... Finally, after all, the classic defect of capitalism, certainly the first Marx posed is that it exploits the working classes, generating poverty and suffering. In other words, the great problem of capitalism is that it deprives workers of their property. The "impoverishment of the proletariat ', as Marx called it.
In this context, it sounds a bit strange that the working class has been sold and that the abundance of consumer goods is merely an opiate used to appease them and prevent them from seeing what their real interests. It is like saying that feeding a child is not feeding, but "appease" to make you forget the hunger. It is precisely this inability of capitalism to provide goods to workers giving them reasons to want to overthrow the system. Oppose consumerism amounts to a criticism of capitalism to meet the working class too, that of pure saturation would be unable to go out to overthrow the system. But the question is inevitable: what need have they?
In fact, students Roszak accuses Paris of May 68 they tried to ally with the French workers. Consider the working class an unreliable ally, and that interests you personally operate the industrial production system.
"The touchstone is to determine the extent to which workers are willing to dismantle large parts of the industrial structure for purposes other than efficiency, productivity and high consumption. Would you be able to forget the technocratic priorities after a life simpler, social slower pace, an elementary leisure? "
Here we see the traditional interests of the working class are reduced to simple "Technocratic priorities." Roszak
But the simplicity may be doing to try to impose the interests of the intelligentsia and academic-freedom of imagination, "a simpler life" - the rest of the population (arguing that accepting them is a victim of technocracy).
bad thing to believe that we are all victims of a total ideology is the inability to determine what factors support or refute this thesis.
In any case, it seems clear that workers were not interested in freeing your imagination too. Instead of cramming the art galleries and poetry readings, continued to have an unhealthy fondness for sports, television and drinks alcoholic. Naturally, this fuels the nagging suspicion that the general public might like capitalism, you can really want to have consumer products. Seems to suggest that the inability of capitalism to meet the 'deep needs "of people may not be as bad, simply because there are such profound needs. In other words, academics seem to have confused the interests of their own class interests with the general population, assuming that "what's good for me" is "good for society (much less are the first to commit such a mistake!).
The uncomfortable assumption that the public might like capitalism is reinforced by the finding that the countercultural rebellion seems to serve anything. Unlike in [the movie] Pleasantville, where social transformation is instantaneous, radical and very visible in the real world "freedom of imagination" does not seem to encourage the proletariat, much less cure the injustice, eliminate poverty and prevent war. Moreover, capitalist ideology not seem to affect the acts of countercultural rebellion. The caricatured in Pleasantville conformist society is very rigid, so that any hint of individualism is considered a mortal danger. The nonconformity must be eliminated, they say, or destabilize the entire system.
Thus the first generation of hippies did everything possible to eliminate the typical dress of the decade to 1950: men beard and long hair left, refusing to wear a jacket and tie, women began to wear miniskirts, they threw away all their bras and stopped wearing makeup, etc..
But these brands and styles of dress was not long before jumping to the advertising and store windows. Department stores began to fill with hanging the sign of peace and long necklaces. Instead of considering the hippies as a threat to the established order, the "system" was able to see its possibilities comerciales.Y the punk aesthetic was exactly the same way. In the modern shops in London sold captive design long before they separated the members of the group Sex Pistols, the highest representative of punk music.
What explains this? Countercultural rebels believed to be doing something truly radical, representing a profound social change. His defiance meant seriously threaten capitalism, which relied on an army of docile workers willing to submit to the discipline system materials. However, the above system seemed to quietly accept this supposed rebellion. Andthe lack of visible results countercultural ideology seriously harmed. At the end of the day, according to rebels counterculture, the failure of the traditional left was his superficiality, because the change that was aimed "merely" institutional. Countercultural rebels, however, said attacking oppression to a deeper level. However, despite the radicalism of their statements, did not seem to get any concrete results.
At this point, the counterculture movement could have been seen in deep water but for a true genius: the theory of "ownership." Under this approach, the "repression imposed by the system is more subtle than, say, the Inquisition in Spain more first time the system has enough assimilate the resistance through appropriation of their symbols, removing its contents "revolutionary" and marketing the resulting product. With this barrage of incentives for substitution neutralizes the counter so that the public ever get to know your source "revolutionary." It is only to fail this initial appropriation when it resorts to blatant repression and "the violence inherent in the system" is evident.
By incorporating the theory of appropriation, the counter becomes a "total ideology" in a totally closed thought system, immune to forgery, in which each alleged exception only confirms the rule. Countercultural rebels are making music for generations "subversive" painting "subversive" literature "subversive" and clothing "subversive", not to mention crowded university professors who spread ideas "subversive" to their students. Interestingly, the system seems to hold up well in so many subversion. But can we think that is not as oppressive as they paint? "Hardly," answered the rebel counter. "This is the finding that the system is even more oppressive than we thought. There is more to see how well it treats so subversive! "- There
in 1965, Herbert Marcuse coined a term to describe this particular type of repression. He called "repressive tolerance." The concept was then so little sense as it is now.
HEATH, Joseph and Potter, Andrew. Rebel sell: the business of the counterculture. Bogotá: Taurus, 2005. p. 41-46.
Montealegre Photo by Sergio Dávalos (Iquique).
0 comments:
Post a Comment