Capitalism has roots far beyond pop culture
When Noel Carroll
questioned why the proletariat hasn't revolted against the capitalists, he
suggested that capitalism manipulates our minds through mass popular arts,
hindering the realization of ideas. I partly agree with this as a main reason
for the rapid growth of capitalism worldwide, despite Marxist theories taught
in various academic spheres. The narrative of social ascension, as seen in
Pretty Woman, is evident in movies and everyday life, where individuals aspire
to climb out of the lower class. However, few act and apply suggested tips, as
becoming wealthy for some people involves tough, uncomfortable, and disruptive
steps. Despite abundant online advice on becoming a millionaire in 365 days,
few follow through due to the challenges involved.
Wealth doesn't always mean happiness.
Vivian Tu, a Chinese
immigrant and millionaire, in her article on CNBC about four unpopular rules
that rich people follow that most don’t, says that rich people are good at
waiting because they understand that sometimes things take time, and they are
happy to wait—something most people don’t do.
It is tempting to embrace the Marxist perspective, exposing messages in pop culture that suggest certain groups cannot rise to specific positions. Initially, such messages may sound like a strong call to action, attracting massive support when there's a common understanding and belief in the goal. Yet, the emancipation of the working class has not occurred, as asserted by Noel Carroll. I believe that human nature is partly and inherently capitalist-oriented, and both the 'oppressor' and the 'oppressed' will at some point unknowingly find satisfaction in their roles. Ascending the social ladder sometimes involves giving up certain superficial lifestyles important for humanity's mental well-being. In the Canadian thriller film ‘Sometimes the Good Kills,’ Sarah (played by Susie Abromeit) becomes the target of dangerous stalkers because of who she is.
Though the importance of
pop culture messages in spreading and promoting the capitalist ideology cannot
be ruled out, some wealthiest individuals, aware of the potential harm in
abundance and comfort, plan to pass on only a small portion of their wealth to
their children. This is the case for Warren Buffett, the chairman and CEO of
Berkshire Hathaway, who said he would pass 99% of his wealth to philanthropic
organizations because too much can be detrimental to his children. “After much
observation of super-wealthy families, here’s my recommendation: Leave the
children enough so that they can do anything, but not enough that they can do
nothing,” he said in a note to shareholders. Bill Gates has also expressed
something similar on several occasions. Despite the rhetoric, each of Buffett’s
children had previously inherited a $2 billion foundation. Can we blindly trust
the wealthiest in their speeches without critical analysis of their messages?
References
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/why-warren-buffett-isnt-leaving-his-100-billion-dollar-fortune-to-his-kids.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/27/i-became-a-millionaire-at-age-27-unpopular-rules-rich-people-follow-that-most-dont.html
It would seem that the majority of people simply accept the status quo because they don't have a choice. They say that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Unfortunately, the squeaky wheel on a BMW gets way better service.
ReplyDelete