Capitalism's Gaslighting: How Systemic Oppression Disguises Itself as Personal Failure
Capitalism has long excelled at convincing individuals that their struggles—whether they stem from ‘mental health issues,’ financial instability, or general discontent—are personal failings rather than symptoms of a flawed system. This pervasive form of gaslighting distorts the reality of historical and systemic oppression, framing personal hardship as a matter of individual responsibility. The message is clear: if you suffer under capitalism, it’s because of your own inadequacies, not because the system itself is designed to perpetuate inequality.
This argument finds its roots in the historical mechanisms of oppression, such as the Enclosure Acts in England. These acts displaced rural communities by ‘enclosing’ common lands into private property, forcing people into wage labour and creating an early model for the capitalist economy. Similarly, the rise of student debt in the 20th century, particularly under the Nixon administration, shifted education from a public good into a debt-driven commodity, trapping individuals in cycles of financial precarity. In today’s digital age, monopolies exert control over the ‘digital commons,’ extracting value from users whilst reinforcing the idea that their lack of success is a personal failure, rather than a consequence of corporate dominance.
By drawing on these examples, today’s article will explore how capitalist structures exacerbate suffering and systematically displace blame onto individuals. The focus will be on uncovering the historical and contemporary mechanisms that create this illusion, setting the stage for a broader understanding of how deeply embedded oppression is in the capitalist system.
The Historical Roots: Enclosure Acts and Dispossession
The Enclosure Acts of the 17th and 18th centuries were a devastating turning point for rural communities across England, Scotland, and Wales. These acts allowed landowners to privatise what had been communal lands, effectively dispossessing peasants and small farmers of their rights to graze livestock, grow crops, and maintain self-sufficient livelihoods. As a result, countless individuals were forced off their land, leading to a mass migration towards cities and the rise of wage labour. This transition laid the foundation for the capitalist system, creating a dependent workforce that had little choice but to sell their labour for survival.
Marx’s concept of “primitive accumulation” captures the essence of this process. He argued that the forced expropriation of common lands was not a natural or inevitable consequence of economic development but rather a deliberate act of theft that benefited the ruling class. Enclosures, under the guise of ‘necessary economic reform,’ stripped people of their independence, framing their subsequent poverty as a personal failure rather than a product of systemic exploitation. The narrative that followed gaslighted generations into believing that they simply weren’t able to adapt to the new world, erasing the brutal reality of land theft and economic displacement from the historical record.
In Scotland, this process was even more pronounced with the Highland Clearances, which saw entire communities forcibly removed from their ancestral lands. This was not merely an unfortunate consequence of progress, as it is often framed in history, but a calculated act of genocide designed to make way for large-scale sheep farming and to profit the landowning elite. The Clearances left a deep scar on Scotland, with many descendants still feeling the effects of this violent upheaval. The historical narrative often disguises this trauma as a “natural” shift in economic patterns, gaslighting generations into viewing the Clearances as inevitable rather than the result of systemic oppression. The parallels between these historical dispossessions and modern-day gig economy precarity are clear: capitalism continuously creates systems that displace, exploit, and blame the very people it disenfranchises.
During the time of the Highland Clearances, the Scots often referred to them with terms that reflected their sense of loss and dispossession. They called the events “Fuadach nan Gàidheal,” meaning the “Eviction of the Gaels” or “Expulsion of the Gaels,” underscoring the mass forced removal of Gaelic-speaking communities from their ancestral lands. Another term used was “Bliadhna nan Caorach,” or “Year of the Sheep,” which reflected the transformation of these cleared lands into profitable sheep farms for the benefit of landowners.
These terms highlight the perception among the Scots that these clearances were not simply economic adjustments but a deliberate attempt to eradicate Gaelic culture, displace the population, and serve the interests of the ruling class. Unlike the sanitised narratives we often hear today, these terms carried the weight of trauma and betrayal felt by those who were directly affected.
