In modern societies known by the label of 'capitalism,' the popular, mainstream culture is often criticized as bankrupt, shallow, materialist, or oppressive. This 'capitalist culture' as it is discussed today in academia, 'consumer culture,' or 'commercialism' is critiqued from a disparate assembly of perspectives, for a wide variety of reasons, but most objections amount to a few main concerns.

To begin with, note that the very idea of critiquing the cultural by-products of relatively enormous economic opportunity enjoyed in the western world compared to parts of the third world (due to relatively far greater economic freedom), would never occur to an Ethiopian subsistence farmer being starved out by the government, or to an unemployed Chinese laborer who is without work from the collapse of a state-owned factory. These are fine points which do not concern most people in the world. If the 'capitalist culture' of western countries could bring them prosperity, they would probably welcome such concerns. But while we should put them in perspective, they are worth exploring nonetheless, especially because some of the cultural critiques of capitalism which are expressed could incorrectly imply that Promethean capitalism is as problematic as what exists today.

One concern is that the mainstream culture of modern 'capitalism' is oppressive. Many objections to commercialism may simply be objections to economic activity and profit, or major economic activity and profit, in themselves. However, others are less reactionary against what are fundamental aspects of behavior, and really reflect perceptions of the gulf of hypocrisy between the avowed promise and the real practice of 'free enterprise' and 'free trade' as we know them today. As previously discussed, the extent to which the modern system known as 'capitalism' (really, a lesser fascism) is truly, nakedly oppressive is very real, but in the case of Promethean capitalism this is untrue. What remains of this objection that capitalism is oppressive, however, has to do with any society that involves business, trade, money, employees, goods, media, and advertising.

One sort of objection is that in capitalism, everything is reduced to the "allmighty dollar." From this perspective, other dimensions of culture are diminished to their relationship to money, and capitalism forces us to conform to capital. There is a fear of everything becoming reduced to the financial, as work and money and consumer purchases become all that matters. But this is impossible, as long as we understand that what is valuable should depend on our own subjective ideas of what we care about. We need to understand that there are all kinds of capital with validity, and that from some perspectives, it is best that money should be understood as nothing more than a tool of exchange. Of course, this is more difficult with a monopolized, centralized currency, which more easily becomes a fetish in itself for many people, but this is not part of Promethean capitalism. Still, it is always possible to form an identity from a job or money not because of fulfillment, but because of a need to define oneself and find purpose. We find many projecting money as a standard of judgment onto others, exerting social pressure. A job or money can function as a proxy value if one does not really care about the experience of a job, or about money — a conformist idea of status, as a substitute for relying on the strength of one's own opinion. This could happen with anything, and does happen in many other contexts as well, but the centralization of money has definitely made the problem worse than it has to be. But any society with freedom is based on having to exhibit the strength to make choices that fulfill oneself. The only ultimate solution is to learn to be the equal of the freedom one has. Without that freedom, there is only the possibility of becoming accustomed with being less; it is impossible to become more without the room to grow.

There are widespread concerns which have to do with the idea that consumer advertisement is necessarily controlling, and oppressive. Deceit and misdirection of consumers is seen as irresistible and even universal. The way that advertising helps to convince people to buy is seen as unfairly consolidating market share, instead of offering the possibility of mutual benefit to both customers and businesses. Most of all, advertising is seen as creating desire or even a feeling of need where none existed. But many influences do this, not only advertising. For example, writing that inspires an understanding which did not previously exist may create the feeling of need for action.

Much fear of 'commercialism' may come down to a powerless self-image. Often frustration with an imagined controlling force making us conform, is really anxiety over whether we as individuals are unable to resist being molded, anxiety that we are not strong enough as individuals to exert our freedom of will. In a free-market, free-enterprise, Promethean capitalist environment, who is a person really "ruled by the almighty dollar" or "taught to consume" or a "wage-slave" besides one who almost lacks his own power to make choices? Indeed, one who essentially lacks his own freedom of will? Such a person would always be vulnerable to virtually any enticement, forced to obey every appealing suggestion, and subject to a sheep-like fascination with anything unimportant which happens to catch his attention — from commercials to shiny metal objects! Clearly, such a person would be a biological automaton, not a human being… or at best an animal, a reject from a species of individual minds. Is the fear of really being that hypothetical — I hope, not actual — sort of person, or of all humanity being so, the real source of the perception that 'capitalism' as a culture dominates or threatens to dominate our lives? This is quite possibly the case for many people. But while it is a confused attitude based on fear and revulsion, it is understandable in a way. We all see many people around who appear to be following blindly and foolishly as though they were powerless, and this supplies evidence to inspire concern for them and fear that we may fundamentally be the same. But the reason for this 'mindless conformity' despite the ability to choose is not that minds are missing, it is that they are not being used to their fullest potential to make the best personal and individual choices. Assuming that consumers and employees can make choices, and if both are allowed to do so, the only mindless consumer is one who does not want to control his own behavior, and the only wage-slave is one who has enslaved himself. That failure to exert self-control, rather than control by external domination, is a more likely cause of the 'culture of conformity' we may experience.

