Capitalism is dominating, not dominated
An analysis of capitalism as a system, rather than a process.
Clique aqui para o texto em português brasileiro
Cliquez ici pour le texte en français
One living in Capitalism, and also having a basic comprehension of how it operates, might see it as a system of production that is held and perpetuated by a higher class. It is often understood that the bourgeois class perpetuates Capitalism, and that it only exists insofar as the bourgeois class “allows” it to exist, or “creates” it. Although this can hold true to the extent where we analyze Capitalism as the mode of production and the purely economic system within a nation or society, we must understand and abstract Capitalism from its economic application and regard it through the lenses of cultural and social analysis. The Capital is not a tool, a series of mechanisms and ways for a “higher class” to achieve their goals, but a creature of history, an entity stemming from the consequences of history that fights to keep itself alive and afloat.
We must understand that Capitalism is not a dominated system, it is not tamed by the bourgeoisie, but rather Capitalism is dominating. To comprehend the meaning of a “dominating system” here, it is necessary to analyze the relationships between the bourgeois and ruling classes, and the system of Capitalism.
The first thing we must understand is that the bourgeoisie does not exist as a class building and developing Capitalism, it is not the class behind the phenomenon of Capitalism, but they are themselves slaves of the system they perpetuate. The class system as it exists is created based on Capitalism, and not the other way around, and that should be enough to show that the bourgeoisie is subject to the aforementioned system. It exists as dependent on Capitalism, just as before the nobility and the monarch lived under the influence of the monarchy. The existence of the monarchy was not to justify a King, but a King existed to justify the monarchy. Just as the King was assured by the monarchy, and that was given by divine right, by God and his existence as the “defining power”of the monarchic sociocultural institutions, the bourgeoisie only exists because it is guaranteed by Capitalism.
Think of it like this: The monarchy can, in a vacuum, exist independently from the king. The monarchical instutitions, state and culture can exist, and they can do so independently from the existence of a monarch. It would be so that, if you put a mannequin on the throne, and people recognized that construct of a person as the king, then the monarchy would still exist simply because it is not sustained by the existence of a ruler, but by the institutions it has. So, the king is not the controller of monarchy, but a figure under its control.
But why is the bourgeoisie (or any sort of dominant class, really) needed for Capitalism to exist? If Capitalism is an “entity”, this seemingly powerful being that exists independent, why can’t it directly take charge of the domination of the working class? And how does the bourgeoisie ensure the domination of the working class without directly using Capitalism to dominate them?
THE BOURGEOISIE AS THE PRIVILEGED SLAVE CLASS, AND THE TOOLS OF POWER
Capitalism allows the bourgeoisie freedom, or the illusion thereof. In order to act materially, Capitalism needs a way to express itself in human society, and there’s no better way than enslaving people under its class system. Surely, the bourgeoisie does not suffer the same exploitation and oppression that the proletariat does, but it is still a class under Capitalism and therefore a subject to it.
The bourgeois does not live for his own pleasure, and he does not act in a self-serving way; the bourgeois acts in order to accumulate an imaginary power, a thing created from nothing that represents nothing. The bourgeois is also trapped in an unending and inescapable cycle of consumerism, which as opposed to the proletarian class, he can still easily fulfill. Nevertheless, the bourgeois is still treading water in order to achieve absolute bliss, an absolute bliss that is brought by achieving the peak of consumerism, a zenith that can never be achieved. The bourgeois is still slave to commodification, consumerism and Capitalist culture, and he acts obliviously in order to perpetuate this.
The bourgeois is, then, of course, the perfect subject for Capitalism. Although it can be considered a “historical entity”, it is not a material being, it is not all-powerful; it is a set of institutions like any other. The bourgeois class is simply the one which has the most to lose, the one that would be most affected by the fall of Capitalism. The bourgeois class experiences a Stockholm syndrome, and surrenders itself to become the manifestation of the system to which it is enslaved.
The bourgeoisie, of course, repays these sets of “privilege” (which are no more than the epitome of alienation). To do so, they must represent their God of Capital on earth, and also need of course to maintain the proletarian class on their side, in order to assure the stability and perpetuity of Capital. They then use one of the tools of domination, the “tools of power”, some that are very alike to what Capitalism does to them.
