Clarity before critique - What Marx saw right

Before questioning Marx, it’s only fair to acknowledge what he saw with remarkable clarity. The same clarity was also the reason for my questioning. Long before “class consciousness” became a buzzword, Marx was describing a world being reshaped by factories and rich people. He understood better than most of his contemporaries and even modern people to an end that capitalism was not merely an economic system but a plague of a force that will run rampant if it’s not moderated properly. Marx looked at history and divided the people into two types, bourgeoisie and proletariat. Those who own means of production and those who did not. History appeared to him as a long grinding contest over power and resources.

And on this point he was undeniably perceptive. The industrial world Marx observed was brutal. Workers toiled for hours in dangerous conditions for a minimum wage while factory owners accumulated enormous wealth. Human labour was increasingly treated like just another commodity. Marx unveiled the uncomfortable truth in this book. Everyone can admit this much, Marx was a formidable analyst of capitalism.

Feudal Europe had been dominated by nobles whose authorities were based on lineage and traditions. Marx pointed out that, that world did not collapse not because people got suddenly enlightened but because a new class “bourgeoisie” grew wealthy and powerful enough to replace it. The industrial revolutions did not abolish hierarchy. It simply dressed it in a new outfit

Marx described this transformation bluntly. Bloodlines gave way to balance sheets. Inherited privilege gave way to property and capital. Yet the underlying structure remained the same. One class rules inhumanely, other class works their bones off. Old elites fall, new one rises and society moves under a different banner with familiar system. Names may change but hierarchy endures.

In other words, Marx understood better than most that revolutions do not erase dominance and oppression. He knows that each victorious class eventually becomes what it once overthrew.

What Marx meant by communism

Before I get to point out my criticism, it’ll help to pause and clarify what Marx actually envisioned. The word “communism” is thrown around so casually nowadays that it almost lost it’s original meaning. To some it simply means welfare programs, to others authoritarian government, to a few, an aesthetic identity to get behind and there is an another bunch that thinks it means Marx means to abolish your Iphones and laptops. None of this is what Marx himself described.

In Marx’s theory communism is not system that’s to built overnight. It was the final stage of a long historical process starting with working class overthrowing the capitalist system through proletariat revolution. Then according to Marx, society would enter a transitional phase. The rule of working class or rather call it as dictatorship of proletariat. In this stage, the working class would seize political power and dismantle private ownership to reorganize the economy along socialist policies.

This socialist state however was never meant to be the destination or was it? Marx imagined it as a necessary bridge, for once property was collectivized and class distinctions faded, the need for a coercive state would gradually disappear. Political power would lose its purpose. Hierarchies would dissolve. Eventually, society would reach its final form, a classless, stateless community in which as Marx famously put forth “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.

This endpoint, peaceful egalitarian borderless all humans are equal system was what Marx meant when he said communism. This is the communist state he envisioned, not some political party calling itself communist or having Che Guevara murals and red flags all over your state with a slogan of “100 percent literacy rate”. Yes I am talking about Kerala. It still baffles how could anyone call Kerala as a communist state when it literally runs and benefits from a capitalist system ran by a democratic political party. Kerala simply had a better welfare systems compared to others which got nothing to do with communism whatsoever.

This is important to emphasize because it sets Marxism apart from how the term is often used today. For Marx, communism wasn’t just “capitalism with more equality.” It was the complete abolition of hierarchy as such. The entire project from revolution to socialism was justified by this final promise. And it is precisely here where my question arises.

The fatal flaw

While thinking through Marx’s stages, I began to notice another problem.

Marx assumed that hierarchy exists primarily because of property. Abolish private ownership, he preached and the basis of class identity would disappear with it. On paper his logic looks somewhat clean. But reality is anything but clean.

Even if somehow Marx’s utopia materializes, if money and capital truly ceased to exist. Something else would inevitably take its place. People would still be distinguished by what they contribute, what role they play in society. And these roles, over time hardens into identities.

India offers a painful example of this. The caste system did not originally emerge as a hierarchy system over here. It began as a classification of occupations – Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. These names defined their occupations and responsibilities in society. Which later solidified into permanent identities, inherited rather than chosen. Overtime roles became ranks and ranks became title which built a deadly social wall whose effect can still be seen even centuries later.

So you can see that identities rooted in economic contribution can become far more dangerous than identities based on wealth. Because wealth is fluid. A poor person can become rich and a rich person can become poor. You cannot say that for identities tied to function. They tend to cling stubbornly.