Another objection tied to the idea of conformity is that mainstream culture is shallow and bankrupt of worth. Such reactions amount to criticisms of bad taste, or overly similar tastes, or a lack of aesthetic diversity, all of this representing popular culture as poor in aesthetic value. I do agree that in my own personal opinion, much popular culture today is mostly large amounts of low quality creative media of all sorts. Shops have their share of cheap junk, radio and television airwaves are full of loudly-packaged drivel, visual and aural arts are often uninspired mass-oriented products, and the internet has a low signal to noise ratio indeed. And yes, much of this is being sold or used for advertising. What is really worthwhile and inspired always seems to be what is infrequent.

Yet what is aesthetically valuable is always a matter of taste. Whether a culture is a rich one is a subjective judgment. The key about my aesthetic opinion is that it is mine, and I can only be sure that it is a judgment that has to do with me. Culture is a personal experience, and ultimately depends on the interaction of individuals. Fill your experience of culture with what you seek out or create based on your own aesthetics, ignoring the rest, and you will be satisfied. Imagine some distilled average of culture instead, and you may always be disappointed. Popular culture may be full of cheap common nonsense with lots of fanfare but little substance, but it has probably always been that way. What else could we expect from popular culture, and its ability to address individual desires, particularly if they are exceptional or even unique? It has always been the case that the fine is the rare. It has always been the case that the individual who would think differently has a popular tide to resist, whether he is creative or one who appreciates creativity. But a free society allows the rare individual to express themselves. Favoring individuality in the artistic realm encourages this as well. It is better to speak with supportive actions, such as spending choices, rather than with frustration or anger.

It is often difficult to say whether bad taste — given that it is a matter of opinion in the first place — is really bad, or a lack of developed appreciation. In many individual cases, aesthetic refinement may not be a pronounced trait. But in many others, it is simply the result of not being exposed and educated, especially exposure to diverse and original aesthetics that expand and provoke awareness. Then, the question we must ask about capitalism becomes whether the economic aspect of culture restricts that exposure, or encourages it.

Consider for example, modern day American culture, which is inclusive of a variety of cultural influences, subcultures, and individual variation. It is the individual variations on culture which are most unusual and promising, and to a lesser extent the diversities of subcultures and cultures. If a comparison is made with older and more traditional cultures, within a given location we find greater uniformity than is present in America. This is also true for other places with reasonably free trade. Cultural influences spread when there is free economic exchange, because economic exchange is linked to cultural exchange — and this tends to inspire individual variation and diversity more, perhaps, than it leads to wholesale transfer of cultures. The extent to which there is common uniformity (one might say, conformity) in America has more to do with the barriers which do interfere with the cultural and economic exchange which does exist, not the least of which are limits on immigration. They have to do in part with the phenomenon of those who are already established in the United States, and in every state, wanting to preserve their present culture at the expense of change and openness, through the leverage of political control.

What is important is whether there exists a significant proportion of culture which satisfies a given individual taste. Of course, when individual people are open to the possible benefits from any culture or tradition or body of thought, it tends to enrich a culture. That is part of the idea of a Promethean society — to found on the principle of diversity. Although it is impossible to project exactly what would happen culturally in a Promethean society, I think it is reasonable to posit greater cultural individuality, as well as greater diversity of cultures. Without those political barriers on immigration and exchange within a Promethean society, and between a Promethean society and the world outside, there will be much more stimulation from a greater variety of aesthetic and cultural sources, and nothing standing in the way of further creation.

Though it may be tempting to belittle the behavior of consumers as frivolous and devoid of profundity, remember that we can judge worth only for ourselves, and our own choices. For some people, purchasing what may seem tasteless or pointless to someone else, may supply something that does increase their own fulfillment. It is by no means self-evident that money can never buy happiness. Money as a means of exchange can buy experiences, and products which allow us to have them. Experiences can be fulfilling. So, probably the most rewarding purchases are those that alter or supply experiences. The worth of experiences will not be the same for everyone, and it is arrogant to presume to judge otherwise.

We must distinguish whenever possible between personal aesthetic preference, and what is fought and opposed for the benefit of other people as well as ourselves. To invoke the power of the ideas of injustice or oppression to support what belongs more appropriately to our own preference is dishonest, and discounts the validity of other opinions. It is all too easy to point out examples of culture we find offensive for their stupidity or vacancy as though they were a personal affront, with the implication that they have really massive significance.

There is so much actual oppression, and so many people are under naked compulsion and naked exploitation, activists have much work to do without picking fights based on what are really tangential lines in a larger pattern of compulsion and concurrent conformity. Assaults on commercialism in terms of aesthetics are often mixed into larger assaults on corporations, or even business in general. It is true that aesthetic expressions which are a product of 'committee thinking' are usually a bit lifeless, whether they come from corporate thinking, communal thinking, or any other organization based on the falsehood of 'collective collaboration' without the solid guidance of personal vision. Probably much of the reason for popular culture being what it is today has to do with the corporate domination of business. But there is often much confusion over what is actually the real problem. That so many activists against the cultural legacies of corporatism embrace state power, or nationalism, or governmental law, or local government as an alternative, is simply misguided. Evidence of conformity in media or consumer behavior often serves to justify a criticism of trade itself, with the idea that anything else is preferable. All that an economy of free individuals would make possible, all monetary exchange, and all economic potential, must not be blamed along with what has resulted from the corporation, and other elements of the lesser fascism going under the name of 'capitalism' today. Promethean capitalism is just as much about diversity, creativity, and individuality as anything else.

<< Promethean Capitalism contents
< previous, Part Eleven: Corporations and Corporatism
> next, Part Thirteen: The Economic Zero-Sum Fallacy