Modern consumer capitalist democracy or, simply, modern capitalism, has been widely and profoundly criticized by numerous scholars, policymakers, and national leaders. Margaret Thatcher, Herbert Marcuse, and Ralf Dahrendorf were all critical of modern capitalism. But the question is, were their reasons similar or different? This paper critically examines the argument of each of these figures and then identifies the continuity (or discontinuity) between their ideas. Fundamentally, Thatcherism embodies the huge importance given to a small state and free markets. Instead of planning and controlling enterprises and consumerism, the role of the government is to avoid interfering. However, Margaret Thatcher is not the only one who criticizes modern consumer capitalist democracy or socialist central planning and state-owned enterprises (Evans 56). Thatcher paved the way to an actual revolution by defying the two celebrated schools of modern economic thought-- the Marxist argument that Utopia must be funded by confiscating the savings and income of the working population, and the Keynesian idea that continuous growth and progress could be ensured by providing state grants or donations to the unemployed and those who are unable to work.
Prior to the Thatcher administration, the Conservative party had just about accepted the Labour's economic ideology-- that the economy is an unchanging accumulation of wealth to be distributed to the most powerful and influential interest groups. In view of such, Thatcher liberalized markets to significantly boost the national economy (Evans 88). She argued that there are two key political ideologies: Socialist-Marxist and free market economics. She was against Socialist-Marxist ideals because they give greater importance to the State than to the people, they take away the liberty of the people to have control over their lives, and they rob them of their own earnings and property (Jackson and Saunders 28). Moreover, Thatcher claims that the State asserts superiority over the people. As she asserted in her 1968 lecture at the Conservative Political Center, “I believe that the great mistake of the last few years has been for the government to provide or to legislate for almost everything” (Thatcher 3). Thatcher (3) was encouraging the British people to remember the reconstruction during the postwar era when the national government took on every form of responsibility. It was too much for a government to handle or assume, and it did not end well for Britain. On the other hand, a free market economy does not merely ensure the liberty, freedom, and happiness of all citizens, it is the most effective way to boost national wealth altogether.
Thatcher nurtured within the Conservative Party a commitment to a free market economy. She argued that a handful of government officials attempting to limit economic growth to fit their own plans must not be more important than the freedom of the society to carry out its own innovation and distribute resources. Thatcher (4) claims that the most successful price system is largely unlikely if the government regulates the prices; a productive prices policy can only come from competition. She argued that capitalism must be allowed to function without much governmental intervention. She asserted that all forms of regulatory mechanism serve as a constraint on liberty. Thatcher repudiated the belief that inflation could be effectively resolved with price and wage regulations (Jackson and Saunders 43). In essence, opposition to a socialist market was not largely economic. Thatcherism had no doubts that a socialist economy was unproductive and useless, or that exorbitant taxes were detrimental to efficiency or productivity. However, as Thatcher proclaimed, “the real case against Socialism is not its economic inefficiency Much more fundamental is its basic immorality” (Jackson and Saunders 32). For Thatcher (3), it is morally wrong to allow the government to control the market situations that would determine economic growth and development. It is simply not fair.
On the other hand, Herbert Marcuse criticizes contemporary capitalism. Marcuse anchors his distrust on what seems to him to be the newly-acquired capability of modern consumer capitalist democracy to address economic issues through political solutions. He believes that 'laissez-faire' capitalism has been effectively converted into a “regulated profit economy, controlled by the state and the large monopolies, into a system of organized capitalism” (Marcuse et al. 171). Simply put, Marcuse believes that capitalism can keep on enhancing the social dynamics of production and at the same time preserve its class system. As he stated in his work An Essay on Liberation, “Capitalism reproduces itself by transforming itself, and the transformation is mainly in the improvement of exploitation” (Marcuse 'One Dimensional Man' 13). He further claims that it is not the class nature of capitalism which impedes technological progress; it is technology instead which reinforces the survival of capitalism. Marcuse (13) explains that technology conceals such form of exploitation, which makes consumers oblivious to the oppression they are experiencing in a modern consumer capitalist society.
