Why are we taught that success means being wealthy?

Thank you, Cameron Tait, for such a significant question!

The phrase “we are being taught” already suggests a system of values at work. These values are promulgated via education, entertainment, political discourse, artists, pundits etc. Each society produces and propagates its own values, principles, habits, prejudices and so on.

A quick glance at history shows that values are shaped by the prominent needs of society. For instance, in Ancient Greece, courage was thought to be one of the most important virtues to have. This was probably because wars were waged face-to-face, with swords and armour instead of missiles, drones or long-ranged weapons.

Today, society is shaped by capital, and that is why success is measured in terms of how rich one can become. It doesn’t seem to matter how one does it, just make sure you have enough money to buy whatever you want. Capitalism relies on consumers of all kinds and classes for its continuation. The richer you are, the more you can consume and the more you contribute to the circulation and expansion of capital.

But how did this happen? Did we wake up one morning and decide that suddenly piety is out-of-date? Karl Marx argues that the needs (and thereby the values) of a society are shaped by the relations of production. The industrial revolution led the way to the end of feudalism and the birth of modern capitalist societies. This massive transformation displaced the traditional values, beliefs, priorities and principles that we once held and replaced them with individualism, consumerism and competition.

Now, what is wealth? Again, Marx would say that any and all wealth is produced by labor; and the capitalist mode of production is the mode in which the value of labor is appropriated through exploitation. All those fancy cars, expensive watches, million-dollar cribs are bought via the accumulation of capital. The result is that a small fraction of society becomes extremely rich while the rest have to work in debilitating conditions just to get by. Instead of questioning this mode of production itself, society urges us to try to become the exploiter instead of the exploited (without putting it in these terms, of course).

From a purely pragmatic point of view, this makes sense. Furthermore, Marx himself wrote of the necessary evil that is capital accumulation. Capitalism forms the most complicated manners of organization: the internet, space travel, smart phones, unimaginable advances in science, medicine, communication, logistics, energy, architecture and so on. That being said, if this pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that society ceases to function without the everyday worker, the people who get paid the least, despite accomplishing the most essential tasks of modern society. So, the question to ask is how to take advantage of the fruits of capital while ameliorating the devastating effects of exploitation. This would require a change both in the relations of production and the values and principles that are at work today.

What do you think? Does wealth entail success? Let us know in the comments.

And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.

Image: (credit)

Armchair Opinions

I completed my MA and PhD at the Philosophy Department of Boğaziçi University. My main areas of research are history of philosophy, social and political philosophy, and moral philosophy. My dissertation was on Kant's account of conscience, so I had to work through most of Kant's texts. He is my favorite philosopher because he revolutionized the philosophical scene in Europe and still continues to be influential to this day. He was one of the first philosophers to work out a comprehensive system which integrates several areas of philosophy, and he has given me a remarkable sense of what philosophy can be.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline feedbacks
View all comments
Scroll to Top