The Commodification of Dissent
An essay
First I’d like to say my heart goes out to those who lost their lives in the recent aviation incident in Washington D.C. Second, that man going on tv and blaming DEI for the casualties is some of the most vile and empathetically bankrupt shit I’ve ever seen. It sort of is what prompted me to write this essay. Normally I stay impartial and try to write from a zoomed out perspective but I’d be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the bias and emotional component that prompted this post.
dis·sent - the expression or holding of opinions at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially held.
Dissent, in its purest form, is the lifeblood of a dynamic and just society. It is the critical voice that questions established norms, challenges power structures, and propels social and political evolution. From the Socratic dialogues in the Athenian Agora to the fiery pamphlets of the Enlightenment and the disruptive protests of the 20th century, dissent has historically been a vital, often uncomfortable, but ultimately generative force. However, in the hyper-consumerist and media-saturated landscape of the 21st century, a troubling phenomenon has emerged, particularly within contemporary right-wing movements: the commodification of dissent. I’m arguing that this commodification, as practiced and exploited by right-wing actors, while seemingly empowering and democratizing to their adherents, ultimately undermines its transformative potential by channeling legitimate grievances into self-serving consumerism, reinforcing existing power structures (often corporate and plutocratic ones cloaked in populist rhetoric), and ultimately serving to stabilize rather than destabilize the very systems they claim to oppose(i.e. big government, globalists, etc.).
The roots of this manipulation of dissent, ironically, can be traced back to elements within the same intellectual currents that championed individual liberty. The Enlightenment emphasis on individual freedom and, crucially, the rhetoric of the free market, even when distorted, provides fertile ground for commodification. While thinkers like John Stuart Mill championed intellectual freedom for genuine progress, this ideal can be twisted to justify the unchecked commercialization of even the most sincerely felt grievances, especially when those grievances are directed at perceived cultural elites or "the establishment" as broadly defined.
The insidious nature of commodification lies in its seemingly democratic and often empowering facade. Modern capitalism, particularly in its late and digital forms, thrives on personalization and niche marketing. It has become adept at identifying and catering to diverse consumer desires, including the desire to express dissent. This process is vividly illustrated by the proliferation of performative activism on both sides, prevalent in contemporary society. Modern right-wing movements, particularly in their populist and online manifestations, have become exceptionally adept at packaging and selling a particular brand of dissent. Adorno and Horkheimer, in their Dialectic of Enlightenment, warned about the “culture industry” and its capacity to absorb and neutralize genuine artistic and cultural expression by turning it into standardized, easily consumable commodities.
Today, this critique is acutely relevant to the right-wing sphere, where authentic grievances about economic insecurity, cultural change, or perceived government overreach are translated into marketable outrage and consumer products. Think of the proliferation of "patriotic" merchandise, "anti-woke" brands, or "freedom fries" – goods designed to signal ideological allegiance and express dissent in a readily consumable and profitable form. This commodification of right-wing dissent operates on several key levels, often mirroring but also specifically diverging from the more generalized critique.
Firstly, it involves the aestheticization of reactionary sentiment. Genuine dissent often arises from substantive issues and systemic inequalities. However, right-wing commodification frequently prioritizes aesthetics and cultural symbols over addressing the root causes of these issues. Consider the visual landscape of right-wing rallies and online spaces: flags, slogans, and imagery often become ends in themselves, overshadowing concrete policy proposals or meaningful engagement with complex problems. Debord's concept of the Society of the Spectacle is particularly pertinent here. Right-wing commodified dissent becomes a spectacle, a performance of outrage designed to be consumed and shared online, often prioritizing emotional resonance over reasoned argument or tangible action. The constant barrage of emotionally charged memes, videos, and slogans circulating within right-wing online spaces exemplifies this aestheticization.
Secondly, commodification emphasizes the individualization of grievance and blame. While often couching(lol) itself in populist terms, right-wing commodification often deflects attention from systemic issues and corporate power, instead focusing blame on individual scapegoats or vaguely defined cultural enemies (often minorities, immigrants, or "elites"). “Conscious consumerism,” for the right, takes the form of "buying American," or "boycotting woke corporations," framing dissent as an individual act of purchasing power directed against perceived cultural threats rather than systemic economic inequalities. This individualistic framing conveniently aligns with neoliberal principles often championed (hypocritically, in many cases) by right-wing political actors. As Žižek might argue, it’s much easier to "own the libs" by buying a t-shirt than to critically analyze the deeply entrenched corporate structures that often benefit from the very policies these movements superficially oppose. This also distracts from class-based critiques that could unite people across the political spectrum against shared economic adversaries.