In his work One Dimensional Man, Marcuse presented a full critique and resistance to modern capitalism in its entirety. He sees destructive aspect in the most popular accomplishments of advanced capitalism and views impracticality and incongruity in its self-professed rationality. He argues that the progress of society is sustained by oppression and exploitation, its growth and development are rooted in 'waste' and 'destruction', while its democracy and autonomy are dependent on manipulation and control (Marcuse et al. 173). Marcuse addresses such uncertainty and strongly opposes the alienation and debasement in capitalism's wealth and abundance, the absurdity and threat in its military-industrial system, the preoccupation or obsession with consumerism, the subordination and dogma in its culture, and the slavery inherent in its production and labor process (Marcuse et al. 173-4). These are the things that Thatcher did not take into consideration in her promotion of a free market economy. For instance, Thatcher (5) promoted a wage rate that is fully determined by greater effort and productivity, without any government intervention whatsoever. This implies that the market should be left alone to determine income. Her argument is, apparently, uncompromising.
Marcuse asserts that in spite of its remarkable accomplishments, capitalism is “irrational as a whole. Its productivity is destructive of the free development of human needs and faculties its growth dependent on the repression of the real possibilities for pacifying the struggle for existence-- individual, national and international” (Marcuse 'One-Dimensional Man' xxx). He claims that contemporary capitalism is a commodity-based economy wherein consumerism and commodity are much more important than that envisioned by Marx.
Marcuse argues that in contemporary capitalism, consumerism and commodities have reconstructed the core personality composition-- the individuals' behavior, needs, and values-- in a manner that hooks up 'one-dimensional man' to the societal forces that generates these needs. As explained in An Essay on Liberation, in modern consumer capitalist societies, the advancement of the working classes is thwarted by a large-scale, societal suppression of class consciousness, and by the creation of needs which bolster the subjugation of those who are oppressed and exploited (Marcuse 16). Most importantly, Marcuse ('An Essay on Liberation' 16-17) believes that the most powerful aspect of modern consumer capitalist democracy is its capability to encompass the entirety of social change and to incorporate all prospective catalysts of change into a single conveniently, efficiently operating, complacent and gratifying mechanism of domination and control (Marcuse 18). Such 'one-dimensional society' is facilitated by new types and levels of social control which enable the creation of consciousness and needs that embrace and comply with the system, hence methodically suppressing the necessity and desire for profound, deep-seated social change.
On the other hand, Ralf Dahrendorf believes that societies in the contemporary period are post-capitalist. Authority, and not ownership, is the most important component of an industrial society. For Dahrendorf, there is already a disruption in the capitalist political and economic structures brought about by the decline in the legitimate ownership of the means of production. The usual industrial rivalry between the working class (or proletariat) and the upper class (bourgeoisie), according to Dahrendorf, are 'institutionally isolated' (Bell 51) and does not exist anymore. Simply put, in post-capitalist societies, ownership or linkages to the means of production do not determine privilege or power or authority in society anymore. Dahrendorf ('Essays in the Theory of Society' 59) claims that property or economic relations, although still producing their own struggles, does not restore or become established as the primary core of societal conflict anymore. In his work The New Liberty, Dahrendorf (74) explains that the educational institution blurs the boundary between the upper class and lower class, for it promotes greater social mobility.
Thus, the question becomes, who comprises the ruling class in post-capitalist societies? Dahrendorf answers that, “We have to look for the ruling class, in those positions that constitute the head of bureaucratic hierarchies, among those persons who are authorized to give directives to the administrative staff” (Bell 51). Contrary to Marx's depiction of the initial stages of uncontrolled capitalism, Dahrendorf claims that present-day industrialized societies are governed by corporatist capitalism-- refers to a society ruled by corporate groups (e.g. military, businesses, agriculture) and dominant interest groups based on shared interests-- that not merely function on a much bigger proportion but are more strongly established in the entire social system as well. Dahrendorf ('The New Liberty' 78-79), a major characteristic of modern consumer capitalist societies is that class struggle between socioeconomic groups has been mostly suppressed by means of different processes that have been created to undermine and control it.
