Imagine we are trying to devise an ideology that will have the power to generate regime change: from a predominantly capitalist system, with representative democracy; to a predominantly collectivist system, with coalitions competing for political power but no elections. In what follows, I refer to this hypothetical anti-capitalist ideology as the Ideology. What features might the Ideology have? How might philosophical arguments be used to push people away from capitalism, and into the arms of authoritarian collectivism?
Bear in mind that — notwithstanding a considerable volume of writing labelled 'social science' — very little is known about how societies work. One can get away with pretty much any theory, for a phenomenon such as social class, that is vaguely consistent with the facts (short of 'extraterrestrial superbeings arranged it that way').
One important thing the Ideology will not do is to label itself as 'ideology'. It will present itself as 'truth', and reserve the term 'ideology' for rival systems of thinking that it wants people to regard as false.
(A) EMPHASISING/INVENTING THE BAD
1) The Ideology will of course seek to exploit any apparent defects in current society, exaggerating where necessary, or even inventing. Crucially, the defects identified by the Ideology will need to be attributed to capitalism, in order to promote the belief that eliminating capitalism will also eliminate the defects.
2) The Ideology will, where possible, link the term 'capitalism' with other phenomena that have negative associations, such as colonialism, war, militarisation, and so on, regardless of whether there is a sound basis for doing so. The hope would be that, eventually, the definition of 'capitalism' will include those features. Again, the point is to encourage the belief that eliminating capitalism will also eliminate those features.
3) The Ideology will try to paint capitalism as immoral. Emotive terms such as 'exploitation', 'oppression', and 'selfish individualism' will be employed.
So far, I have listed features likely to be present in any new political ideology that tries to become dominant. An old system clearly has to be painted as negative, if people are to accept its displacement by a new one. The next two possible characteristics for anti-capitalism ideology are less obvious.
4) The Ideology might try to paint capitalism as somehow irrational.
5) The Ideology might argue that capitalism is unsustainable, and that replacement by the new system of ideas is therefore inevitable. (This approach contains a possible inconsistency: if capitalism will inevitably fail, why should it be necessary to work towards its abolition?)
(B) BELITTLING THE GOOD
The Ideology will seek to deprecate any benefits that appear to follow too obviously from capitalism. Assume, for purposes of our thought experiment, that the following aspects of capitalism are regarded as good:
- the potential freedom which savings and capital generate (for those who have some), and the resulting capacity to make individualistic choices;
- the room for individualistic activities – beyond merely keeping oneself fed, clothed and housed – which capital makes possible;
- the resulting individualistic cultural products, generating permanent assets for current and future societies: art, music, literature, science, philosophy;
- the relative freedom from censorship, and freedom to purchase/consume the cultural products you want, that result from a relatively low level of state intervention.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not the above characteristics should be regarded as 'good', consider how our hypothetical ideology might seek to undermine these possible arguments in favour of capitalism.
1) The Ideology might argue that the purpose of the culture developed under capitalism was to brainwash people into accepting capitalism, and prevent them from realising that collectivism would be much better.
[According to Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse] political repression in the Soviet Union is matched by the oppressive practices of the 'culture industry' in the West, particularly America ...2) The Ideology might try to weaken people's attachment to capitalist-bourgeois culture by arguing that the culture was somehow complicit with any political oppression or economic exploitation that took place during the time the culture was produced.
Western populations are in effect programmed to think, and consume, in the way that its capitalist rulers dictate.*
3) The Ideology might argue that cultural products are creations of society, not of individuals, implying that individuals aren't relevant. If specific individuals are not needed for cultural activity or cultural progress, it is easier to persuade people that the individual in general doesn't matter.
(C) WAR AGAINST A CLASS
If capitalism, including those features of it regarded as potentially beneficial, is closely associated with a particular group in society, that group should be attacked. They should be portrayed as having any and all of the characteristics regarded as negative: greedy, ruthless, selfish, cruel, stupid, manipulative, repressed, deluded, conspiring against virtuous folk, etc (cf. antisemitism in Nazism).
(D) UNDERMINING ASSUMPTIONS
Collectivism is likely to mean abandoning elections in favour of a permanent programme of 'running things in everyone's best interests'. Therefore anything which attacks the existing system of representative democracy is good. So, for example, it should be argued that any apparent consent of citizens in a democratic society is a fiction (see e.g. Noam Chomsky on 'manufactured consent').
(E) CULTURAL APPROPRIATION
With some elements of bourgeois-capitalist culture, it may be better to claim/pretend to be on their side: critical rationality, progress, liberation, enlightenment, self-knowledge, science, individualism — but only selective or distorted versions of these things.
(F) NOVELTY
Offer people something new: rebellion, revolution, freedom, ability to criticise the establishment and the status quo, the opportunity to punish those currently above you in the hierarchy. Once capitalism has been sufficiently eliminated, and the Ideology has become dominant, the purpose of these baits ceases and they can be removed.
(G) A GLORIOUS FUTURE
The Ideology would pretend to side with those who see themselves as members of underdog groups in society. It would promise them greater power and wealth in the new society.
(H) BLOCKING CRITIQUE
Suppression of dissent, and suppression of potential dissenters, are key tasks for an ideology that hopes to acquire and maintain dominance. Criticism of the Ideology must therefore be blocked, using intellectual devices, as well as by more obvious means involving the state apparatus.
- The Ideology may try to portray individuals as mere social products. The implication: an individual cannot really say anything original, and cannot criticise his or her own society meaningfully; only groups or classes can do so (or those held out by the Ideology as spokespersons for those groups or classes).
- The Ideology may try to portray language and meaning as too complex and politically charged to be available to an individual in a way that would allow him/her to criticise the Ideology.
(I) CHOICE OF PERSPECTIVE
There are areas of debate within the humanities which amount to little more than a choice between two possible perspectives that are both valid. However, some of those perspectives will be more helpful to the Ideology than others; these are likely to be promoted aggressively given that there is no evidence to disprove them. For example:
- Which is more important, the individual or society?
Approved answer: Society.
- Is knowledge real, or merely what is socially agreed?
Approved answer: Socially agreed.
For the rationale behind these preferred answers, see 'Blocking Critique' above.
(J) OTHER POSSIBLE STRATEGIES
1) Make hierarchy and inequality seem evil ('oppressive'), implying that some other state of affairs ought to be possible but that capitalism prevents it.
2) Keep asserting that things need to change, and suggest that anyone who doesn't want things to change either wants to keep their own privileges (which is 'bad'), or is being stupid ('false consciousness'). Members of the working class or other underdog groups who don't agree are to be regarded as brainwashed; what they say they want can therefore be ignored.
3) Keep complaining about power, again portraying it as intrinsically oppressive and a reason why things must be changed, and again implying some alternative is possible and that capitalism is preventing it.
NB:
While engaging in 'reverse engineering', we need to bear in mind the answers to two questions:
1) Who is responsible for producing and promoting theories in favour of collectivism?
Answer: Intellectuals, particularly those financed by the state.
2) Why do they do it?
Answer: Probably because of intellectuals' greater potential for power in a more collectivist society.
NOTES
The above is an extract from my forthcoming book The 12 tropes of cultural Marxism: Unmasking 'Critical Theory'.
'Reverse engineering' isn't quite the right term in this context. Nevertheless, there is an analogy here: we are looking at end results, and trying to work backwards to the original designs or motives that generated those results.
* S. Sim and B. Van Loon, Introducing Critical Theory, Icon Books 2009, p.41.