The monolithic consumer-culture capitalism critics oppose never actually existed

Evidence

It tends to be the case that the capitalism we imagine in this debate is one from a 1970s or 1980s that never actually was: one where capitalism handed down cultural commodities in their refined and finished form, one in which the relationship between cultural producers and consumers was largely one-way, and where “resistance” meant posing creativity, autonomy, individuality, networks and new forms of affinity against a capitalism imagined to be largely monolithic, didactic, compulsory, hierarchical and banal. — Max Haiven, Cultures of Financialization, 361

Categorization

• XREF: Reframes the classic structure/agency debate in cultural studies (Adorno/Horkheimer vs. Fiske) by historicizing the imagined capitalism on both sides — connects to the reader’s interest in how finance’s cultural form differs from earlier mass-consumer capitalism. — connects to: Viewing mass-culture consumers as passive dupes is an unsocialist position; Consumer culture’s desire-production reproduces itself autonomously without needing any external cause — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 468
• DEFINE: Characterizes the ‘old’ capitalism of the culture-industry critique as largely a retrospective construction, setting up the definition of today’s more versatile, capture-oriented capitalism.

Broader Connections

• Viewing mass-culture consumers as passive dupes is an unsocialist position #contradicts (0.72)
• Consumer culture’s desire-production reproduces itself autonomously without needing any external cause #qualifies (0.72) — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 468