Consequently, the likelihood that large-scale destructive conflicts will occur and come close to a full-blown, disruptive revolutionary conflict are much more unlikely than Marx had expected. Rather, conflict results in a slow, but steady, transformative change that strongly bolsters and perpetuates the system. Dahrendorf (''The New Liberty' 80) thus argues that rules are required to ensure that the market's principles-- the freedom of capital movement and privatization-- are not misused to protect and preserve the unbounded power of a few to stop the transformation from expansion to development or growth.
Dahrendorf ('Essays in The Theory of Society' 92) argues that a number of key attributes of the modern consumer capitalist society differentiates it from the early forms of capitalism. These involve greater diversity of the labor market, bringing about the advancement of the skill qualifications for industrial occupations, and enlargement of the middle class, numerous of whom literally take part in carrying out designated authority. Included as well are government intervention in different types of income reallocation to improve social welfare, expansion of citizenship rights and political equality, and greater social mobility.
Discussion and Conclusions
Thatcher, Marcuse, and Dahrendorf have expressed their critique of modern consumer capitalist society, albeit with different reasons. Thatcher does not really criticize modern capitalism; in fact, she supported it. What she was sharply criticizing is a socialist economy, one that is largely regulated by the state. She believes that government intervention would only stifle economic growth, and would encourage corruption and other unproductive behavior among those in the bureaucracy. She was a great believer of a free market economy, arguing that long-term economic growth cannot be achieved through a socialist-Marxist system. In view of this, she ordered the privatization of state-owned enterprises and criticized labor agreements and excessive regulation that hindered the development of new commercial ventures, greater employment opportunities, and a more large-scale and long-term growth and development. She promoted all of these in the name of modern capitalism.
On the contrary, Marcuse criticizes modern capitalism, claiming that it is exclusively commodity-based and too fixated on consumerism. He detests how a modern consumer capitalist society suppresses people's desire for social change. Individuals are bombarded with propaganda and advertisements every day in order to fully assimilate and integrate them into the prevailing social order. Marcuse argues that these capitalist instruments are used to prevent people from realizing that they are being oppressed and exploited, and from believing that they have to act toward social change. Clearly, Marcuse does not share Thatcher's affinity toward modern capitalism.
Dahrendorf, on the other hand, does not directly criticize modern capitalism; he, in fact, simply gave a new name for it-- post-capitalist societies. He disagrees with both Thatcher and Marcuse about the class struggle that is inherent in capitalism. For Dahrendorf, there is no longer distinction between a bourgeoisie and a proletariat. In other words, for him, the old class conflict that Marx's envision has been replaced or suppressed in the contemporary period. Indeed, Dahrendorf sees modern capitalism, which is corporatist in nature, as a better economic, social, and political system than the old entrepreneurial capitalism.
Works Cited
Bell, Daniel. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books, 2008. Print.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. Essays in the Theory of Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1968. Print.
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 'The New Liberty.' Handout for History 146b. [put the name of your university here]. 1975. Print.
Evans, Eric. Thatcher and Thatcherism. London: Routledge, 2013.
Jackson, Ben and Robert Saunders. Making Thatchers Britain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.
Marcuse, Herbert. 'An Essay on Liberation.' Handout for History 146b. [put the name of your university here]. n.d. Print.
Marcuse, Herbert. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 2012. Print.
Marcuse, Herbert, Douglas Kellner, and Clayton Pierce. Marxism, Revolution and Utopia: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse. London: Routledge, 2014. Print.
Thatcher, Margaret. 'What's Wrong with Politics?' Handout for History 146b. [put the name of your university here]. 1968. Print.
