The Vibenomics of Enshittification
Trendy Buzzwords and the Oversimplification of Systemic Issues
I can’t seem to stop getting smacked in the face with buzzwords. I try, but there’s a relentless, swelling tide of phrases constantly catching up.
“Enshitification” stands out among these terms, weaving its way into conversations and articles. At a glance, it’s a useful descriptor of digital decline. But liberals, often inadvertently, coin and champion buzzwords that uncouple nuanced issues from their root class dimensions. It can be a deliberate attempt to sidestep class dynamics, but I generally think it’s not – and this is specifically why such terms gain traction. They seem pointed and clever – probably genuine – but veer away from class critique.
How does a popular buzzword become a popular buzzword, after all? Promotion – and the ownership of the channels by which they are promoted is the very thing that constitutes class.
“Enshittification” is just another “biggering” from The Lorax, itself just a means to call growth “bad.” It accurately describes some highly specific symptom and fails to connect it to a mechanical issue, laying the groundwork to address the wrong thing. Again.
“Enshittification” and “Vibenomics”
This word is one of the latest examples of a liberal influencer constructing theories based on sentiment rather than material contradictions to have a unique selling point (USP). A seemingly novel new interpretation of society to differentiate themselves and gain followers who are more likely to be loyal.
This particular form of USP is what I am calling “vibenomics.”
Vibenomics (noun): the formation of theories, opinions, or strategies based on feelings, sentiments, or prevailing moods rather than rigorous research, empirical evidence, or established principles. It emphasizes an intuitive or "vibe-based" approach to understanding complex topics, often at the expense of depth and accuracy.
I am very intentionally “doing the thing” here because now when you see an influencer with some new, pointed form of economic critique that mysteriously acts as if Marx never existed, you will think of me and my New Word™ (“vibenomics”). That is evidence for my assertion.
Born from the mind of Cory Doctorow, “enshitification” describes the unfortunate (a keyword we’ll talk about later) transformation of online platforms (though it can be used for anything, really) prioritizing profit over user experience. Given the decline in the quality of digital services, the term was relatively easy to propagate. Online platforms continually become littered with ads and less-than-relevant content, and many “netizens” (another example that dilutes the politics of the internet by lack of any class analysis) resonate with the term.
The word has become a trendy way to vent, which usually doesn’t happen without structural support from the media industrial complex. This comes in the form of articles published by large, capital-owned outlets (sometimes written by Doctorow himself) propagating the term, incentivizing “clever” people to use it in their content. It eminently describes a problem people recognize, and thus to reify it as a term that diverts scrutiny from the true problem, it is beneficial to the capitalist class – even if, on the surface, it seems like a critique of that class.
Fundamentals
The widespread use of “enshittification” suggests a prevalent sentiment: a perception that our markets have strayed from the foundational principles of supply and demand. To some extent, this is a decent observation, but this viewpoint is fundamentally flawed.
With the implementation of large-scale industry, markets do not operate on supply and demand. Supply often comes first, and demand must be marketed into existence. Problems must be created for solutions that have already been created.
Moreover, "enshittification" inadvertently promotes a superficial form of class awareness. While it does shine a light on capitalist decisions, it mostly centers the discourse on the nature of their choices rather than the overarching issue of a dominant capitalist class’s existence via the contradiction of relationship to means of production. As I said earlier, it describes the “unfortunate” prioritizing profit over user experience.
“I wish capitalists didn’t enshitify this!” If only things were different, right? If only they made decisions with integrity rather than greed! While, yes, it would be nice, this isn’t the problem. This is simply another example of the permissive mode by which “leftists” and other “dissidents” seek to change the world. They don’t see class as an expression of a material contradiction to resolve; they only see that the people in charge making “unfortunate” choices – often in service of some near-spiritual imperative, like “infinite growth.” If only they wouldn’t!
Doctorow’s piece titled “Microincentives and Enshittification: How the Curse of Bigness Wrecked Google Search” is a commentary on the perceived degradation of services due to the drive for expansion. But it underscores a perspective that perhaps misreads the real issues with capitalism, inadvertently steering the discourse towards degrowth politics.
At the heart of Doctorow’s argument is the idea that the quest for growth, often expressed through corporate behemoths’ expansion and consolidation, inherently leads to a decline in the quality of services. This “curse of bigness,” in Doctorow’s view, is the root cause of the “enshittification.”
But is the quest for growth truly the core flaw of capitalism? Absolutely not.
Marx critiqued “overproduction,” but the issue he raised wasn’t merely about “producing too much.” It was a critique of the inherent contradictions within capitalist systems that could lead to economic crises. Marx did identify that capitalism tends to produce commodities at a rate that surpasses the capacity of the market to consume them. But this overproduction isn’t just a mere surplus of goods but a manifestation of systemic flaws.