Marx wanted to abolish “capital identity” and in many ways that’s pure and noble. But replacing it with a system where people can defined primarily by their social roles risks creating something that cannot be scrubbed off easily.

Hierarchy after all does not need money to survive. It only needs human beings.

Marx’s own contradiction

Marx was not unaware of how power behaves. He spent much of time explaining how bourgeoisie revolution did not eliminate power. And yet at the final step of his theory, Marx makes an extraordinary claim that the proletarian revolution will not merely replace one ruling class with another. It will abolish it. Political power will disappear. Hierarchy would disappear.

If every previous revolution produced a new elite, why would this be an exception? If power has always adapted rather than vanished, why would it suddenly wither away? Marx analysed the cycle and then excluded his own ideology from it.

At this point it becomes difficult to believe that this contradiction simply dodged Marx’s attention. He was too careful an analyst, too deeply invested in historical patterns to have casually overlook the implications of his own theory. The idea that hierarchy endlessly reproduces itself was something Marx pointed out confidently. This makes it hard to imagine that he simply forgot about it when he said proletariat’s socialist state would simply give up the hierarchy.

There are only few ways to understand this logically leap,

First Possibility - Self gaslighting

Marx may have known at least intuitively that hierarchy does not disappear. And yet he pushed his ideology forward anyway. Because it was necessary.

When an idea becomes foundational, when it gives meaning and moral coherence to one’s worldview. Contradictions stops functioning as warnings and starts working as obstacles to be rationalized. Marx reduced history to economic forces with such confidence that any phenomenon that doesn’t fall under this reduction will automatically becomes irrelevant.

Marx did not forget that revolutions reproduce power. He simply convinced himself that this time it would work because it has a meaning and it is morally right. The conclusion may not have followed cleanly from the analysis but the analysis could not be abandoned without collapsing the entire project. So the conclusion stayed.

Second possibility - Sinister gaslighting

Marx may have understood that without a final promise or a grand conclusion his theory would be incomplete. A revolution that just replaces one ruling class with another offers no moral resolution, only perpetual conflict. Because he was asking people to destroy an existing order and that requires promising them a destiny that is far more better than what they have now. And what’s better than promising them a society with no class inequality.

So communism functions less as prediction or a utopia and more as a bait to give people a banner to rally behind. It transforms upheaval into purpose and sacrifice into necessity. Because at the end of the day a theory that ends with “power will change hands again” does not mobilize masses, it terrifies them. No one would sacrifice what they have now for another cycle of domination. So the narrative works for the movement to surive. And again I’m saying these are two of the many nuanced possibilities where either he gaslit himself or he gaslit others.

Eitherway the effect is identical. A speculative future was presented as a historical certainty. A hope that was framed as inevitability. We cannot know for certain which of these explanations is true. But we do not need to. The contradiction itself is enough.

1. The Rat Race

The first thing I noticed when I actually compared all the streaming services is that Apple TV doesn’t behave like the others. Not even remotely close.

Let’s take Netflix, whose sole business is streaming unlike others. They are basically a content SMG, pumping out as much as they can before you even finish the one you started and hoping one of them turns out good enough to go mass stream media by the grace of law of averages.

Next we have Prime video. They just exist for the sake of it. As you know Amazon’s main business is E-commerce, so Prime Video is kind of an utility that comes with membership, a bonus if you may. They also have VOD option for renting and that’s about it.

Then you have Disney+, they are like that one man who wakes up late and realizes that he’s gonna miss the bus, runs after it as the bus takes off, jumps in through the back door and he is still trying to find a seat. They’ve been milking Marvel and Star wars non stop like there is no tomorrow. Anything they could get their hands on they make a show out of it. They even started fast tracking the movies to streaming within few weeks of release. Disney is the only company that tries to compete with Netflix because they know streaming is the future and they don’t wanna make the mistake Warner brothers did.

HBO max is as good as dead now. And others? They don’t even play in the same league as these guys. So pretty much Netflix is the one running far ahead of everyone else.

So yeah, Netflix plays the numbers game, Disney plays the IP game, Prime plays the “whatever man, just throw it in the cart” game. But Apple though? They are playing a completely different game. They are building a catalogue that looks less like a streaming service and more like a list of nominees for a prestige film festival.

2. Art Patrons??

Why apple funds projects that doesn’t make money?

Here’s where things get interesting. If you look at what Apple TV actually makes, it absolutely makes no sense in traditional business point of view. It genuinely feels like some rich, eccentric studio head woke up one day and said,
“Let’s make good art. Fuck the profits. We already have enough to feed our families”.
Because if you look at their catalogue you know this is not type of stuff you greenlight if you want quick cash or algorithmic engagement to compete Netflix in the rat race.

