Wow, so much here. As always, this was well written, with many thoughts expressed (you have the singular distinction of simultaneously contributing the shortest poems and the longest essays on SM). I don't feel like I want to attempt to refute the things you've said. It's not because I don't question many of them; it's just that I really have no idea where to begin. So rather than constructing a cohesive response, I'll just give reactions.
- I find the distinction between the owners of a business and those who work in a business (described as "classes") a bit artificial. Perhaps it has to do with connotations I have for the word "class" (implying a designation that doesn't allow mobility). But since anyone can both be hired to work for a company as well as own a company and hire others (perhaps even at the same time), painting a picture that shows people forced into one of two "classes" (where one is oppressed and chained for life) seems inaccurate to me.
- There are a number of things that you attribute negative qualities to that I don't (or haven't). One is the specialization of workers. Why would it preferable to have people who know a little of everything as opposed to those who are specialists in what they do? Would things operate as well if everyone was a "jack of all trade, master of none"? For example, I've been a computer programmer for over 20 years. I love doing it, I think I'm pretty good at it, the people I work with want me to keep doing it with them, and I get paid well for it. I have thought about changing job fields just to expand myself (and, to be honest, the reduction in pay for such a switch can be a deterrent), but I don't think that being really good at what I do and letting others do what they're good at is a negative. It seems like everybody wins.
Now, obviously, that perspective is from that of the workplace. That's what helps a business be successful so that the employees have their livlihood. Is it rewarding on a personal level? That's up to the invididual. And there's no requirement that work be the be-all and end-all of existence. My company recognizes that having people burn out is a "bad thing"; time off is encouraged as well as is a flexible schedule to allow for family needs.
So, you may say, not all businesses are like that. For sure. But my point is that intolerable work conditions are not a necessary result of the capitalist machine. And it's in the best interest of businesses to keep their employees happy, since it's the employees who make the business a success.
- The notion of cooking shows existing in "the psychological service of the capitalist class" seems a bit out there to me. People have always looked for ways to brighten their lives a bit, whether it be watching television, reading a book, going to symphonies, playing in the streets, etc. It has existed forever, capitalist society or no. Do non-capitalist countries not have such shows? To me, that would be dreary.
I see cooking shows as a product, just like anything else. That makes them tied into the "capitalist machine" along with everything else, but why is that a problem? Cooking shows exist because people want to watch them. They don't say, "My life sucks because I hate my job. Oh, here's a cooking show!" My life doesn't suck, and I like to watch them from time to time. Why? Because I learn something about cooking, something I'm interested in. And because when you have someone who has worked at something like cooking long enough that they live and breathe it, watching them do what they do can teach you so much beyond just the mechanics of what they're doing. You learn the mental approach, the nuance, the mindset that sets apart someone who is good from someone who isn't. Why read more into it than it being educational or mind-expanding for people? From what I gathered is that you're basically saying "Though nobody intends it or realizes it, this the real reason why this is happening." Maybe this time a cigar is just a cigar.
- What's wrong with cooking shows and other shows that people enjoy watching?
Ok, I'll stop now. To be honest, I see so much "agenda" behind this, with an effort to squeeze things into a particular world view, that I think the facts are lost behind the ideology. Since I don't look at things the way you're expressing, it just felt contrived to me. If your goal is to try to open people's eyes or otherwise make them think new thoughts, then I think you may have failed with this, because the argument on its own isn't strong enough (or perhaps even seen as enough of an issue) to turn people around.