profit from one's talents and quirks is a big component of what makes a culture thrive.
Free Choice or Freak Show?
I've come to terms that the degree to which a culture thrives must therefore be the degree to which its people are able to exercise freedom. The more we are encouraged to deviate from cultural norms, to find our own individual voice, the greater our ability to innovate and evolve as a society. Respective to art, music, and entertainment, I think today represents some of the most exciting times in the history of mankind.
Reflect for a moment on just how laissez-faire and yet artistically explosive the internet is. There is so much quality, so much opportunity, and yet so much shit - but that is just the nature of diversity. Many have used the internet to advertise their particular style of music or photography or writing, and our culture has thrived because of it! There is something for everyone now.
And this kind of freedom also allows for the occasional freak show: think "2 Girls 1 Cup," DarwinAwards.com, Rotten.com, 4chan, ChatRoulette, ...if you have ever used the internet then you know the kind of messed up stuff that is out there.
And what about the modern day circus acts we see on MTV with shows like Jackass, Wild Boys, Nitro Circus, and Jersey Shore? Reality TV is one of the best examples of Andy Warhol's quote, "In the future, everyone will have their 15 minutes of fame."
But although some may see this all as a sign of a dying culture, I see it as a sign of an open and thriving one. One that is curious, tolerant, always changing, celebrates diversity, and is truly representative of a free society. The crazier it gets, the more free we must be...
Melting Pot or Salad Bowl?
A melting pot is a metaphor for when a heterogeneous society becomes more homogeneous; in other words, people are expected to conform to one "common culture." On the contrary, a salad bowl is when a heterogeneous society mixes together but still each part remains distinct.
I think our society is neither. It is constantly borrowing and being influenced by other ideas, but this synthesis creates new elements, not keeping the old parts separate nor mixing them together as a cohesive whole. We are all individuals influencing our world through that process of self-discovery. This is why I think we should all embrace (or at the very least tolerate) everyone's unique path.
Comments
Great thoughts
— Apr 21, 2010
"But although some may see this all as a sign of a dying culture, I see it as a sign of an open and thriving one. One that is curious, tolerant, always changing, celebrates diversity, and is truly representative of a free society. The crazier it gets, the more free we must be..."
I really like this. It's very pessimistic to think that just because the financial and political world is stacked against us an rigged by fraud, that all of our culture is a stinking mess. Just because Wall Street is a sham, doesn't necessarily mean that everything being produced or said right now is worthless. So much good thought and good energy is out there! Being open to that is important, I think.
In terms of capitalism and "free trade" I agree with the points you're making in principle, but the problem is that our system has been rigged and distorted by debt and inflation and monopolies that make it no longer a "fair system of trade" based on individual value or contribution, but a system where hoops are created for you to jump through in order to keep some at the top and others at the bottom. It's a natural side effect of a free market system, and it's outdated.
A society whose system of exchange truly benefitted the whole society would see teachers and nurses making more than football players and actors. "Value" is relative and in our culture, we place value on entertainment more than education, health, or social structures. And because of this choice, we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of. I think there are better alternatives to a debt-based monetary system. We'll see how quickly the populace begins to agree. :)
Thanks, Lightfiend
Capitalism
— Apr 21, 2010
"In terms of capitalism and "free trade" I agree with the points you're making in principle, but the problem is that our system has been rigged and distorted by debt and inflation and monopolies that make it no longer a "fair system of trade" based on individual value or contribution, but a system where hoops are created for you to jump through in order to keep some at the top and others at the bottom. It's a natural side effect of a free market system, and it's outdated."
Our system of debt and inflation is government induced; it is not at all representative of a free market. Our monetary system is in shambles precisely because it is NOT a product of free enterprise. If you're interested, I recommend Murray Rothbard's book "What Has Government Done To Our Money?"
"A society whose system of exchange truly benefitted the whole society would see teachers and nurses making more than football players and actors."
That is the diamond-water paradox. That is like saying "shouldn't water be more expensive than diamonds simply because it is more necessary for our survial (or more objectively "valuable" to society as a whole)"? Part of the reason we see this apparent paradox is because water is everywhere and diamonds are rare. Prices are based on supply and demand. It has nothing to do with society valuing football over education, or diamonds over water.
" 'Value' is relative and in our culture, we place value on entertainment more than education, health, or social structures."
Value is always and everywhere relative and subjective. Whenever you are speaking of value you are speaking of value IN RELATION to SOMEONE. Strictly speaking (and this is an especially important economic distinction) there is no such thing as a society "placing values." Only individual, thinking minds hold values. While it is sometimes useful to think of society as a collective mind, society isn't a being that makes economic decisions, only individuals.
"I think there are better alternatives to a debt-based monetary system."
