Cultural Capitalism

What is cultural capitalism?

Cultural capitalism is a new brand of ideology that most businesses have incorporated into their marketing strategy; in order to persuade a new and younger type of consumer. In its essence, cultural capitalism is a new type of branding strategy that has shifted the focus from products and onto global issues. The branding strategy directly takes the emphasis away from the material product, i.e. as a physical commodity, and it shifts the focus upon how the purchase of this commodity will positively affect the world for a greater good. The mass shift toward an ethical ‘appearance’ represents the cultural aspect of this new capitalism. The message that is being sold to consumers, overtly or covertly, always states something like this: ‘if you purchase this product then you are directly contributing to creating a better and safer world’.  This is ideology.

This new capitalist strategy consists of selling back to us our own moral and ethical values; those that the society (the multitude) have deemed as being of some importance and significance in this generation. Global politics, grassroots movements, local issues, environmental issues, and free trade have opened up new types of ethical attitudes that involve an ‘appearance’ of solidarity with global workers and even global citizenship. This type of solidarity through the aid of business is very intriguing and runs counter to the desires of capital; this is where the ‘appearance’ falls short and the real motive becomes apparent.  Capital is not actually concerned about global issues because capital is not a thing, it is a relation. Capitalists are not actually concerned about these global issues because capitalists are the living embodiment of capital and as such, money is the only culture that matters to the capitalist.

Some examples that are being overtly exploited on a daily basis are ideas regarding: fair trade, conditions of impoverished peoples in the Southern hemisphere, environmental issues/global warming, healthcare issues, food and water quality, and even issues revolving around natural disaster relief.

Capital is selling an ethic and an image but at the base of that ethic and image is always a material commodity. If we ignore this commodity reality (who, where , when, how, and what – about the commodity) then we have perfected commodity fetishism and we too will become blind ideologues to capital.

Cultural capitalism allows the consumer to forgo the display of basic compassion, in that we no longer have to give any of our wages to the ugly impoverished. We no longer need to even care!  Capital has it covered for all of us sinners. All we need to do is buy a cup of coffee, or whatever, and we end up serving the common good. The commodity stands in place of our generosity. The commodity is the object (e.g. cup of coffee) that emancipates the subject (e.g. poor farmers in Mexico)- “buy a cup of coffee and we will give some proceeds to……..”  This is a dangerous thought. 

Here are 2 basic examples of cultural capitalism:

1. The Body Shop: “The Body Shop® believes that there is only one way to be beautiful — Nature’s Way.

For many years, The Body Shop® has constantly sought out wonderful natural ingredients from all four corners of the globe, and brings you products bursting with effectiveness to enhance your natural beauty. While doing all of this The Body Shop® also strives to protect this beautiful planet and the people who depend on it — not because it’s fashionable, but based on the belief that it’s the only way to do business.

http://www.thebodyshop.ca/about-us.html

 

2.  Starbucks:

Our mission: to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.

 http://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information/mission-statement

(click the links and read on) 

Why is this ideology? Aren’t these companies just acting ethically?

This is the most basic type of ideology. The consumer appears to be doing a common good through their purchase and feels a sense of relief after their purchase. The consumer feels “ethical” by the very act of their purchase. The purchase has provided the consumer with 2 things: 1. a material desire and 2. a sense of accomplishment of a moral duty. The trick is that the consumer remains blind to their re-fuelling of a system that is actively exploiting workers, generating massive amounts of wealth for 0.01% of the global pop., creating large impoverishment for billions of peoples, exploiting natural resources, escalating global warming, etc, etc, etc. The consumer remains caught in the world of the fetish, or the illusion. 

Ethics has no part to play in capital. Capital is not a person, or a thing, it is a constant fluid motion of processes and relations. It is constantly moving forward and attempting to realize its ultimate goal = surplus-value. And if it can utilize our own ideals, values, mores, and ethics to reach that goal then it will do that as well.

Let’s not be fooled. We are not acting ‘ethically’ when we buy a commodity, we are simply satisfying a material want/need. True ethics and morality are not so easily commodified.

 To quote The Clash: ” I went to the market to realise my soul, ’cause what I need I just don’t have” (The Clash, “Rudie Can’t Fail”, London Calling).

