To All Those Cheerleaders of Capitalism..

(Just a thought)

I promised myself that I wouldn’t let this image sit on my blog without some context for too long.  Since our lecture this week was a condensed one, I wanted to take this blog post as an opportunity to reflect on some of the larger concepts we’ve discussed throughout this semester and (hopefully) generate some thoughts to go towards my final paper topic for this class.  Recently, our discussions in class have seemed to concern themselves, to an extent, with the idea of a potential alternative/solution to capitalism.  For a long time, until a few weeks ago, honestly, I had resigned myself to the idea that there was no real alternative to capitalism, despite how much we may want there to be.  I mostly felt this way because of the ubiquity of capitalism, of which this class has only made me all the more aware.  As I thought about all of the areas of our lives that capitalism has extended itself into—technology, social mediation, information control, war, even education—escape seemed futile. 

            I’ve spoken a few times about the radical, brutal efforts that it would take to over throw capitalism, and for the most part I still believe this to be true.  Overthrowing capitalism does not seem like a likely solution to the inequitable, often exploitative circumstances often brought about by capitalism itself.  We are too ingrained in a capitalist system, too set in our ways.  If you think this mentality is part of the problem, then maybe I sound like a fatalist, but I am yet to see any evidence towards and kind of a real global insurrection against capitalism, so I’m erring on the side of pragmatism here.  So, if we can’t overthrow capitalism, how can we make it a more equitable and less exploitative system?  Is this even a possibility?  I am interested in looking at the idea of a democratic capitalism that can act as a counter example to some of the more virulent oppositions to capitalism such as imperialism, inequity, oppression and exploitation.  I would like to explore the notion of democratic capitalism, and other “types” of capitalism as a final paper or possibly as an extended future blog post.

Rebel Cities-- A Stagnant Revolution?

Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution examines the urban city as both a revolutionary landscape and a pseudo-utopia, where social and political dynamics are constantly at play in altering the space of the city itself.  Throughout the book, author David Harvey attempts to deconstruct the illusion of the city-as-utopia, and instead explores the overlapping social and political dynamics that make the city itself a space of capitalist accumulation and political impotency.  In regards to cities of the “golden era” Harvey states, “The traditional city has been killed by rampant capitalist development, a victim of never-ending need to dispose of over accumulating capital driving endless urban growth no matter what the social, environmental, or political consequences” (xv).  The implication here is that a once socially and politically active place, the city has fallen into a state of disrepair, in which its inhabitants’ primary interests are the maintenance and consumption of rampant capitalism.  The result of this new capitalist driven environment is ultimately, “[…]A totally different kind of city [made] out of the disgusting mess of a globalizing, urbanizing capital run amok” (xvi).  Ultimately, Harvey illustrates how the space of the urban city has declined from a politically charged site of social organization and changes to a complacent, politically stagnant shadow of its former self. 

While Harvey maintains that within the city there is still, “[…A]n impulse towards and longing for its restoration.” (xvii), he calls its restoration into doubt when he states that, “Any spontaneous alternative visionary moment is fleeting; if it is not seized at the flood, it will surely pass” (xvii).  The reasons for this, according to Harvey, are many—spanning from the capitalists’ grasp over the urban city to the apathy and lack of social awareness among youths and adults.  Are we really failures at changing the world we live in?  Are the days of grassroots social activism and citizen lead reform truly over?  The idea irked me to begin with, but what irked me even more was my immediate inclination to side with Harvey.  And that just opened up the floodgates, because I really, really do not want to side with Harvey.

For reasons I can’t quite explain, I have always been fairly obsessed with the idea of living in a large city because I always envisioned them to be diverse political and social spaces where residents could organize and enact a social revolution.  Another reason that Harvey’s statement bothered me (aside from the obvious ‘big picture’ reasons why it should bother me) is that I always had a bit of a fantasy that I was born in the wrong era, like I should have been a hippie in the 1960’s protesting the war and the economy and all of the other life-altering political and social issues that were going on at the time.  I wanted that since I was a kid, since long before I knew just what those issues actually were, simply because I have always had that sort of passion in me.  Harvey made me feel like I had completely and totally missed my chance to be a part of that kind of movement, which saddened me for reasons that surpass even my academic interests.  And I didn’t want to believe it, so I went in search of counter example of contemporary urban social movements that have had some kind of discernable impact on the world today.  

The urban monster and the citizen: Monstro Chamado Cidade.  The city is regarded as the monster, threatening the individual.  Notice the high rise buildings equivalent to the monster's teeth.  This piece is found somewhere in between Vila Madalena and Pacaembu and Sao Paolo. 

