Eddie, Marx

Marx states that the ruling class of any society owns the means of production, and thus controls the synthesis of ideas as well. He writes that those of intellectual power establish the model of ideological control while those of productive power employ the resources needed to realize the framework to guide the beliefs of the masses. The layman then believes in high and mighty goals which, in their splendor, hide the function of helping those in power stay in power. Here, Marx’s theory explains to us a lot, but yet there is a matter it fails to explain.

The control of ideas is the control over aspirations. The American mass still believe in the American Dream – one that ultimately, and quietly, supports those at the top of the capitalism pyramid. Ideals, hopes and beliefs make up the “ideas” that Marx writes of. The American Dream is the self-sufficient middle class family that has risen above social welfare but is beneath, and bound to, the rigorous ties of employment or a limited capitalist venture. The family nurtures a healthy second generation who are “lucky” to be born into this privileged dream class, who maintain and propagate the machine of capitalism. The American Dream, we must not forget, is a well-furnished one, armed to the teeth by Best Buy, Haverty’s and Hummers, yet this all is nothing that has escaped what Marx has already described. What exactly is the problem here?

While economical affluence and material wealth are the most common measures of social standings, it does not, however, make up the whole of what we consider to be the perfect modern family. What about aesthetics? How about tastes? Or manners and morals? A well-to-do family not only has a lot of stuff, but they also show an air of refinement. They show good choice and high expectations in their spending. Next to that, they show self-restraint, consideration, generosity and other displays of voluntary behavior that serve no apparent purpose to the immediate gain of the ruling class. Those beneath the top have a collective social concept as to what is acceptable and desirable behavior. They rationalize and support what they come to recognize as their ideology, because goals are meaningless if the mass do not think it is “right.”

Morals play an important role in shaping ideals. Marxists may argue that moral is a part of the collective scheme: a component that ensures that the machine of capitalism runs smoothly. It is not unlike how vitamins provide no power, so are not considered nutrients to our body but are essential to proper and healthy functioning. So morals are definitely not beyond the concern of the ruling class in that it helps the mass make sense of their subjectivity. It is conceivable how morals are essential to establishing whatever social framework we have, be it of an intentional design or not. Yet as important as morals are, not all countries share the same quality of morality as the general population of America. China has people pushing their children into cars to collect compensation, families that salvage medical waste to stuff mattresses, and factories that use lead paint to ride each order to the limits of their profit. They above harm the country with no end, and persist due to the general absence of morals to stabilize the growing society. Why does China not instill morality then? If Marx’s model of the means of production granting the control of ideas is true, then morals – an ideal – should be a mere matter of manipulating the people into being good citizens, because they will believe they want to, eventually. China even has a considerably more powerful sway over the means of (and even the most basic access to) production than here in the US, so why do they not have the ideological muscles to match? This is because moral (and the other previously mentioned facets of aesthetics) are of a form of ideals apart from ideology. They are, thus, completely beyond the control of the ruling class, regardless of the control they may have over ideological concerns. If this was not the case, then Mattel and Fisher Price would have a lot less toys to recall.

Marx presents sound logic in his proposed model of ideology, but there is at least one more component essential to the equation that he fails to account for and address. That factor of society is important to a stable capitalist society which, in Marxist terms, serves to support the few by exploiting the many. If Marxism is all about the struggle of power, then who dictates the path of morals and aesthetics? Not the rulers, that is for sure.