Thirdly, the digital age exacerbates the commodification of right-wing dissent through algorithmic amplification of outrage and echo chambers. Social media platforms, while used by diverse political groups, are particularly potent in amplifying and monetizing right-wing outrage. Algorithms reward emotionally charged content, and right-wing narratives often thrive on anger, fear, and conspiratorial thinking. This creates an environment where dissent is reduced to performative online aggression, fueled by outrage clicks and shares, and increasingly detached from real-world political action or substantive engagement. Right-wing echo chambers and filter bubbles reinforce pre-existing biases and create a sense of righteous indignation, often divorced from empirical evidence or reasoned debate. Furthermore, right-wing media ecosystems, from legacy news to podcasts, livestreams and fringe websites, explicitly commodify this outrage, building entire business models around fueling and monetizing anger and resentment. As Byung-Chul Han’s critique of Psychopolitics suggests, digital capitalism, through its seductive and affirmative mechanisms, can subtly channel dissent into predictable and profitable patterns, often reinforcing existing power structures rather than challenging them. In the right-wing context, this translates into a readily monetizable and politically manipulable base of outraged consumers.
The consequences of this commodification for right-wing movements, ironically, are deeply detrimental to genuine political agency, despite the superficial appearance of empowerment. It leads to the depoliticization of legitimate grievances. When right-wing dissent is primarily expressed through purchasing "patriotic" merchandise, engaging in online outrage, or consuming partisan media, it becomes detached from the hard work of political organizing, policy advocacy, and holding power accountable in a meaningful way. The focus shifts from addressing systemic issues to performative signaling of ideological purity and consumer-driven acts of “resistance.” This can create a false sense of efficacy, where individuals believe they are "owning the libs" by buying a product or sharing an angry meme, without engaging in the more difficult and often uncomfortable work of crafting effective policy solutions.
Moreover, commodification trivializes and vulgarizes genuine concerns. When right-wing dissent is reduced to slogans on hats or bumper stickers, or conspiracy theories shared in echo chambers, it risks trivializing legitimate anxieties and concerns. Serious issues like economic insecurity, social fragmentation, or cultural change are reduced to simplistic narratives and commodified expressions of outrage, losing their nuance and complexity. The radical edge of genuine discontent is blunted, cheapened, and ultimately rendered less effective as a force for meaningful change.
Furthermore, and perhaps most insidiously, the commodification of right-wing dissent can strengthen the very corporate and plutocratic powers it often claims to oppose. By channeling genuine grievances into consumerism and performative online outrage, right-wing movements can become remarkably effective at mobilizing a base without fundamentally threatening the economic status quo. Large corporations can even capitalize on this commodified dissent by leaning in and producing and selling "patriotic" products, further integrating dissent into the capitalist system itself. This creates a paradoxical situation where movements that often espouse anti-establishment rhetoric can, in practice, reinforce the power of corporate interests and the very elites they claim to oppose. A good example is claiming to hate the elite globalists who control the media (these are dogwhistles btw) while liking and retweeting the richest man in the world on a communication platform he owns. Marcuse's concept of “repressive tolerance” can be reinterpreted here to highlight how the system tolerates and even encourages certain forms of dissent, especially when it is channeled in commodified, consumerist, and ultimately politically ineffectual directions, thus maintaining overall stability and corporate power. This blame can be place on the both sides of the political isle.
However, it's important to acknowledge nuance. Even within commodified spaces, there can be pockets of genuine dissent and opportunities for mobilization. Left-wing online communities, while often echo chambers(as we saw from the most recent election), can also facilitate real-world organizing and collective action. The challenge lies in critically navigating these spaces, identifying and resisting the commodifying forces, and channeling genuine grievances into effective political action that goes beyond consumerism and performative outrage.
Reclaiming the potential of dissent to be a force for positive change (or at least to hold power accountable in a manner that aligns with its stated values, rather than simply reinforcing corporate interests) requires a conscious effort to de-commodify it. This involves:
Critical self-reflection and media literacy within our respective political circles. Recognizing how anger and grievance are being commodified and manipulated is crucial for moving beyond performative outrage and towards substantive engagement with policy and political strategy.
Promoting genuine community building and offline organizing that prioritizes collective action over individual consumerism or online signaling. This could involve focusing on local politics, mutual aid initiatives, or grassroots movements that address concrete community needs.
Fostering deeper engagement with policy and political processes beyond simplistic slogans and outrage cycles. This requires developing intellectual rigor, engaging in reasoned debate, and formulating concrete policy proposals that address the legitimate concerns driving this phenomenon, rather than just reacting emotionally to whatever nonsense Trump spews or engaging in performative online battles.
I believe the commodification of dissent within left and right-wing movements is an overlooked phenomenon. While presenting itself as a form of empowerment and resistance, it ultimately undermines genuine political agency by channeling legitimate grievances into consumerism, reinforcing corporate power, and depoliticizing real concerns. The Athenian agora, even in its idealized form, reminds us that genuine dissent, regardless of ideological orientation, requires reasoned discourse, civic engagement, and a commitment to the common good that transcends the fleeting satisfaction of consumerist expressions of outrage and anger. Be kind to each other.
If you made it this far—THANK YOU! I hope you enjoyed this yap session or at the very least learned something. If this was interesting to you please consider joining my Substack. I post essays like this a few times a month mixed in with some of my scifi writing and blog posts about science and technology.