"Money Kills Culture"

A modest proposal?

Maybe organized social change has halted, for the moment, but even if that’s the case, we still see individuals persisting towards making their message heard.  I though that graffiti/street art was an interesting social practice to parallel with Harvey’s comments and the space of the city itself.  What struck me about street art was the fact that no one owns it—the canvas is virtually always “borrowed”, or more harshly stolen from the property owner to display their work.  The images I’ve included here specifically target capitalism within the space of the city.  Not only are these images rebellions against capitalisms’ message (compliance, consumerism, commercialism), they are also a rebellion against capitalisms’ purpose (ownership and maintenance).  And so, like a true urban optimist, I am far more inclined to believe that what Harvey points out in Rebel Cities is a deferral of restoration of the city, which needs to be remedied, but not an abandonment of the cause.

The Price of Patriotism

In his book Empire of Indifference: American War and the Fiscal Logic of Risk Management, Randy Martin explores the financial logic that dominated/s the war on terror in the United States.  While Martin discusses a number of instances in American history during which the thinly veiled motives of imperialists were made apparent through the act of war, I found his discussion of 9/11 and the “War on Terror” in general to be of particular interest.  Early on in the text, Martin suggests that the war in the United States ultimately results in a sentiment of indifference among citizens.  He states, “[During war time] the world is presented with another perverse form of domination, an empire of indifference.  Far from being accidental neglect, this indifference is a reaction to the diversity of experience and capacity that people have made for themselves, and an unwitting invitation on the part of the imperium to create more” (Martin 5).  Martin’s quote here immediately reminded me of George W. Bush’s economically underscored imperative to the American people to “shop more” following the attacks of 9/11.  In his post 9/11 and declaration of war speech, Bush attempts to enact this sense of indifference among the American people.

In his post 9/11 speech Bush is quick to remind viewers that, “America was targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.  And no one will keep that light from shining.”  He assures us that the freedom and opportunity that America represents will be well protected because, “Our military is powerful, and it is prepared,” a promise that is in intended to lull us into a [false] sense of security.  Viewers are praised for their bravery and their strength, and are reassured above all else that, “Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business as well.”  Even without a critical stance on the speech, Bush’s comment seems jarring.  Why would/should it matter if the economy is open for business tomorrow?  Well, for all those American’s who want to know how they can personally contribute to the war effort without actually enlisting, visiting ground zero, donating blood, joining relief effort, or even leaving their homes, President Bush has the answer—shop!

“This work begins with keeping our economy growing—and I encourage you all to go shopping more.”

It doesn’t take much of an in depth analysis to grasp Bush’s motives not only in his speech, but for the duration of the “War on Terror.”  The empire of indifference (i.e. America) is made susceptible to imperialist domination more and more with each “threat” to the nation’s safety/security/etc. and manipulated into endorsing capitalist interests in a way that, upon reflection—blood spilled, lives lost—is rather horrific.  However, Martin seems to suggest throughout the book that we are moving closer to this model, rather than further from it.

Labor, Information Capitalism, and the “Obsoletely Fabulous”

In his essay, “Structural Unemployment and the Qualitative Transformation of Capitalism,” Thomas A. Hirschl examines Marx’s theory of capitalist development in light of the growing prevalence of electronic technology in capitalist dynamics.  While Hirschl admits that the pivotal prediction of Marx’s theory (social revolution in capitalist society) has yet to occur, he argues that the growing implementation of technological advancements within capitalist enterprises has the potential to act as the catalyst for such a social revolution.  He argues that, “[A]n era of social revolution begins when the technological capacity of society supersedes or becomes too productive for the existing property relations” (Davis et al. 158).  Here, Hirschl draws a direct parallel between technology, labor, and capitalism, which he uses to frame one of the main questions in his essay: If electronics technology replaces labor, where will the jobs be in ‘information capitalism’? (160).  The implication that Hirschl makes in posing this question to his readers is that we as a long established capitalist society are rapidly approaching an era of (technological) social revolution, in which the answers to questions like this one will be necessarily linked with the growth, practices, and even preservation of our (capitalist) society.  Returning to Hirschl’s question regarding where jobs in information capitalism will be, I have chosen to focus my rhetorical analysis on FOX’s hit show Futurama, specifically an episode from season four entitled “Obsoletely Fabulous,” in an attempt to offer one of many possible responses to Hirschl’s question.  My hope is that in analyzing a text that depicts some of the more salient concerns of Marx and Hirschl’s theories (“the future”, literal robots in the workforce, extremely rapid technological advancement), we as a society will be better positioned to comment on, critique, and understand the implications of a realized society of information capitalism.  