- Authority. No matter how much the bourgeoisie fights for the perpetuity of Capitalism, no system can exist without legitimization. It was once the rule of he who was stronger, or he who held the most grain and cattle; if he was a certain quality, of course he was able and fit to rule. It then turned to the right by God, as a power given by the ruler of all universe is incontestable and eternal. Now, it is the law of the people.
Don’t think I am saying that Capitalism has indeed popular support. Instead, Capitalism operates through the system which is “democracy”. It legitimizes itself, its own existence by assuring that the people know and understand that what they are living through is what they chose, it is the consequence of their actions, nevermind how truthful that is. Bourgeois democracy is created with the intent of legitimizing the domination of the bourgeoisie over the lower classes, and thereby crush defiance towards it through the responsibilization of the dominated classes.
Of course, even if bourgeois democracy was to change anything, what does it matter? The “lower classes” are still subject to societal conditioning. And even if, by any chance, a government that does not align with the interests of Capitalism is elected by bourgeois democracy, it is promptly taken down. See, for example, the social democracies of South America. Although they still perpetuate capitalism, they often attempt to break their neocolonial relationships with capital-imperialist countries, which threatens the stability of capitalism, system which invariably necessitates imperialism to assure its dominance. As soon as a social democratic government bent on cutting imperialist ties appears, it is taken down. See for example the coup against João Goulart in Brazil, 1964, or even more recently the coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia. These systems are not against Capitalism, but they work against one of the core values of the aforementioned institution. This democracy is conditional — this rule of the people is only respected as long as it aligns with the necessity of Capital. - Concessions. When the authority isn’t enough, and the legitimization can’t be done by claiming rule of the people, concessions happen. Concessions are, if you will, those little “gifts” given by the State or the government, the so-called “rights”. Concessioning in this context is not Capitalism giving in, but instead trying to avoid doing so. By marginally improving certain aspects of the condition of the national working class, it can ensure a dependency on it. The working class that has something to lose, a concession, a privilege, won’t revolt. They won’t risk losing their insignificantly “good” position in order to start revolting, because the proletarian, like it or not, is thinking less about their future and more about their current status. The proletariat has their concessions to lose, and they know that any form of defiance against the system would mean the legitimization under a bourgeois understanding of the subtraction of said concessions.
- A third tool, that although not as representable is much more present. Culture. Capitalism creates a culture, or a shadow thereof. It, as many institutions before it, creates a system of “beliefs” and “core values” that can be shared by immense groups of people. This might be the most mundane of examples, but think Coca Cola. It is global, and it has infiltrated the diet and daily life of billions of people worldwide, people with no rapport, people with no connections. It is a pseudoculture, only serving to condition the populace into adopting the system. It undermines or integrates other cultures, commodifying them, changing them into objectified conceptions to be practiced and seen superficially. Capitalism, above all else, conditions the people into accepting them, so much so that we cannot perceive anything outside of Capitalism as “natural”.
Obviously, a multitude of other tools exist, but most of them can be comprised under the view of these three tools, which are the basic tools of any system of domination: To punish, to pacify and to condition.
SO WHAT CAN BE CONCLUDED?
Capitalism is thus not a system driven and controlled by a class, because the very existence of a thing such as class under Capitalism is a direct consequence of Capitalism. That is not to say that all classes depend on Capitalism, but rather that the class is a consequence of the institution in place, as opposed to the institutions being formed by the class. The bourgeoisie is no different! They’re slaves who are slavers, exploiters who are exploited. They live at the mercy of the continuation of the ever-growing, expanding and uncontrollable chimaera born from history which is Capitalism.
We need to understand that an abolition of Capitalism is not simply the abolition and undermining of the bourgeois class, and it is not simply an economic programme, but the abolition of Capitalism depends on undermining these structures of power, fighting against its cultural dominance, and questioning the legitimizing institutions in place. We are not fighting against the bourgeoisie, not directly at least, but we are fighting against the system that creates a shared oppression between every single human, from every imaginable background. We are fighting against a system that struggles to keep itself alive, and the bourgeoisie is not the enemy, but simply an obstacle. The bourgeois class is a scapegoat. What we fight against, is the entity, the leviathan of history that is Capitalism.
