He got hypnotized by the therapist who subsequently keeled over and died, remember? At the beginning of the movie, he was a normal guy who really hated his job for all the normal reasons- asshole clueless boss, pointless unfulfilling work tasks, and annoying as hell co-workers. The hypnosis stuck him in the mode of just not caring anymore, and the movie was a humorous exploration of how someone might actually fall upwards with that attitude in an company like that, and through that, shining a light on what bullshit it all was. It’s a way more subversive movie if you look at it that way, than the surface “this guy just does what he wants, haha”.
That’s just dumb, and it assumes way more direction in how things work. So much so that your post is one of the more fantastical conspiracy theories I’ve heard in a while. Up there with adenochrome and QAnon. Bravo.
Its basic marxism though, that life is a struggle between the ownership class and the working class. The ownership class wants to control all levers of power like religion, judiciary, government, military, police, media to keep the working class subservient, divided and self policing.
Also people who score high on dark triad traits are more drawn to positions of power. Sadly that is the way it has always been. Up ro 20% of CEOs fall on the psychopathic spectrum according to some studies.
Also about 50 trillion in wealth has been shuttled upwards in the US economy from 1975 to
2018. That may not be intentional sadism, but it is callous disregard by the ownership class who score high on dark triad traits.
As far as intentionally making people unhappy if you keep people in perpetual debt, if they are terrified to lose their job or lose their health insurance, if they have no financial cushion, if they are constantly angry, distracted and misinformed by media, etc they become easier to control and take advantage of.
As far as intentional sadism, that has always been a part of the system regarding the legal system. Corporal punishment for slaves for example. Torture in third world dictatorships run by dark triad leaders.
Though by all rights his new coworkers should be staring in puzzlement at this non-immigrant White guy without a trace of a regional blue-collar accent who somehow ended up on a construction crew.
The fact that it’s basic Marxism doesn’t mean it’s true or an accurate reflection of reality. Marx thought that liberal capitalism couldn’t internalize the critiques of socialists and make material conditions better for the common man, or at least that it wouldn’t take that path even if possible. He was incorrect. Capitalism implemented all kinds of reforms since his time - child labor laws, the 8 hour work day, the 5 day work week, etc… The violent revolution he thought was inevitable and necessary is neither of those things.
Work, and to a lesser extent suffering, is touted as not only virtuous but mandatory by those in power as a means to control and subjugate the populace.
Workers and labor seemed to be the highest order of importance in the Soviet system. It was essentially illegal to not have a job. Sure the question of who owned the companies is different, but it still boiled down to how much you worked, regardless of what you earned from that.
In Capitalist systems, work is mandatory if you want to have a roof over your head and food in your belly. Anyone who doesn’t work is viewed as a scumbag freeloader.
Many religions place a high value on suffering and tithing. You must pray to Jesus and live meekly. The church is happy to take that dirty money off your hands.
All of these examples are systems created by people in power to directly or indirectly subjugate others by taking away their agency and their money. Even better to brainwash them so they give you their money and power willingly.
That’s basic Marxism, but “sadistic sociopaths in charge” is absolutely not: the genius insight of Marxism is that the machinery of capitalism necessitates the suffering without needing sadists in charge. The cruelty isn’t the point, but the cruelty is an inevitable byproduct.
Yes, there are some real sadist jerks in position of power, but insisting that they’re all sadists is both wrong and harmful. If you say, “There’s cruelty here because there are sadists in power,” and if someone can demonstrate that there aren’t sadists in power, it becomes very tempting to conclude that there’s not cruelty here. If you say, “The machinery of our economic system, including the labor/wage/goods flow, invariably produces cruelty,” then no number of press releases about billionaires donating to charity will contradict that.
The only ones I know doing it are those with trust funds, and while they hoard an enormous amount of the nation’s wealth, they’re a minuscule fraction of the populace.
Capitalism is an utterly amoral appetite devoted to consuming the world to make “number go up” no matter how much harm it does…which is still morally superior to the Right. The cruelty is the point; which is why the constant condemnation of companies as “woke” and so forth, they are insufficiently cruel to please the sadists who have always dominated human society. It’s always been fairly easy to portray capitalism as a moral good because it mostly hasn’t been in competition with people trying to make it better, but against people actively trying to make society into Hell and who hate capitalism for putting profit above cruelty.
One of Marx’s errors was in not realizing that whether a society is capitalistic or communistic or something else, the psychopaths would always relentlessly try to force themselves into power in order to brutalize everyone else. Just for the fun of it. It’s not just a modern problem; a history of humanity could rightfully be given the title The Cruelty is the Point. Because it always has been.
Are you aware of how much violence took place, perpetrated against ordinary people, in order for those reforms to take place? Capitalists wouldn’t have done it if they weren’t made to do it. As the saying goes, power concedes nothing without a demand.
There is no floor for how low corporations will sink in the interest of the almighty dollar. Capitalism works when well-regulated, and balanced in favor of the common good. When it’s not regulated, it’s a horror.
Those reforms happened after large amounts of violence were used to quash those reforms. FDR was seen as the alternative to a communist revolution in the US. The rich and powerful didn’t give up power easily or voluntarily. The rich and powerful tried to overthrow FDR and establish a fascist dictatorship in 1933. After FDR left office, the rich and powerful have spent the last 80 years rolling back his reforms.
The ruling class may not be (for the most part) actively sadistic, but they are amoral. I don’t actively enjoy torturing ants, but I will bulldoze their home without a second thought if I want to build a shed. That is how the ownership class look at us. They may not for the most part actively enjoy torturing us, but they will be indifferent to the pain they cause by consolidating their power.
Right, which is incompatible with Marxism. Marx believed that societies will inevitably progress through a number of forms; this grand theory of the progression of history is called Dialectical Materialism. Marx believed that Capitalism would inevitably be swept away in violent revolution to be replaced by Communism, much as Feudalism was replaced by Capitalism. Marx did not believe that Liberal Capitalism could internalize the critiques regarding the material conditions of the working class, because he believed the problems he identified were inherent to the structure of capitalism and thus could never be addressed.
Marx was very wrong about that. Liberal Democracies were able to take his and other critiques of Capitalism into account in order to greatly improve the material conditions of the working class, avoiding revolution entirely.
I agree, regulation is very important. So do the vast majority of economists, as Jon Stewart was surprised to discover the other day:
Yeah, I agree. Capitalism made reforms to avoid violent revolution. These are reforms that Marx believed were impossible for Capitalism to make; he was wrong about that.
It resonated with me when I was thirteen and poor in 1996. I was like, “Wow, you can swear this much in literature?” I’m half-joking, but I was a young writer, and it radically altered my understanding of what it means to write a flawed protagonist. I love Holden because he had good reason for hating the people and things he hated and he defended that girl who keeps her kings in the back row, who he didn’t even realize he was in love with. Le sigh.
Anyways, I seriously question the idea that most people are deeply unsatisfied with modern life. According to this recent poll, we are indeed at an all time low - only 44% of Americans are “very satisfied” with their life, down from 65% in 2020. And 81% are either satisfied or very satisfied.
But it’s not like America was vastly less capitalist in 2020 than it is today, and it’s not like the current numbers are dystopianly terrible.
Where does the idea that we are all miserable as a society come from?
