Commodity Fetishism, Neoliberalism, and the Public Square

Post Reply New Topic

Actually it often does. These days when an investor buys stock they only care about one number. They want that number to go up rather than down. It is too easy for anyone to put their money into a corporation without giving any thought into whether the growth of said corporation is benefiting or hurting society in the bigger picture. A small business or privately owned company might put a lot of thought and effort into certain ideals out of motives other than profit but a corporation is generally a slave to it's share-holders who may or may not care about anything other than the stock-price.

That's why I've walked into some convenience stores asking what their cheapest smokes are and they give me their shittiest brand rather than the cheapest one. Greed and dishonesty isn't exclusive to one class. There are a**hole teachers and there are a**hole CEO's. Why does a system dictate people's intrinsic motives? It's not like capitalism penalizes you for working at a job you like rather than working at a job that pays more. By your logic teachers in private schools are bigger a**holes than teachers in public schools.

According to Theodore Sturgeon's Axiom 85 percent of everything is crap.

ruveyn

And you think small businesses or privately owned companies aren't capable of greed or dishonesty? Riiigghtt only the big guys are.

That's why I've walked into some convenience stores asking what their cheapest smokes are and they give me their shittiest brand rather than the cheapest one. Greed and dishonesty isn't exclusive to one class. There are a**hole teachers and there are a**hole CEO's.

Why does a system dictate people's intrinsic motives? It's not like capitalism penalizes you for working at a job you like rather than working at a job that pays more.

That's has nothing to do with what I said. The issue is modern corporations are systems that put profit for share-holders above all else. It has nothing to do with greed or dishonesty. That's just how corporations work. They are amoral. They exist to maximize profit for shareholders. That's the name of the game on Wall Street. The CEO's job isn't to serve society in a positive way. Their job is to maximize profit for share-holders at any cost (within the bounds of the law).


However, the a**holes with the most money have the most power. Therefore they can use their power to cause the most damage. The average CEO has a hell-of-a-lot more power than the average teacher.

Actually capitalism does penalize you for doing what you like rather than doing what sells the best. With capitalism if you can't find a way to instantly turn a profit off your work you lose, regardless of whatever intrinsic value your work has. Talk to any struggling author, artist, musician, etc... Of course I realize most right-wing people don't think those kinds of activities serve any benefit.

That's has nothing to do with what I said. The issue is modern corporations are systems that put profit for share-holders above all else. It has nothing to do with greed or dishonesty. That's just how corporations work. They are amoral. They exist to maximize profit for shareholders. That's the name of the game on Wall Street. The CEO's job isn't to serve society in a positive way. Their job is to maximize profit for share-holders at any cost (within the bounds of the law).

However, the a**holes with the most money have the most power. Therefore they can use their power to cause the most damage. The average CEO has a hell-of-a-lot more power than the average teacher.

Actually capitalism does penalize you for doing what you like rather than doing what sells the best. With capitalism if you can't find a way to instantly turn a profit off your work you lose, regardless of whatever intrinsic value your work has. Talk to any struggling author, artist, musician, etc... Of course I realize most right-wing people don't think those kinds of activities serve any benefit.

If I understand the OP correctly, the objection is that our culture tends to promote accumulating wealth as an end in itself, rather than promoting the motives you bolded there. It's not that people can not work for those purposes, it is that those motives are downplayed, discouraged, or denigrated within the prevailing culture.

Well, the problem with the OP is that either he does not understand the economic model of homo economicus, or he is misrepresenting it. No economist believes that people are wealth maximizers. They believe FIRMS are wealth maximizers. However, it is explicit in econ 101 that people are UTILITY maximizers, which only means that it is assumed people do that which they desire most.

Commodity fetishism is a concept derived from Marxist theory (stay with me, conservatives) and relates to how we view commercial transactions; the consequence of this fetishization is that markets seem to be things that function solely of their own accord. Now other societies may have fetishized other things, but we're a capitalist society, so the market ideology is what's prevalent: Most relations are coordinated through money and commercial transaction. This brings me to neoliberalism/privatization and the shrinking of the public square.

Neoliberalism is the ideology of globalization, free trade, privatization, and an international policy consensus driven by the needs of corporations and an emphasis on economic growth. It is called neoliberalism to note its break from the old period of liberal global trade under the British Empire in the 19th century and up to World War II. Under neoliberalism, human behavior is seen through the model of Homo economicus—the goal of the individual is assumed to be the accumulation of wealth. This dictates policy; this trickles down into our culture, which is (ironically or "authentically") consumed in the market as a commercial trade (generally).

What this ideology depletes is the public square (not equating with government services or public property necessarily). By public square, I mean those interactions that occur outside the paradigm of the market: the personal (without anything material to gain or lose), the intellectual, a sense of community, the aesthetic, etc. All of these things can be regimented under the market, but it seems to come at a price. A personal example: Romance seems to be lost when most of our interactions are regimented inside a commercial interaction (customer to cashier, diner to waitress, coworker to coworker, etc.); is the waitress being friendly because she's just friendly, because she likes me, or because she's hoping for a better tip (the commercial, cheapening element)? The pursuit of knowledge and other nobler goals is lost in a society that values the cheap commercial.

P.S.: The writing is a little tangential and disorganized, and I apologize for that; I wanted to get this topic out while I was still thinking about it even though I've gotten quite tired.

The model usually gets simplified to something economists can more readily measure: the flow of money.

That's their only responsibility, but responsibility doesn't guarantee motive.

Should they be given subsidies or handouts because they don't have as much demand? Most people have sh***y taste in music and such, so that's a flaw of the masses rather than the system. I'm a believer in the fact that the masses are the most tyrannical aspect of any society. Mass appeal is the biggest factor to power in general. As much as I can't stand Justin Bieber, it would be theft to take his legally earned money and give it to those who are less fortunate in the music industry.

lowing thier heart rather than following the money. All I'm saying is I think the OP has a point. I'm not proposing anything further than that.

It does not punish them. I simply does not reward them for following the calling of their heart.

ruveyn

Hollow semantics FTW.

Do you distinguish between something and nothing?

Not rewarding is NOT the same as punishing.

ruveyn

Again, semantics. Withholding can be a form of punishment.

But back on topic, my point stands that capitalism doesn't necessarily reward the most noble behavior.