OBE #4 - Debord No. 42
Here, in my own words, is what I believe Guy Debord was trying to say with thesis No. 42. Before I begin, it’s important for me to note that I believe, while he never really says it, that Debord is completely railing against capitalism in No. 42.
Enjoy:
The spectacle of capitalism happens when things (by things I mean attainable objects that one can purchase) take up a person’s entire life. The only thing people see, and the only thing they care about, are things. Capitalism is the chief power and it’s a brutal power. In the places that aren’t as far along, industrially, capitalism is still known to be powerful because people know about the places where capitalism is powerful. In the places that are far along, peoples’ lives are taken up by multiple layers of capitalism. In those places, buying things – even if people aren’t sure why they’re buying them -becomes a job of sorts. This form of slavery must become global if the capitalism is to survive and for that to happen, the people have to reach some form of success, but not too much success. To ensure that people never get too successful, capitalism has to keep them at a certain low level, as humans, through every area (psychologically, socially, etc.).
If this were indeed what Debord was trying to say with thesis No. 42, then it would seem to me that he is right with some of his points and off-base with others.
He is right to say that, in a capitalistic society, people can become completely infatuated with the idea of getting stuff, that it almost becomes a second job. You only need to watch an episode of MTV’s “Cribs” to find that out. He is also correct to say that people in less industrialized countries are well aware of the power of capitalism precisely because of the countries where capitalism is the reigning power. People in third-world countries know how powerful capitalism is because, after all, they’ve heard of the United States of America, haven’t they?
However, Debord is wrong to say that capitalism is a brutal power. In fact, it is very much the exact opposite. Sure, people who are living a lower-class lifestyle might not have a good life at the moment, but in a capitalistic society like ours, the chance always exists for them to turn things around. If capitalism were truly brutal, as he claims, then how would he explain all the stories of people who came from nothing and turned themselves into success stories?
He is also wrong to say that capitalism, through every imaginable area (psychologically, etc.) works to ensure that people never get too successful. Look at Bill Gates, for example – it is hard to say that he didn’t get too successful.
I also take issue with what I believe to be a major underlying theme in Debord’s thesis, the idea that capitalism is almost too strong a force for people to withstand, that all people in a capitalistic society are these zombie-like creatures who are all consumed with stuff. Sure, there are some people like that, but not everyone is like that. The fact that certain people become that way is a price you have to pay to live in a society where the opportunities are more abundant. I have no problem paying that price.