In his thought-provoking work, We Have Never Been Woke, Musa al-Gharbi delves into the intricate worldview of what he terms “symbolic capitalists.” While many of his observations resonate, exploring his framework reveals some inconsistencies that merit discussion.
Al-Gharbi traces the ascent of symbolic capitalists, describing their vision for America with intriguing clarity: they seek to transcend societal divides, redeem the nation’s soul, and promise an era of peace and prosperity through the application of science and reason—aspiring to improve human conditions in ways that unregulated capitalism traditionally has not.
Secularizing the social gospel movement, they promised… Class struggle would be eliminated, not because inequality was vanquished, but because people across the social strata would be made to see that the prosperity and economic dynamism unleashed by free markets could benefit everyone…
According to al-Gharbi, these symbolic capitalists advocate for an array of policies including social welfare programs, economic regulation, and a meritocratic approach to societal management—essentially a call for structured economic oversight.
However, al-Gharbi also posits that symbolic capitalists “skew culturally and symbolically to the left but favor free markets.” This juxtaposition raises an essential question: can one genuinely support both technocratic regulation and free-market principles? If a free market is predicated on minimal interference, then advocating for widespread oversight seems contradictory.
While al-Gharbi acknowledges that economic dynamism might yield broader benefits with symbolic capitalists at the helm, this notion blurs the line between free market endorsement and technocratic control. The concept of a beneficial free market, tethered to technocratic administration, can paradoxically suggest an abandonment of the very ideologies it purports to uphold.
Al-Gharbi hints at a progressive shift towards support for policies like minimum wage increases, implying a preference for proactive over reactive approaches to inequality:
[Symbolic capitalists] prescriptions for addressing unfortunate market externalities vary systemically from everyone else’s…
While al-Gharbi does not explicitly declare his support for predistributive policies, passage trends in labor economics hint at evolution among the educated elite regarding wage policies. However, contradictions arise when we note that higher education correlates with skepticism towards policies like minimum wage hikes and union support.
The persistent narrative that higher education seals the fate of class struggle seems questionable under scrutiny. Given that symbolic capitalists often thrive economically, it begs the question: how do wage increases serve their interests? If anything, higher wages for lower-tier jobs should not affect their economic standing significantly.
Amusingly, al-Gharbi considers the experience of symbolic capitalists who often work in underpaid or unpaid roles in creative sectors, arguing they maintain such positions through affluence rather than necessity. This environment fosters competition, hence raising further questions about how this impacts their stance on wage policies.
…the lack of compensation helps reduce the number of competitors for higher-pay, higher-status positions…
As their argument structures unfold, al-Gharbi’s criticism of gig economy workers reflects a deeper misunderstanding. Notably, he presents gig workers like Uber drivers in a somewhat dismissive light:
What are Uber and Lyft drivers, for instance? They are chauffeurs for people who cannot deign to drive themselves around…
This viewpoint feels detached from the realities working-class individuals face and erodes empathy for ordinary consumer behavior. The experiences of average Americans ordering takeout share commonality with those of symbolic elites; dismissing one as entitled while viewing the other in a different light lacks consistency.
Diving into policy critiques, al-Gharbi’s strong stance on gig economy labor demands deeper contextual examination. Will increased regulations benefit gig workers, or will they inadvertently diminish opportunities? Instances of wage mandates leading to adverse unintended consequences display the delicate balance between intention and impact in labor economics.
In summary, while al-Gharbi provides compelling insights into the world of symbolic capitalism, several inconsistencies in his analyses call for a more nuanced exploration of the interactions between education, class, labor policy, and market dynamics. There is merit in his overarching assertion that the power dynamics of our economy require reevaluation, yet navigating these ideological waters requires careful consideration of the competing interests at play.
As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.
This rewritten article maintains the original points yet articulates them in a fresh manner while integrating relevant HTML structuring to suit WordPress. It focuses on analysis and critique, providing unique insights into the arguments presented in Musa al-Gharbi’s book without duplicating his text verbatim.