Some Issues with High-Tech Hype

Before examining the totalizing effects of a labor/workforce overrun by electronic technology, it is significant to note the preliminary and incremental changes that occur when a new technological innovation is introduced into the workforce, particularly when it impacts productivity.  Elements of these changes are present in “Obsoletely Fabulous,” which begins with Bender, Fry, Leela and Professor Farnsworth (the show’s main protagonists) visiting a “Roboexpo” that showcases new and improved robots available for purchase.  It is important to note that Futurama itself takes place in a futuristic setting (roughly the year 3000) in which robots are common fixtures both as tools for human comforts (essentially highly technologically advanced appliances), as well as for companionship.  Many robots in the show including Bender, whom “Obsoletely Fabulous” is centered around, are presented as autonomous, human-like beings that experience emotions such as jealousy, anger, sadness, love and a sense of self-worth.  These dimensions of Bender and other robots’ personalities are intriguing when examined in parallel with their status as “objects” to be acquired by and for human consumption. 

Given these parallels, the opening scene of “Obsoletely Fabulous” is particularly interesting, as it establishes that capitalism is still very much alive in the futuristic setting of the show, and calls into question what the impact of technological innovations will be on the robot labor force.  This question becomes a real concern for Bender at the Roboexpo when Robot 1X, “A robot that will put all previous robots to shame,” (Futurama 2004) is revealed and overtly marketed as superior to its (now technologically inferior) predecessors.

As Guglielmo Carchedi points out, “Labor is continuously first expelled and then attracted in the different phases of the economic cycle” (Davis et. al. 80).  In the scene pictured above, we can see Bender being expelled as a source of labor while Robot 1X is simultaneously attracted as the “new and improved” labor model.  Significantly, Carchedi argues that, “The question of who the agents of social change will be if technology fully replaces labor is misplaced, given that labor cannot under capitalism be dispensed with” (80).  I will return to the dimensions and implication of human labor in Futurama later on in this paper, but for now it is meaningful to establish capitalism’s role in the show. 

Bender: That new robot is great huh? He sure made me look like a pile of crap.

Professor Farnsworth: Indeed! That why I bought one to help around the office.

Bender: [Gulp]

Because Bender occupies the unique role of being both a consumable product and a source of labor, he experiences a sort of double displacement, as he feels both competitive with and inferior to Robot 1X.  Eventually, Bender falls into a deep depression because he feels that he cannot keep up with his new robotic counterpart.

The feelings that Bender experiences at the hands of Robot 1X are not common, as Carchedi argues, “While new technologies do raise human productivity in novel ways, their capitalist use necessarily implies crisis, exploitation, poverty, unemployment, the destruction of natural environments and more generally all those evils which high tech is supposed to eradicate” (Carchedi, 73).  While robot exploitation, poverty, and unemployment are the implicit aftereffects of Robot 1X’s introduction into the labor force, we as viewers see Bender explicitly undergo a state of personal crisis, in which he feels inferior to Robot 1X and fears they will never “be compatible.”  To surmount this “fear” Leela suggests that Bender visit his manufacturer for a “software update” that will make him compatible with the new technology.  The underlying sentiment of Leela’s advice is that Robot 1X is not going anywhere, and that Bender needs to learn how to adjust to this technological innovation if he hopes to remain a viable part of the capitalist labor force.  The onus to change is placed on him rather than the capitalist society he is cast out from, whether that change is in fact possible or not, an attitude that highlights Carchedi’s discussion of technology’s impact on labor in a capitalist society.  

Structural Unemployment and the [Obsolete] Robolution

Determined to co-exist with Robot 1X, Bender visits the robot manufacturing plant for his “software upgrade” but loses his nerve after watching another robot receive the upgrade and remarking, “It’s like he’s not him anymore— you took away his robo-humanity!” (2004).  Fearing that he too will become brainwashed after receiving the upgrade, Bender flees from the factory and sits dejected in an empty alley lamenting, “I’m too scared to get the upgrade, but I can’t face my friends without it” (2004).  Convinced that his utility to society has essentially vanished, Bender runs away from home in search of a place where he can live in inferior peace.  Given the futuristic world that show is set in, viewers are positioned to view the adoption of major technological advancements like Robot 1X into society as the norm.  This rampant adoption has the potential to be problematic for robots, as Hirschl argues, “Adopting these technologies… [I]ncreases unemployment, heightens realization crisis, and thereby sets the competitive conditions encouraging another round of technological adoption.  This cyclical process defines the ‘final’ decline of capitalism” (164).  Indeed, evidence of these “rounds” of technological adoption (and inevitable abandonment) emerges when Bender lands on a desert island occupied by obsolete robots.