There are. A gold standard or any commodity-based money would be a huge improvement. This way you can't expand credit without real savings. Expanding credit artificially (easy money) creates inflation and discoordination throughout the market. It's a complex process, but look up the Austrian Theory Of The Business Cycle. I am taking a class on it right now.
The "debt-based monetary system" we have now is a complete concoction of government. It wouldn't exist in a free market.
I see a lot of the rhetoric
— Apr 21, 2010
I see a lot of the rhetoric of capitalism peppered throughout your post here, and I think it's important that we acknowledge and challenge this myth of capitalism (hands-off or otherwise) being some sort of vehicle for freedom and liberation.
Nowhere do I see you mention the issue of property (capital), or acknowledge that the notion of legitimate rights to property by individuals is perverted in this mythos into the notion that ownership of property entitles a person to profit from the labor of others.
Capitalism gives freedom to those who own property, or who facilitate in the making of profit. Those are the people who have a choice in the way that they make a living. The people who don't have the privilege of property have significantly fewer choices.
You also don't acknowledge the role of spectacle in society, especially a capitalist society. Instead you frame it as some sort of choice for people with talents or quirks (ie. deformities) to participate in.
Capitalism existed long before it was called capitalism. Really it's just an updated philosophy of entitlement that pays lip service to the individual. I think we need to challenge the myth of capitalism=freedom at every turn.
Not utopia
— Apr 22, 2010
Laissez-faire capitalism is certainly not a utopia. It will not rid the world of all the evils of humanity. But it is a spontaneous and self-evolving system, one that respects individual rights, and gives the poor the best chance to climb out of the depths of poverty.
It doesn't just give freedom to those who own property, it gives freedom to anyone who is willing to work for it. The Industrial Revolution gave thousands if not millions of people a chance to survive in a climate that would've otherwise left these people dead under a socialist or communist system. This was a GOLDEN AGE compared to the surrounding world during this time. It is no accident that America became so wealthy during this time and raised the standard of living for everyone.
As to the role of the spectacle, yes, there can be and certainly has been exploitation of workers (and in this case: circus freaks). In fact, this article was partly influenced by David Lynch's "The Elephant Man." With that being said, abuse and slavery is not coherent in a capitalist system. A capitalist system MUST respect others free choice in order for it to be capitalism, otherwise it doesn't protect individual rights (to life, liberty and property).
Therefore, a man must be allowed to take his labor somewhere else if he or she so chooses. And equally, any property he or she earns through voluntary exchange is rightfully his or hers. This is the premise of capitalism.
Without it, in a system of socialism, communism, fascism or even a mixed economy, men are owned by other men. They are called upon to serve the so-called "best interests" of others...it is no different than a tribe, where a man's whole life is under scrutiny of his neighbors. In a true laissez-faire society, capitalism sets men free from men. This can be the only goal of a free and rational society. It is the only system known to man that is absent of government intervention in the private economic decisions of the individual.
Now you may bring up examples of small socialist communities that work well, but they work well because its members voluntarily choose to be there. In this sense, these communities are no way opposed to a laissez-faire society. Capitalism and socialism can co-exist, as long as the rights of individuals are respected. State socialism, as it is practiced today in both America and Europe, is not a system that respects these rights. It is coerced onto the people through regulation, taxation, and wage controls. Not only is it immoral, but it stifles economic prosperity and makes society as a whole poorer.
Captialism = Conflict
— Apr 23, 2010
I'm glad you're a strong supporter of free trade and capitalism, brother, but you're leaving out one very important element. The same element, in fact, that was left out in talks about communism that led to the perceived "downfall" of the ideal. And that element is Humanity.
You're describing a capitalist system that is perfect only on paper, just like communism. The idea that it's a free and open market where only talent and quality thrive, urging innovation etc... that's the modern capitalist myth/ mantra and all but it ignores the very real problems inherent in a system of ownership and trade. The fact that only a small handful of corporations control all business worldwide is NOT just an unfortunate side effect of government regulation or deregulation. In a system where we all MUST (by its nature) COMPETE with one another, certain groups are going to look out for one another for mutual benefit at the cost or expense of others. There WILL be monopolies and cabals and collusions. ...and therefore corruption, unfairness, poverty.
Capitalism survives only on competition between human beings. Conflict. Dress it up all you want: 'friendly competition' or whatever... but it's still required or induced conflict based on scarcity, value, and this evil enigmatic word "profit."
You make good points about the ideal of capitalism and the free market, and I won't disagree that it has been enormously beneficial for especially the US in the past. I'm not shitting on it, necessarily. My perspective is just that it is outdated because it relies on scarcity when our world is (or can be) abundant and requires humans to do something I think we Evolvers would like to see them stop doing: fighting or competing with one another.