Shows like Severance, Pachinko, Black Bird, Slow Horses, Ted lasso, For all Mankind, Silo, Pluribus (I haven’t watched all of them except a few so I can’t vouch for their qualities but they do have stellar reviews and critics eat their stuff up)
And for the movies we have Ridley Scott’s Napoleon which didn’t turn out well but you can see the vision, Joel coen’s Tragedy of Macbeth, CODA which literally won Oscar’s best picture and they burned 200 million dollars for Martin Scorcese’s Killers of the Flower Moon knowing damn well it won’t event break-even in box office. So why? They don’t want the money (atleast not for now), they wanted the words “Directed by Martin Scorcese – Produced by Apple”
If you stop here, it almost looks noble, most of us would assume Apple TV is basically a passion side project where quality matters more than money.
A trillion dollar company investing in art? Elevating cinema? In this economy?
What a beautiful flower in the middle of a barren land.
Oh it is a flower alright? A flower that looks attractive for the sole purpose of luring you and gobbling you up like venus flytrap (Wrote this line because it sounds cool, hehe. And sure it may have a bit of truth but let’s not jump to conclusions already)
Because Apple isn’t some indie studio made by four people with a romantic vision for cinema. They’re a massive, hyper-calculated company operating in hyper-capitalist world. Nothing they do, especially at this scale (burning billion dollars) is just for artistic reasons. “It’s not about money, it’s about sending a message.”(that they want more money)

This is image architecture. They are building a cultural legitimacy. Everything Apple makes engineers a feeling into you. Apple means premium. Apple means taste. Apple means quality.
Even if you never watch these shows or movies they influence how you think about their brand because of the way others talk about them.

3. Identity Ladder

How taste became a social flex?

This is the part where we stop talking about companies and start talking about the people. Not just what Apple does to sell it’s product but what makes us buy that product. The tiny, embarrassing things that a company like Apple preys on.

Let’s be honest, humans are weird status machines. We don’t just buy stuffs because its useful, we also buy stuffs because it tells other people about our identity. And we are a slave to our own identity. Once we decide “I’m gonna be this kinda person”, “I wanna look like this” we start acting like it sometimes subconsciously sometimes consciously, even when we don’t fully agree with it anymore. Okay I don’t wanna delve into this topic now. As I was saying we buy things to tell other people indirectly who we are. It’s been true forever. It used to be about materialistic things before but overtime the shape of flex changed. Now it also includes your spotify wrapped, the music you listen, the movies you watch and the books you read.

The need not be basic

Before we begin, I must say, I’m not talking about everyone or targeting anyone. This is a topic that always fascinated me and we will see how it fits into Apple’s long game.

Humans are built in a hilarious, predictable ways and companies like Apple loves to exploit this patterns.
We like good things. We like feeling good about liking good things. And we like being seen as the kind of people who like good things. Some do these loudly, some quietly, some don’t even realise they’re doing it at all. Media taste is one of the simplest signals people use to show who they want others to think they are not just with music or movies but in everything. It is way to earn those invisible social points. Why does this work so well? Because humans are tribal. We want to belong to a group but also feel distinct and unique from others.
Two different things plays a major role here,
need for distinction - we need to feel special, unique or don’t wanna associated with certain groups
need for belonging - we want to be a part of a group that admires the same things as we do or thinks like us
Prestige media gives you both

Bourdieu’s Cultural Capital

At first I was like “omg did I just stumble upon a new philosophy!!!” only to realise this French dude already talked about it years ago. Sad state of affairs.

Pierre Bourdieu called it cultural capital - knowledge and taste that gives social advantages. It’s a form of wealth you can spend. Like a financial capital, it accumulates through effort (genuine or performative), it can be displayed strategically and most importantly it converts into a real social currency. A very subtle one.

Taste Trickles Down

Elite culture used to be physically gated back in the days. You had operas, art galleries, indulging oneself into anything art related which were only reserved for people of wealth back then. Even Jane Austen used to poke fun at how performative accomplishments were used as social currency to signal status and superiority in Regency England.
But now, the internet nuked those gates. Anyone from any part of the world can access it, no matter what their background is.