The Common in Communism

Michael Hardt is a great voice in political theory concerning ideas about the ‘common’.  I want to discuss his ideas about the situation of the common in communism.

Hardt locates the ‘common’ as being established completely outside of capitalist private property and socialist public property. The common in communism is not to be located within the market and/or the state, which are the hegemonic forces in our daily lives. The common is to be found in the hypothesis of communism, i.e. a new communist hypothesis that is modern and based in the production of the present. The essential point to understand is that the ‘common’ is not a form of property.  There are 2 basic types of the common:  1. the common refers to the earth and all of its resources (land, air, waters, minerals, etc), and 2. the direct results of human labour and creativity (ideas, languages, affects, etc.) (136). These two types of the common have been increasingly usurped under forms of private and public property in the past few centuries: under classic liberal capitalist accumulation and neo-liberal capital of the past 30 years.

The industrial era is over and is no longer dominant in capitalism, as it was in Marx’s day. What is now dominant is, according to Hardt, ‘immaterial and biopolitical production’. Industrial production is thoroughly based in the creation of material goods that are moveable through the aid of commodification and consumerism. Industrialization is still prevalent but not dominant. Whereas, immaterial production refers to the production of ideas, images, knowledges, code, languages, social relationships, affects, etc. These designate occupations ranging from high end to low end workers found all over the capitalist spectrum (e.g. health care workers, flight attendants, educators, software programmers, fast-food workers, call-centre workers, designers, advertisers, and on and on) (134). These types of workers are not producing a material commodity, as such, because they are the living commodity that they are producing; a piece of their biological commodity is being marketed. What gets sold to the consumer is not exactly a material need rather it is a service or an intellectual form of property or some other non-material affect. What these workers are producing is the immaterial realization of their own commodity, i.e. labour-power, and they are selling their own exploitation; in some ways.  

The common, as was established above, is being bought and sold through very new and mysterious forms (fetishistic forms). The privatization and sale of the traditional common is easy to spot: i.e. privatization of water, minerals, etc. but the sale of the second type of common is much more elusive than we think; for Hardt this is based on the notion of ‘rent’ and not a direct sale of material goods.  Direct results of human intellectual labour are hard to privatize because these are based in something that is not exactly physical and material.  A great example is found in the worlds of patents. What exactly gets patented? It is usually an idea of some sort, not a material good but the idea as to how to utilize that material good in a new or better fashion. There are also patents on all sorts of other immaterial things; the world of computer technology (software) is a great place to find these new areas of intellectual property. For Hardt, the solution is not that we should have a great pool of public property to protect all of this knowledge and/or natural resource. Rather, we should organize to protect ourselves from creating a system of ownership; from the hands of the market or the state, i.e. the eradication of property relations.

What is the answer to re-establishing the common? Organization is the simple solution, but of course we are referring to a communistic organization that is beyond the state and the marketplace. How else could we liberate the common with rational interest? Certainly the capitalist market and the state have selfish interests in regard to the common and it is apparent that these entities have failed in providing meaningful parameters as to the public usage of the common – their usage turns into commodification, exploitation, and property. So then an organization is essential (not a singular political party) that has the primary interest of liberation of the common from capital and the state; i.e. to eradicate the exploitation of the common and implement autonomy of the common.  

This communist organization is not a part of the vulgar realities of state powers of the past century rather it is located in a more powerful location, i.e. the multitude.

Property is the antagonism of the common. To quote Marx: “private property has made us so stupid and one-sided that an object is only ours when we have it” (Marx, 345). Hardt adds that “we have been made so stupid that we can only recognize the world as private or public. We have become blind to the common” (Hardt, 139).

So then, where is the critique of political economy to be found in all this discussion of the common? To quote Hardt again “capitalist production increasingly relies on the common and (…) the autonomy of the common is the essence of communism…. the conditions and weapons of a communist project are available today more than ever. Now to us the task or organizing it” (144).

Autonomy of the common – this is the essence of the common in communism!

References:

Hardt, Michael. “The Common in Communism.” In The Idea of Communism, ed. Slavoj Zizek and Costas Douzinas. New York: Verso, 2010. pp. 131-144

Marx, Karl. Early Writings. London: Penguin, 1975.