Must reject every instance of capitalism – incorporation of capitalist methodology dooms the alternative to failure and co-option

(Aasim, The Professionalization of Political Culture, Capitalism Nature Socialism Vol 17 Num 3, 11/21/06)

]

There can be little doubt that the miseries faced by the working people of the world today can only be transcended by confronting the system that (re)produces them, and this confrontation will only take place if working people believe they can beat the system. But the capitalist system is resilient and sophisticated, and it co-opts our struggles, often without us even realizing it. As so many socialists have acknowledged, our imagination is stunted by capitalism. Capitalist hegemony necessarily limits our conception of a post-capitalist society, given that values and beliefs ingrained within us are the products of capitalism. Transcending these values and beliefs is a massive challenge when capitalism inhibits our ability to conceive of anything different. Arguably the biggest failure of “actually existing socialism” was its emphasis on an economistic ethos above and beyond the development of the socialist consciousness. Revolutionary thinkers throughout the 20th century, including Mao Zedong and Che Guevara, were unable to transcend capitalist hegemony—even as they insisted on the importance of inculcating such a consciousness. Clearly modernity has brought with it innumerable opportunities to create and move beyond the here and now, as much as it inherently tends towards self-destruction. This is why the possibility of transcending capitalist modernity will always exist, although it is important to understand the enormity of the challenge, because, as Wallis points out, “the very factors that make the rule of capital so destructive also operate to shield it against any effective effort to go beyond it.”2 In any case, it may well be the overwhelming destructiveness of the system that impels us to consider how to beat it. There is no evidence to suggest that the multitude of new social movements will be able to transcend the capitalist imaginary just because they celebrate diversity. In fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the new social movements face a serious crisis of legitimacy as manifested in international gatherings that have not moved meaningfully beyond what they oppose to what they propose. In particular, the overwhelming professionalization of progressive political culture must be signaled as a cause of serious concern for the “anti-globalization” movement. Given that the international movement claims to be fighting capitalism, it must also confront the question of means, because creating a political culture that allows us to struggle against capitalism requires us to reject the practices and values that define it. For example, we celebrate the Zapatistas for challenging the boundaries between the state and indigenous culture, and our movement's dynamism is inherent in our belief that the Zapatistas represent an alternative value system to capitalism. But when we employ the means of the corporate mainstream under the guise of “supporting” the Zapatistas, we are not only reinforcing corporate and state power but are also contributing to the structural violence being waged against the indigenous culture we purport to defend. Whether one is to articulate this dilemma in terms of Marx's notion of false consciousness or a more sophisticated Gramscian discussion of hegemony, there is little question that the struggle against capitalism must involve a very deliberate and definitive rejection of the very practices and symbols that define capitalism. There is no reason to believe that capitalist hegemony is all-encompassing and cannot be challenged. But it is crucial that our challenge begins in our daily practices, however seemingly inconsequential these may be.