‘A prisoner can oppose incarceration while remaining confined’: The paradox of Gen Z, capitalism, and consumption
Every generation flirts with anti-capitalism when it's young, but has something broken down along the way?
A reader recently questioned a column I wrote about Gen Z and their spending habits, arguing that their consumerism does not equate to hypocrisy. They pointed out that a prisoner can oppose incarceration while still being confined, just as a Gen Zer can oppose capitalism while remaining within the system. The writer is correct in stating that purchasing goods does not erase the underlying economic realities, such as wages, rent, and debt.
Instead, it merely alters the manner in which one navigates within a system they have no means to escape. This perspective is not unique to Gen Z; all generations since the countercultural capitalists of the baby boomer era have voiced some form of opposition to capitalism. What sets each generation apart is what happens to this opposition once they mature, establish a home, and become part of the economic system.
Even if one believes generational framing is akin to financial astrology, these dynamics shed light on the genuine evolution of society and the role of business within it. While this tension has generally resolved itself as generations age and grow more pragmatic, recent economic data suggests this mechanism may no longer be functioning effectively.
In essence, Gen Z may be reacting to a future that has been marred by cancellation for quite some time. The prison metaphor employed by the writer is apt beyond the economic realm. Mark Fisher, a British writer, argued that capitalism's most potent tool is not coercion, but the capture of the imagination, a concept he termed "capitalist realism."
This system makes itself appear as the only conceivable arrangement, making it harder to envision alternatives. Fisher's related notion— "the slow cancellation of the future"—extends this idea to culture. Since the 1990s, he contended, art and music have been stuck in a cycle of recycling the past due to the loss of imagination for a future that is significantly different from the present.
Music critic Simon Reynolds and writer Freddie deBoer arrived at similar conclusions, one focusing on cultural stagnation and the other on the stagnation of innovation. This stagnation is not new; the American cultural and technological landscape has remained relatively stagnant since at least the 1970s, which predates the internet.
Economic historians like Marc Levinson and Brad DeLong have echoed this sentiment, attributing the slowdown to a less innovative and productive economy since the 1970s. Exploring how each generation has managed this economic slowdown reveals a genuine shift in attitudes down to the present.
Written by urgent.news from Fortune's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — it may contain errors, so check the original before relying on it.