Central to Marx’s diagnosis is the phenomenon of the falling rate of profit (FROP). As capitalists invest increasingly in machinery and technology to heighten productivity, the relative investment in human labor — the true source of value — diminishes. This dynamic, over time, leads to a decline in the rate of profit.
Thus, to maintain the same profit level despite a lower margin, capitalists must produce more to make up for the loss in value automation brings. This inadvertently diminishes the purchasing power of workers, who constitute the consumer base. This is a completely unsustainable situation, but it’s not so much a moral failing of individual capitalists but a mathematical inevitability.
Another buzzword, “shrinkflation” (coined by British economist Pippa Malmgren), provides a way to obfuscate the FROP. Shrinkflation refers to a decrease in the amount of a commodity, such as breakfast cereal, where prices have remained the same but the box size has been reduced. It nebulously blames “inflation” for what is an attempt to compensate for the reduction of profitability by adjusting presentation in the market. With an understanding of the FROP, “shrinkflation” isn’t a new or novel phenomenon, and its causes are laid bare (and the action itself doesn’t hold up). It serves exactly the same broad function as “enshittification.”
Biggering
Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax, since its publication in 1971 and the subsequent films, has been used as a symbol of environmental degradation in the face of corporate greed. The 2012 film adaption has experienced quite a few bursts of popularity, most recently a few months ago when it trended on Netflix, causing various “anti-capitalist” film influencers to make video essays about how capitalists are greedy and that’s gotta stop!
The Once-ler’s transition from a small-time entrepreneur to an industrial giant comes with the mantra of “biggering,” an obsession that seemingly captures the essence of capitalism. However, this narrative runs the risk of reducing the problem to individual avarice. By suggesting that the issue lies with the Once-ler’s personal greed, the story paints unchecked capitalist expansion as a result of individual choices rather than the inherent logic of a system with mathematical flaws. It also assumes growth as it is under capitalism is the only form of growth possible.
Thus, this “curse of bigness” becomes people’s go-to critique of organizations, projects, and methods that require centralization as if to decentralize is to avoid growth and thus “be good.” This is how those criticizing capitalism for “unlimited growth” are the very same who would critique the former USSR or any actually-existing socialist countries today. Their problem isn’t anything characteristic of capitalism; it’s humanity itself.
Degrowth, as a movement and philosophy, advocates for the intentional downscaling of production and consumption to achieve social and ecological sustainability. The Lorax aligns with the degrowth narrative, emphasizing restraint, conservation, and a return to simpler, more harmonious ways of living with nature. “Enshitification,” though it doesn’t directly gesture towards this, rests on the same premises.
If “enshittification” is built on the problem of “biggering,” then the problem, clearly, is greedy jerks that don’t care! Which, obviously, isn’t natural! But it’s not that the ownership relation (the relation that bestows power) needs to change; it’s that those who own need to #DoBetter. The producers need to produce less “and focus on quality” while consumers need to expect less. Ultimately, it’s an anti-human prospect that I debunked in my documentary, Less Sucks: Overpopulation, Eugenics, and Degrowth (also available as a pamphlet).
That isn’t to say, “No one can ever enjoy anything made by Cory Doctorow or Dr. Seuss!” While I dislike Doctorow (I find him to be a smarmy faux-intellectual), I actually rather enjoy Seuss and The Lorax. So do my kids. I disagree with it as a systemic critique (which it is obviously intended as), and I have had discussions with my kids about how, yeah, it’s good to not be greedy or self-centered in our day-to-day lives, but this isn’t actually what is wrong with the world.
Capitalism is actually holding back human potential by producing in a ridiculous way and appropriating all that wealth on the basis of a mathematical flaw. Everyone out there could have way more than they do now.
This is what I find so compelling about an actual Marxist critique; it doesn’t aim to strip people of anything. Genuinely Marxist communists want everyone to have more.
Conclusion
Buzzwords often capture a moment or a shared frustration. However, their trendy appeal is a mark of the ruling class ideologies they represent.
While these terms might diagnose symptoms, they usually fail to touch the root, leading to solutions that may only address immediate manifestations of contradictions that will cycle through crises until resolved.
The Lorax’s “biggering” and Doctorow’s “enshitification” are examples that spotlight individual greed or isolated phenomena while sidestepping the systemic issues of capitalism that Marx painstakingly dissected. And while buzzwords may serve as potent rallying cries for the “netizens” of the world, tired of all that damn “shrinkflation,” they are not substitutes for actually understanding something.
Vibenomics (buzzwords) leads people away from that understanding.