How can we have a peaceful world where everyone can fulfill his/her potential when we all must compete for resources or some elusive energy system called money? There are alternatives to currency and I don't think gold or any other standard for it are the answer.
Humanity
— Apr 24, 2010
If humanity is the cause of our "downfall" then logically no system can benefit us.
I am not saying capitalism is perfect, I'd rather save the utopia-daydreaming for socialists. It is not reasonable to expect perfection in an imperfect world.
Capitalism may be part competition but it is also part cooperation. The real fundamental principle is free choice. You can join a business or you can choose to start your own. In a laissez-faire economy you can even camp up in the woods and become self-sufficient. You aren't owned by anyone. All contracts are voluntary. Everything won't be perfect, there will still be criminals, but our economic liberties will be protected better than they could be in any other system.
Scarcity is a fact of life. Humans have a finite time to satisfy a potentially infinite number of desires. If you attempt to equalize wealth, you will de-incentive the great scientists, engineers, and artists of our time from pursuing their highest potential. You will lower our standards back to the life of a tribesmen, where man is indebted to man, where privacy is triumphed by "public interest," and no one is allowed to rise above mediocrity.
Money is not an elusive energy system. Money is a tool of mankind, it alleviates the troubles of a barter system, mainly the "double coincidence of wants" problem. A true understanding of money (read Ludwig von Mises) understands that money is just as valuable as any other commodity on the market. In the Misesian sense of the term, money naturally emerges from the market, it is not some arbitrary numeiraire chosen by government as legal tender. I suggest you educate yourself on what money is. I recommended this to you above but I'll say it again: Read Murray Rothbard's "What Has Government Done To Our Money?"
Look at the overall effects
— Apr 23, 2010
I would agree that there are elements of the capitalist regime that do act as a catalyst for cultural evolution. And we would, I think, benefit as a society from having a simple, transparent system of trade that facilitates specialization and shared resources amongst the population. In principle this would serve to elevate the quality of life for everyone.
BUT: a simple, transparent system of trade is unfortunately not what we are talking about here. For every ounce of benefit provided by today's capitalism there is at least as much suffering, disorder and entropy created as fallout.
Theorize all you want; it only takes one look at the state of the planet to see that the current system bad news.
Simple minded
— Apr 24, 2010
I can't help but think that this is an incredibly simple-minded and naive thing to say. When has the planet not been in some state of turmoil? Poverty and barbarism are the default state of mankind. Laissez-faire capitalism is not a utopia, but it is also not responsible for many of the current economic woes (it is NOT our current system); what is to blame is state-corporate capitalism, a "mixed economy" which closely resembles fascist economic policies. It's not a system that respects individual liberty.
"For every ounce of benefit provided by today's capitalism is at least much suffering, disorder, and entropy" - is simply not true. In free trade, both parties benefit, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Capitalism makes everyone richer and better off. People like Bill Gates and Sam Walton have raised the standard of living for all.
Looking around and seeing evil in the world is not a coherent argument against capitalism.
Competition
— Apr 24, 2010
"Looking around and seeing evil in the world is not a coherent argument against capitalism." This is a good point. But you aren't addressing the root problem with capitalism and currency: competition. We've been indoctrinated for centuries with the idea that competition makes everyone achieve or perform better so it's good for everyone. And the sad thing is, people still buy it, despite it being tragically obsolete thinking!
Even if we take away all the corporate-government "mixed economy" as you call it, capitalism still rests on the founding principle that everything is up for grabs and you are pitted against everyone else for shares. That's the law of the jungle and I don't know but I'd like to think rational, thinking, feeling, dreaming Humanity has evolved a step or two higher than simply the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest.
What about competition/conflict is so appealing as a means for living that we still defend archaic institutions or systems that promote or rely on them?
Competition and Cooperation
— Apr 24, 2010
You conveniently leave out that capitalism is equally about cooperation. In fact, the two pillars of all human achievement are competition and cooperation. You don't want to compete? You don't have to. You can move away and become self-sufficient, or get together with a bunch of your friends and start your own community. In a laissez-faire society, this is possible, and there is nothing stopping communes from being formed. But when you try to organize society through the coercive hands of the state you are only making men less responsible for the outcomes of their lives.
Capitalism is not a dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest - I would say that is a greater propaganda taught in public schools. In capitalist system with so much inequality, we only have our individual selves to blame. One thing is for sure, governments can't achieve this. It is like trying to put out fire with fire; you can't accept the coercive principles of gov't and expect people not to follow that example in their own daily lives. Government is organized crime, and it is no better than any other.
Touché
— Apr 24, 2010
Well defended. It seems like my ideas about capitalism and what its capable of are somewhat limited. I'm glad you pointed out that today's 'capitalism' is actually a form of fascism in disguise. It certainly feels that way.
I'm wondering if you can point to a time when this system functioned in good health and sustainably?
