I’ve had to read this one twice, and much more slowly the second time, highlighting bits along the way, which I might add some of at the end of this review. Why did I need to do that? Well, the problem is that this book is about the hardest idea in Marx coupled with Lacanian psychology. Another book by the same author explains that Lacan decided that so many people misunderstood Freud because he wrote so plainly and they read too fast, that the best solution would be to be so obscure that people’s eyes would bleed when they read you. It didn’t help, of course, people read into you whatever they want, whether you are clear or obscure. And since Lacan was a great fan of Hegel, he should have already known that.
Let’s start with Marx. In the first volume of Capital, Marx talks of the commodity as a fetish. The first thing Marx discusses in his explanation of how capitalist production works is the commodity and it takes up a big chunk of the book. The fetish of the commodity is an odd expression – particularly now when we are more likely to think of a fetish as being a dildo than a religious object, which are not the same, regardless of how often you scream Oh God using either. What Marx meant, in part, is that commodities hide their true nature by becoming a kind of religious fetish – an object that stops being just a lump of material, but rather god – not just a pointer to god, but an actual manifestation of godliness. We stop seeing the thing as a lump of plaster or metal and instead see god. The fetish illusion hides the true nature of the object. For Marx, the true nature of the commodity is not how it will make you incredibly attractive to the opposite sex, or change your life for the better – all that advertisements tell you will happen upon purchasing them – nor is it that the commodity creates its own value by how much you desire it. For Marx, the true nature of the commodity is in its exchange value, and this is determined by how much labour is contained within it. Worse than this obscuring of the social nature of the production of the commodity that its fetish nature obscures, it also obscures how capitalists make a profit, even from the capitalist. That is, profit comes from getting workers to labour beyond the time that is needed for them to reproduce their labour power. This means the capitalist only pays the worker enough to meet their basic needs – say, what they can produce in 4 hours work – but gets the worker to work for 8 hours, with the additional 4 hours producing profit to the capitalist – or what Marx calls surplus labour. Now, you need to have that idea in your head, because the author is going to run with it – even further than Marx does.
This is where Lacan is brought in. Lacan is interested in desire and enjoyment. For Lacan, the commodity doesn’t only contain surplus labour, but also surplus enjoyment. This makes an interesting twist on Marx. For Marx, and for most economists, the commodity is first and foremost a use value. If it has no use, no one will by it and so it doesn’t matter how much labour it has contained within itself, it can’t turn a profit, because surplus value is only realised once it is purchased. This is what the author thinks of as the great myth of capitalism and the great mistake of Marx. He points out that the whole point of capitalism isn’t to produce use values, but to produce excess. We’ve already seen this in the fact the capitalist gets the worker to work beyond the time needed to produce what is necessary to reproduce their labour power. Excess is the key to capitalism in that it is in this ‘producing beyond what is necessary’ where profit lies. But the story goes deeper still. As the author says, every society prior to capitalism was interested mostly in its own reproduction. And this meant it was interested in ‘the good’ – however that was defined by the society. But capitalism is only really interested in excess. It isn’t as interested in ‘need’ as it might claim. It is interested in producing excess that is beyond need, and this excess is portrayed as having no limits. I’ve just read a few books on the tech bros and how they want there to be a trillion humans spread across the stars. They want this because capitalism needs to endlessly grow – capitalism without growth isn’t capitalism. This idea of capitalism being endlessly excessive is central here. And it impacts all aspects of capitalism, both economically (destroying the planet due to wasted production directed at endless excess) and psychologically (in driving us to desire excess without loss, without limits).
The problem is that capitalism cannot deliver on this lossless excess. Every commodity promises that it will fill the void we feel through excess – the excess that capitalism creates through the surplus value it extracts from workers – but this desire is always thwarted. For the author, the reason why this is always thwarted is because pure excess is psychologically impossible.