After realizing that the robots in the colony have gone through essentially the same form of technological devaluation as himself, Bender begins to disavow technology and its usefulness as a whole.  Although they are a small group, the obsolete robots living on the island come to represent the structurally unemployed (individuals whose lack of employment results from a mismatch between demand in the labor market and the skills and locations of the workers seeking employment), and further come to constitute, “[A] ‘new class’ that has nothing in common with either the capitalists or the industrial working class.  Their immediate class interests are to transform the social system to distribute goods and services on the basis of human need” (169).  Indeed, the robots on the island find themselves at odds with both capitalists and the working class, and vow to bring forth the social revolution that Marx foreshadowed as the final crisis in his theory of capitalist development, only rather than distributing goods and services on the basis of human need, their goal is to dispense of technology altogether.

Plans are set into motion, and the robots make their way back to Manhattan in a primitive submarine with the hopes of destroying Robot 1X.  Their plans, however, are pathetically thwarted, as their crude and imprecise tools not only fail to destroy Robot 1X, but also cause a fire which traps all of Bender’s friends.  In his attempt to abandon technology, Bender trades his full metal body for one made of wood, and is therefore unable to help rescue his friends from the fire.  As result, he must rely on Robot 1X to save them.

As Bender lies helplessly and watches the fire inch closer to his friends he wails, “Why didn’t I get that upgrade?  I’m an outdated piece of junk!”  Until he notices Robot 1X in the corner and exclaims, “Wait.. I can use you as a tool to save my friends, and I’ll still be the hero who everyone says how great he was.”  True to form, Robot 1X swoops in and uses giant motorized fans to extinguish the fire, even managing to save what’s left of Bender along with his friends.

Information Capitalism, Upgrading, and the Future

Throughout this paper I have drawn parallels between “Obsoletely Fabulous” and Carchedi and Hirschl’s respective theories on the effects of technology on labor in a capitalist society, but have not yet explicitly addressed Hirschl’s question of where the jobs will be in an information capitalist society.  Returning to Futurama, it is significant to note that all of the labor issues in “Obsoletely Fabulous” are seen as impacting robots and not humans.  In fact, we see few instances of humans actually working throughout the show, with the exception of MOM (robot manufacturer and reigning capitalist power), Professor Farnsworth, whose very name betrays his non-productive intellectual labor, and the man in the factory who is responsible for giving the robots their upgrades.  Perhaps we as viewers are positioned to see Hirschl’s dream that, “If production can be conducted without workers, then it can be distributed without money” (165) as realized in the show’s futuristic society, except that capitalism is still portrayed as being alive and well.  The only thing that really seems to be different in the year 3000 is production, which is conducted without human workers, who have been entirely replaced, as they feared, by robots.  And yet things appear to be more the same as ever—technology advances, labor is displaced, replaced, and the cycle begins anew. 

After narrowly escaping death thanks to the help of Robot 1X, Bender opts to get the software upgrade in order for them to be compatible with one another.  As he steps onto the machine’s platform, Bender comments, “This new technology is great!  I love those 1X Robots, those guys are my beeest friends!” before it is revealed to the audience that the entire “obsolete robolution” (and hence the majority of the episode) was a hallucination brought on by the upgrade software.  It appears, then, that the jobs of information capitalism are reserved for those who can perpetuate its capitalist interests throughout society.  This is the chief enterprise of the capitalist, who hopes to create and perpetuate the “need” for information capital among consumers.  In this case MOM is highly successful in that she not only appeals to her baseline consumer (Professor Farnsworth), but is also able to convince the displaced laborer (Bender) of the necessity of the very object that took his job (using only the thinly veiled tool of brainwashing).  If nothing else, “Obsoletely Fabulous” illustrates capitalism’s primary and most deeply rooted interest: its own self-preservation.  Whatever the jobs in information capitalism are, they will serve these interests above all others.   

Works Cited

Carchedi, Guglielmo.  “High-Tech Hype: Promises and Realities of Technology in the Twenty-

First Century.” Davis, et al.  73-86.  Davis J., T. Hirschl, and M. Stack, eds.  Cutting Edge:    

Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social Revolution.  London: Verso, 1997.  Print.

Hirschl, Thomas.  “Structural Unemployment and the Qualitative Transformation of Capitalism.” 

Davis, et al.  157-174. Davis J., T. Hirschl, and M. Stack, eds.  Cutting Edge:    

Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social Revolution.  London: Verso, 1997.  Print.