I know that erecting a statue for a Glaswegian Marxist John Maclean might be seen as something that doesn’t concern me, since I am not a Glaswegian Marxist but a Marxist from Hong Kong. I want to comment on this matter because I watched a video by Comrade StoryTellerHK 說書客 (Also a Hong Kong Marxist) about Guy Debord’s work "The Society of the Spectacle". I have also been studying modern Scottish history. I have been following Scottish news, so I am aware of the John Maclean statue campaign. While I respect Comrade John Maclean, I question the rationale of commemorating him by crowdfunding a statue – would this kind of memorial risks turning his ideals into a consumable image?

In the following, I will also cite Comrade StorytellerHK’s descriptions and examples in his video (his examples are really excellent!) to illustrate my concerns about the statue for MacLean and the issues I see with it.

I have also linked his original full length video, just in case you wanted to watch it. You can click the "Show transcript" which will show you all his script, which is written in standard Chinese, which means you can translate it or you can use the translation function for the subtitles to translate it. 

("Commodities" might be translated into "Products" and "Spectacle" might be translated into "Landscape". So be aware of that.)

Since all my doubts for erecting a statue for Maclean stem from the critique of capitalism in "The Society of the Spectacle" by Guy Debord, I will begin by stating what "consumerism", "spectacle", and "image value" are.

>To understand what "Spectacle" is, we must first understand how our society is “separated”. I will use the separation of relationships between people as an example to illustrate the separation of society. 

>Originally, the relationship between us is directly between me and you, but capitalism separates this relationship, and a commodity appears in the middle to become a barrier between people. This may sound abstract, but we see it in many everyday examples. 

>For example, when a couple gets married, they need a betrothal gift, a banquet, and a diamond ring. Well, it is clearly a relationship between a couple—a relationship between you and me. Then, why do I need a betrothal gift, a banquet, and a diamond ring to prove my "love" for you? Why do I need these "commodities" to demonstrate the value of this relationship?

>For example, if it's your friend's birthday, you might buy them a birthday gift or treat them to a meal. But why do you need to prove your friendship with "commodities"?

>Or maybe you take an Uber and the driver is very nice and polite. He helps you with your luggage and opens and closes the car door for you and you think he is a very good driver with a very good service attitude, so after getting off the car you decide to tip the driver. Your gratitude to the driver is expressed through the commodity "tips".

>Under capitalism, these interpersonal relationships and emotions are all presented in the form of commodities. This is when commodities separate the relationships between people. Similarly, between the producer and the products they create, and between people and reality, the relationship is mediated and separated by commodities. Moreover, this separation is neither accidental nor exceptional, it exists systematically and universally in our society. Therefore, under capitalism, society is a state of “Separation Perfected”. Our relationship with everything in the world has been separated by "commodities", and people's real life experiences have been replaced by experiences expressed in the form of "commodities", just like love is expressed in the form of a "diamond ring". Generally speaking, we call this kind of society separated by commodities "commodity fetishism", which means that commodities hide the proper social relationships and make commodities seem to have autonomous power to control people's destiny.

>The Society of the Spectacle' argues that under the development of capitalism, commodity fetishism has evolved, and society is no longer simply a relationship between people and commodities. Now, there is a layer of "spectacle" on top of commodities, but what is it? First, with the development of capitalism, the value of "commodities" began to shift. Generally speaking, the value of a commodity lies in its use value: just as the value of a meal lies in the fact that it can satisfy our hunger after we eat it; or, the value of housing lies in the fact that it's where we live.

>But, under the development of capitalism, the value of a commodity gradually becomes its exchange value, that’s, how much it can be sold for. It's like the value of housing's how much it can be sold for. 

>But that's not all. Later, the value of commodities gradually shifted to its "image value", which is that the commodities present an image through packaging, advertising, and so on, and what we end up buying is that “image” itself. But that's not all. Later, the value of commodities gradually shifted to its “image value”, which is that the commodities present an image through packaging, advertising, and so on, and what we end up buying is that “image” itself. It's like before the ban on cigarette advertising, Marlboro once had a classic advertisement portraying the image of the cowboy. When you buy Marlboro, what you're buying is the “image value” of Marlboro. And this commodity image is a form of the “spectacle.” The so-called “spectacle” refers to social relationships mediated by images, the focus is on seeing and being seen. A commodity expresses its image value through the spectacle, this is what we call “The Commodity as Spectacle.’ As our social relationships become increasingly separated by commodities, those commodities, in turn, use the spectacle as a medium to display their images. So in our daily lives, the spectacle is actually everywhere, it constantly surrounds us. It's not only the tangible, purchasable commodities like Marlboro advertisements that are spectacles; rather, our entire social life appears as a vast accumulation of spectacles.

At this part, have you noticed at this moment by crowdfunding money to erect this statue for Maclean: you are essentially buying the image value: the physical statue itself - its material form, its presence in a public space; the symbolic image of Maclean as a revolutionary hero; The mediated social image of yourself as someone who honors radical history; The aestheticized, consumable image for the public, tourists, or media. 

This spectacle then drives others to use the same method of crowdfunding statues to celebrate anti-capitalism, in order to prove that they are active in resisting capitalism, leading even more people to consume things that have no practical use for the revolution. But the reason we want to honor MacLean is clearly to acknowledge & support his dedication, actions, & efforts toward the proletarian revolution — his lived experiences themselves. So why has the creation of these spectacles also become part of how we recognize & support him? Why don’t we instead do more practical things to resist the oppression of the proletariat under capitalism? to fight for greater rights for them? Why spend our time consuming something like a “statue,” which holds no tactical value in the struggle against capitalism? Can spending money to build a statue really give workers more rights? Obviously not. It only fuels consumerism, reinforces the “spectacle,” and deepens capitalism’s control over us. If we want to honor MacLean himself, we should invest in the revolution itself, to put his revolutionary experiences into practice, ensuring that these struggles continue from one generation to the next. Moreover, Maclean’s contributions to resisting capitalism are something our brains can directly access. So why do we still need to use this spectacle to prove that the memory exists? This example clearly illustrates the “Separation Perfected" mentioned earlier: even the memories we can directly access in our minds are separated by the spectacle, and we feel the need for it to prove that the memory exists.

This is why I see even "well-intentioned" acts like honoring Maclean with a statue as paradoxical: it creates multiple commodified images of anti-capitalist ideals within the very capitalist system he opposed, thereby strengthening capitalism’s control and also separates us from him on a personal, human level.

Some might argue that these problems would disappear once capitalism vanishes. I would say that even if what separates us is not a commodity, but an object, that object can still separate the relationships between us people to people. Even in a socialist society, if people are not critical to the objects and symbols, they could still use diamond rings to prove their love. Why must I express my respect for Comrade Maclean through a statue? Why should my relationship or comradeship with him be separated by a statue? The disappearance of capitalism does not mean we can disregard our critical approach to objects and symbols, as long as we are not critical, separation of our relationships by objects will still continue.

(Sorry for my repost, as I want to improve my wording)


The Problem with Honoring John MacLean Through a Crowdfunded Statue – Marxist/Dobordian view – "The Society of the Spectacle"