Many, perhaps too many, people think that if we are going to save the planet from capitalism we are going to have to limit our enjoyment and produce and consume only what we need. This sounds reasonable – but like the idea of a lossless excess, it isn’t actually possible. Our problem is that the capitalists are right, in a way, enjoyment comes from excess, not from merely meeting our needs – enjoyment comes from the useless, not use values and ‘what we need’. As that old joke would have it – always exchange life’s necessities for life’s luxuries. The author says that pre-capitalist societies understood this and that was why excess was constrained to holidays, carnivals and the potlatch. The grind of the everyday was replaced by a wasteful excess – and this was the most enjoyable time of the year. Capitalism turns this on its head. It produces wasteful excess as its main reason for being. The use value of the commodity is its least interesting feature. It is only in extravagant waste and excess that capitalism makes money – and it is in this excess that we find pleasure.
He talks of coke as an example here. He explains that coke is a diuretic and so drinking it makes you thirstier than before you drank it. Making it the nearly perfect capitalist commodity – a drink that makes you need to drink more. And like that Lou Reed song, Strawman, he also produces lists of things we desire, but ultimately do not need.
Does anybody need another million dollar movie?
Does anybody need another million dollar star?
Does anyone really need a billion dollar rocket?
Does anyone need a sixty-thousand dollar car?
Does anyone need another president?
Does anyone need another faulty shuttle
Blasting off to the moon, Venus or Mars?
The point is that none of us need any of these things – but that only heightens our desire for them. Use value is our ultimate justification – ‘yeah, but the new iPhone has a better camera and 5G and…’ but we are unlikely to ever use half of these features, but the useless excess is what makes the commodity desirable, not its meeting our needs.
And yet, this excess never proves to be enough. We still feel empty once we have purchased the commodity. In fact, perhaps even emptier than before – since wanting to obtain the commodity, like seducing a new lover we desire, is often better than the sex we have with them – something Sartre talks about somewhere. Capitalism promises we are one purchase away from living a life in a permanent state of orgasm – the thing is that not only is living in such a state not possible, it isn’t even something we would rationally desire. An endless orgasm would quickly become more of a punishment than a pleasure.
We seem to be trapped. We are drawn to excess, are only happy when we obtain excess, but this excess is fleeting and destroying the planet and our lives. Is there a way out? Well, this is where the author comes back to Nietzsche, in part, anyway, and talks of the benefits that come from making your life a work of art. The thing with art is that it is obsessed with form – and most importantly, with the constraints of form. Why does someone write a sonnet rather than about 140 words in some other structure? The author says that the loss of writing in the form of a sonnet (loss in the sense that you can’t write in any of the other ways that would otherwise be available to you if you weren’t writing a sonnet) presents access to a true excess – rather than the fake excess of the commodity. It is a dialectical relationship, where true excess is found within the constraints imposed by the otherwise ‘loss’ of options available to you that you must work within. Here is the path out of the wastefulness of capitalism without reducing it to the drudgery of only having out needs met. Rather than seeing pure excess as the path to happiness, a pure excess that is always thwarted, we learn instead that excess is only realisable through loss – through placing limits and constrains on our desires. This is where desire – which is always directed towards what we do not have – becomes love, a working within the limits and seeking to transcend those limits. Rather than drudgery, it is here that we find true joy, pure excess.
I’ve just finished reading another book on Shakespeare’s sonnets – one of the things I found most interesting about it was how often the author said one or other of the sonnets was a bit rubbish – well, rubbish for Shakespeare. But this book makes it clear that that is necessary, rather than a terrible flaw. Perfection, true excess, is rare, even if you are Shakespeare, but seeking after perfection is an excess beyond that of the promise of lossless excess.
