Good Morning Friends,

There is another anthropological observation of the bourgeoisie, which, I think helps to account for what are called the "contradictions-in-capitalism." This observation comes from the areas of architecture and interior design. This is important to keep in mind as we talk about capitalism's tendency to "binge and purge" of overaccumulation and subsequent deindustrialization.

Various observations led us to the conclusion that the capitalist class, here and everywhere (left to themselves), are only ever interested in a minimal level of production upon which they can build their pyramids of financial speculation; and we talked about the underlying ideological reason for this: Man is the Desire to Become God - who owns all wealth not thorugh striving but merely by being "God."

The observation we shall make points to a seemingly strange relationship the bourgeoisie has to modernity, which as we will see, has implications for production and "progress" in society.

In his useful book, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System (1983), Paul Fussell cited an authority called Russell Lynes - who wrote in his book, The Tastemakers:

"...despite the facade of modernity a corporation erects to impress the proles (1), behind the scenes the upper business classes cleave to flagrantly archaic effects" (2). Interesting usage there, "flagrantly archaic."

Lynes continued, "...the sheer glass box that sits handsomely on Park Avenue to house the offices of Lever Brothers, you will find that the higher the echelon the more old fashioned the surroundings. The public front is one of daring modernity. The offices of the clerks and department managers are in the functional tradition. But when you reach the offices of top management you will find that there are open fireplaces and chandeliers with an Early American flavor... If you will visit the executive dining room of the J. Walter Thompson Company... you will find yourself in what appears to be a Cape Cod house furnished with Windsor chairs and rag rugs. It has casement windows" (3).

Conclusion: the bourgeoisie - and this is one of my take aways from Paul Fussell's book, whether he meant to convey this specific message or not - as a class, are only ever interested in engaging modernity to the extent that they can use it as a time machine by which they can propel themselves into and maintain themselves in the past. Yes, the past.

Fussell's book looked at class as distinct social and cultural systems, with ingrained patterns of thought, behavior, style, taste, manner of speaking, that remain more or less constant from birth until death. One point he made about class, is that it is not about wealth in absolute terms. Indeed, we have said that becoming Old Money is not about having absolutely the most wealth, but having it arranged for the benefit of your family, on a seemingly automatic, magically self-sustaining basis.

Fussell recognized nine classes: top out-of-sight, upper, upper-middle, middle, high proletarian (he believed the inflationary period of the 1960s and 1970s wiped out the true lower middle class), mid-proletarian, low proletarian, destitute, and bottom out-of-sight.

The upper classes love the old. We all do to a certain extent, of course, and we all use modern technology to transport us to the past [think about how modern camera technology is used to digitally remaster old black and white movies, and digitize and electronically store family photos, and so forth]. We are interested in the way the ruling class uses modernity as a platform to fuel their God-drive to stay in the past; and the contradictory impulses that become embedded in capitalism itself.

The first principle, Man is the Desire to Become God, is operative. "God" is said to be eternal, changeless, perfectly serene. The world changes but the Almighty God remains constant. Indeed, I think that deep down, in the collective unconscious, if you will, of the bourgeoisie, they see "progress" as a kind of weakness, since it is ungodlike.

To continue, Fussell made the point that, if one has to work as a salesman (remember the traditional disdain that the elites have always had for the merchant class) it is better to sell old, archaic things: real wine, unpasteurized cheese, bread without preservatives, Renaissance art objects, or rare books (4).

Indeed, according to Fussell, "[s]elling something old,..., almost redeems the class shame of selling anything at all" (5). Furthermore, "[i]t is in part because Britain has seen better days that Anglophilia is so indispensable an element in upper class taste, in clothes, literature, allusion, manners, and ceremony" (6).

Fussell said that this was why riding lessons were/and still are so cherished among the top classes, because the socially best outfits and accessories were imported from England. In addition to this, top class food was "bland and mushy, with little taste and no chances taken" (7).

There is one more idea I want to leave you with. Fussell pointed out that among the upper classes, it was considered bad form to give them compliments. Fussell wrote:

"It is among members of the upper class that you have to refrain from uttering compliments, which are taken to be rude, possessions there being of course beautiful, expensive, and impressive, without question. They paying of compliments is a middle class convention, for this class needs the assurance compliments provide" (8).

The assurance compliments provide.

I raise this point for two reasons.

A) The first principle, Man is the Desire to Become God, is operative. The further up your position is on the socioeconomic scale, the more and more you are removed from the view, as well as need and desire for the "assurance" (or 'justification' remember that word? [Man exists without justification] of the majority of the population.

B) We might draw a connectrion between this seemingly innocent idiosyncracy of the bourgeoisie and the fact that both major parties, Democrats and Republicans are largely unresponsive to the wishes of the vast majority of the people (9). For example, once again, just consider how Mayor Bloomberg and others in the city council, unimpressed with two public referenda to the contrary, went ahead and changed the law allowing them to supercede term limits voted for by the public.

Fussell gave an amusing anecdote about a British peer of a very old family. One day he invited "an artistic young man" over to his estate. Upon entering the house the young man declared that he had never seen a finer set of Hepplewhite chairs. The lord had the artist removed immediately, saying, "Fellow praised my chairs! Damned cheek!" (10).

What is going on here?

The peer took the compliment (especially coming from the source) as an insult. This is because the compliment itself suggested that the peer was not sufficiently high above the rest of humanity, such that praise or condemnation is only credible coming from "God" (this is so whether or not this peer was a nominal believer or not).

There is an in-built class barrier in political communication between the population (11).

wingedcentaur

1. 'proles' is short for proletarian.

2. Fussel, Paul. Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. Summit Books, New York, 1983. p.72

3. ibid, pp.72-73

4. Fussell, p.73

5. ibid.

6. ibid.

7. Fussell, P. p.73

8. Fusell, Paul. Class. p.32

9. I use as my authority, Noam Chomsky, who always says that both the Democratic and Republican parties have been well to the right of the public on a host of issues, especially on healthcare, for decades, according to polling data he is familiar. He brings up this point on almost any speech readily available on the Internet, when he discusses the domestic American political system. There an interview he gave on a show called Inside U.S.A, in which he makes this point.

10. Fussell, Paul. Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. p.32

11. See footnote #9