A pattern emerges here :

> The self proclaimed elites adopt prestige as a marker
> Early adopters and influencers copy it
> The signal diffuses to aspirational middle class
> It becomes a new baseline and then the cycle repeats

The diffusion is chaotic, which in itself needs another dedicated essay. So when access becomes universal, distinction becomes the goal. At this level, they’re no longer just consuming content. They’re curating an identity. Taste becomes a soft hierarchy, no obvious like money or luxury brands. It’s more subtle and Psychological.

Performance vs Authenticity

Here’s the uncomfortable part.
Most people don’t start consuming prestige art purely out of love. They do it because others do it or fomo or it signals something. Overtime this performance may or may not turn into genuine appreciation but they entry point is mostly social.

This creates tension between authenticity and performance. The system doesn’t care which comes first. As long as the behaviour repeats, the ladder lives. And once someone invests time, thought and identity into their taste, abandoning it becomes psychologically hard.

Why this matters? Because this is where taste becomes identity. People don’t just switch identities casually. They rationalize them, they build stories around them, they align their choices to it to stay consistent. They trap themselves in this identity cage. This is where culture stops being passive and starts shaping behaviour. And once you understand that, once you see how taste works as a form of capital, you realise how certain companies don’t just sell products. They sell alignment…..

“Most people don’t care about this stuff”

A valid objection. Not everyone cares about art or taste. Most people just watch stuff for fun, for background noise, to pass time or any other reasons and that’s completely fine. But this isn’t a theory about everyone, this is about a certain section of society. A society which was niche once now became mainstream and it will just keep on increasing overtime. Because if you roll the clock back a bit, the kind of people we are talking about were a tiny minority. First it was mostly those rich people, after the internet boom it slowly expanded. Breaking Bad was niche once but now everyone watched it or knows about it, including me. Prestige storytelling went mainstream. These kinda things makes everyone one know what a “good media”, it creates a certain image in their mind. Even people who don’t care about art still recognizes quality when they see it. And this matters because cultural shifts don’t regress, they compound, they multiply overtime. Each generation grows up with better access to them and gains a certain kind of cultural literacy. So when culture moves in one direction long enough, the companies positioned closest to that curve don’t need to chase it later. They just wait…

4. Ecosystem Trap

Now we can finally talk about Apple again. The protagonist of this piece.
Everything we discussed so far about taste, culture capital, identity and whatnot, Apple business model knows how to capture it, all for themselves. This is where Apple stops looking like patron of arts and starts looking like a very, very patient engineer.

The goal of Apple TV was never to rack up piles of cash, atleast not in a direct way. What they wanted was far more valuable, they want to lower your psychological resistance to their ecosystem. Because once you are inside ecosystem your photos, notes, texts, subscription, habits and everything will be in there. It becomes part of who you are. Leaving isn’t just impossible, it’s annoying. Emotionally and practically.

And the best part is they don’t even push you into it, it’ll look like you chose it out of your own volition because you actually did. Whenever you watch one of their prestige show or movie, you’ll have that big ass Apple logo popping up which creates familiarity and trust. You will feel like “Yeah they have a taste, they get me”.

And once a brand “gets you” you stop treating it like a vendor and start treating it like an extension of yourself. They are using that prestige as trust accelerator because you see when a company constantly associates itself with respected artists, award winning works, carefully curated quality your brain starts filling in gaps for them. You’ll think they have standards, they know what quality is. And slowly the trust spills over to their other products, of course if they fumble the technological side of their products, it won’t work, so let’s not delve into that. Once your trust spills over when Apple launches new products your skepticism is already weak.

It’s not just the trust, it’s also the need to belong to a certain group which “gets you”. Even now you can see how a lot of people buy iphones because they wanted to be part of that identity.

So when Apple builds themselves as this elite taste, premium thingy, quality over quantity, aesthetic brand. People will want to belong to that group, make it part of who they are. Buy Apple products no longer feels like a transaction, it feels like building yourself, feels like self consistency. And humans hate inconsistency. Now switching to a new brand will feel like abandoning a version of yourself. They lock your identity in their ecosystem.

Another important thing is Apple doesn’t everyone. They are not trying to cover all bases like Netflix or Amazon. They only need a certain portion of the society as their market. That is aspirational, upward looking, taste conscious upper middle class. Not the ones sitting on the top of the society, they’ll have competitors there. Not the ones at the bottom who will be too poor to afford them. It is that certain upper middle class they want their sights on. Apple will just sit there all cozy owning a premium corner of their wallets with no direct competition.

Nothing here will feel like monopoly even thought it is. The most effective traps don’t feel like traps. This is why it feels invisible. They feel like you. Your home.