Some quotes:
What characterizes the commodity form is the promise of pure excess. 2
Excess is always impure, which is not a defect but precisely what enables it to be excessive. 2
If a society emphasizes production over reproduction, it will necessarily produce too much rather than enough. 3
Once capitalism emerges as the ruling socioeconomic system, limiting production to what is merely necessary ceases to be a feasible option. 4
The survival of the planet as a habitable place for humanity is not a concern of capitalist society. 5
The point of capitalist society is not sustaining things as they are but acquiring more than what one already has. 8
The fantasy that organizes the structure of capitalist society is one of
pure excess or excess without anything missing. 9
Attempts to replace popcorn and Coke with carrots and fruit smoothies have been tried at certain theaters, but such efforts failed miserably. Why? Because healthy alternatives such as these do not pass the test of enjoyability. They are useful, good for us, rather than excessive and useless…10
We become engaged in a satisfying way when we work to accomplish something, when we struggle to realize what isn’t immediately doable. No one would enjoy a game that they won instantly every time that they played. 11
When one thinks about it, the image of pure excess is an image of total boredom. 12
Through an act of limiting myself, I create my own form of excess. By devoting myself to one thing and cutting off others, I give that thing a sublime value that it otherwise wouldn’t have. 14
The challenge of modernity is liberating excess from the chains of the commodity form. 15
Artistic form is the antipode of the commodity form. The former provides a productive limit, while the latter promises production without limit. 16
Capitalism marks revolutionary change in human history. Instead of orienting the society and the subjects in it toward the good, the enjoyment of a useless excess becomes the organizing principle. 18
Coca-Cola is here the archetypal commodity: because it is a dehydrating diuretic, far from quenching my thirst, drinking a Coke makes me thirstier. Its value stems directly from its absence of any use value at all. 20
We enjoy limits rather than the unlimited. This is why a 6.5 ounce bottle of Coke is enjoyable in a way that the two-litre jug is not. 23
But to obtain the object is to deprive oneself of what makes it enjoyable. 27
The useless has priority within capitalist society because we enjoy what has no utility. 34
Utility serves as an alibi for the capitalist system, but this system is not here to respond to our needs. 34
Gold, silver, and diamonds also have great value for the same reason that money does. They are divorced from any use we might make of them. We value inutility because we enjoy what we cannot use. 37
Capitalist society promises an infinitude that can never come. 69
Value for capitalist society resides solely in excess, and this excess is what keeps it going. 77
Fetishistic disavowal obscures the fact that all enjoyment stems from lack, that there is no pure excess. 93
Once one has a debt, one has become a capitalist subject. 122
Seduced by debt, one looks to the promise of the commodity form that will deliver excess untainted with lack. But no satisfaction will ever prove excessive enough to overcome lack altogether since all our satisfaction derives from lack. 124
Capitalism turns lacking subjects into indebted persons. 124
This is why the very wealthy (without money troubles and with all the possessions they could want) are always depressed and seeking more. 126
The lacking subject can see that the lack itself is the source of the excess rather than the object that promises to fill this lack. 127
… capitalists produce more than is necessary, and they require someone to purchase it. For this to happen, people must go into debt. 130
Capitalism takes over the future of those it burdens with debt. 132
The logical outgrowth of capitalism is not communism but authoritarian populism. 159
Even with the greatest shared abundance, we will necessarily suffer from a shared scarcity because it is through what we don’t have that we enjoy ourselves. 162
Trump’s disdain for experts derived from his disdain for any limit on enjoyment. 165
Enjoyment is the excess that we experience beyond what is useful for our prosperous survival: we enjoy through the sacrifice of the useful for the sake of the excessive. 165
The good doesn’t lead directly to enjoyment. Instead, it gives us something to sacrifice so that we might enjoy. 167
We keep ourselves alive for the sake of a useless excess because this is what enables us to experience our lives as worthwhile. 174
Although we should be ruthlessly critical of capitalism for many things, we should thank it every day for its turn away from use value. 175
An emancipated society is not one that commits itself to a return to the useful. Nor is it one invested in procuring nonlacking excess for everyone. It is rather one that grasps how a sublime excess emerges out of lack. 179
Art functions through a self- determination that requires formal limits. An art that disdained limits would cease to be an art at all. 190
Art is a way of giving oneself a path to enjoyment through less. 191
Form is what prevents artists from doing whatever they want. Form is limitation. 192
All creativity has its basis in a fundamental negativity. 192
The artist receives nourishment from limitation, while the entrepreneur sees limitation only as a barrier to go beyond. 193