'These are my principles and if you don't like them...well, I have others' Groucho Marx

What is interesting me at the moment is the ideological production of capitalism. The signifier ‘Capitalism’ itself does not seem to be discursive articulated. Instead any number of discursive positions take its place, within a formal range. Few are brazen enough to speak of capital directly. Capital seems to operate like the human body- the body is never naked in public, rather it is the clothes which define its form. Despite this outward appearance, the body in its most basic form is our means of enjoyment and reproduction. The operation is the same with capitalism. Few would identify openly as capitalist, rather they identify with a mediating discourse which takes a place within the system of production and consumption.

In spite of history suggesting that America’s military interventions are dominated by a desire to maintain capitalism, one can only image the anxiety if George Bush declared that he invaded Iraq in the name of capitalism. Democracy is virtuous, global security is acceptable, national security controversial but widely acknowledged. Invasion in the name of capitalism would, I imagine, almost be the end of the Bush administration. Perhaps one could suggest that capitalism is the concrete universal of democracy. Furthermore, this example suggests two additional points. Firstly, it seems that capitalism is a formally empty signifying system (much like an empty signifier, but on a more complex scale). Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we must ask why it is that capitalism operates only through its instantiation in ideological content which appears somewhat divorced from its ultimate form.

Capitalism, as the symbolic Real, has to take on a number of different demands which at a base level may be quite different from the essential aim of capitalism (profit). These demands, however, are able to be rearticulated as congruent with capitalism, in ideology at least. A quick glance at the McDonalds New Zealand website acts as an example. McDonalds New Zealand, it seems, is involved in community development, “delicious menu choices that cater to your individual tastes and dietary needs” sponsorship and ‘exciting careers’. One could be forgiven for mistaking McDonalds for as a community orientation association.

This ideology appears to create a distance from the hidden underside of production. Corporate ideology maintains the jouissance of consumption whilst taking on various super-ego demands. Profit, it seems, does not come into it. But production is hardly hidden. Most of us notice that ‘we’ go to work each day and that others do the same. So is production hidden at all, or is it that capitalist ideology simply promotes its more pleasurable element? Or is it that certain elements of production are hidden, that production is presented in terms of consumption, without open reference to the goals of production. Nonetheless, in the past capitalism was production orientated so obviously capitalism can operate under these conditions.

At this stage, as I am sure you can perceive, I am not quite sure what to do with these thoughts. They do appear important in some regard though. Specifically, I would like to know why it is that in content capitalist ideology is expressed in a manner so removed from what we can analytically decipher as the capitalist form.