Fuadach nan Gàidheal
Gur a mise tha tùrsach,
A' caoidh cor na dùthcha,
'S nan seann daoine cùiseil
Bha cliùiteach is treun;
Rinn uachdarain am fuadach,
Gu fada null thar chuantan,
Am fearann chaidh thoirt uapa,
'S thoirt suas do na féidh.
'S e sud a' chulaidh-nàire,
Bhi faicinn dhaoine làidir
'G am fuadach thar sàile
Mar bhàrrlach gun fheum;
'S am fonn a bha àlainn
Chaidh chur fo chaoirich bhàna,
Tha feanntagach 'sa ghàradh
'S an làrach fo fheur.
Far an robh móran dhaoine
Le 'm mnathan 'us le 'n teaghlaich,
Chan eil ach caoraich-mhaola
Ri fhaotainn 'san àit';
Chan fhaicear air a' bhuailidh
A' bhanarach le buarich,
No idir an crodh guaillfhionn,
'S am buachaille bàn.
Tha 'n uiseag anns na speuran,
A' seinn a luinneig ghleusda,
'S gun neach ann 'g a h-éisdeachd
Nuair a dh'éireas i àrd;
Cha till, cha till na daoine
Bha cridheil agus aoibhneil,
Mar mholl air latha ghaothaidh
Chaidh 'n sgaoileadh gu bràth.
Translation:
“I am sorrowful, Mourning the fate of the land, And the wise old people Who were renowned and brave; The landlords exiled them, Far across the oceans, Their land was taken from them And given to the deer.
It’s a shameful thing, To see strong people Driven across the sea Like worthless refuse; And the land that was beautiful Is now covered with white sheep, With nettles in the garden And grass over the ruins.
Where there were many people With their wives and families, Now only hornless sheep Are found in the place; You won’t see on the cattle fold The milkmaid with her cows, Nor the fair-haired herdsman With his white-shouldered cattle.
The skylark is in the skies, Singing its tuneful song, With no one there to listen When it rises high; The people will never return Who were lively and joyful, Like chaff on a windy day They were scattered forever.”
The 20th Century: Neoliberalism, Mental Health, and Pharmaceuticals
The 20th century’s neoliberal turn began with significant shifts in the U.S., including Governor Ronald Reagan’s removal of free public college in California during the 1960s. This act can be seen as an enclosure of the ‘educational commons,’ making higher education less accessible to the working class and framing it as a commodity rather than a public good. By converting education into a product that individuals had to pay for, Reagan’s policies limited access and began a shift towards reliance on student loans as a means to finance education. Student loans, introduced under President Nixon, were framed as a tool to expand ‘educational opportunity.’ In reality, however, they created a system of control, determining not only who could attend college but also influencing the behaviour of graduates, who were now burdened with debt and constrained in their life choices.
As the commons of public education were enclosed and privatised, the effects rippled across society. In the 1980s and 1990s, under President Reagan’s neoliberal governance, these policies became a cornerstone of a broader ideological shift. Public services, which once formed a safety net, were systematically dismantled. Alongside this, Reagan’s decision to shut down large numbers of state mental hospitals—justified under the guise of budget cuts and a push toward “community care”—left thousands without institutional support. This closure not only exacerbated the homeless crisis, but it also contributed to the rise of the “individual failing” narrative, where homelessness, much like mental illness, was framed as a personal shortcoming rather than a failure of systemic support.
Simultaneously, as financial insecurity worsened and the social safety nets eroded, mental health crises surged. Instead of addressing societal causes—such as economic upheaval, unemployment, and reduced social services—the focus shifted toward treating individuals as ‘the problem.’ The rise of SSRIs during this era, promoted heavily under the unproven “chemical imbalance” theory, redirected attention from systemic causes to personal biology. Depression and anxiety, which were often reactions to the crushing pressures of neoliberal capitalism, were recast as personal defects to be medicated. This narrative not only gaslighted individuals into believing their struggles were their own fault, but it also fed the burgeoning pharmaceutical industry, creating lifelong consumers while sidestepping the structural causes of distress. This failure to address the root causes mirrored the approach to homelessness, where the problem was shifted from a social and economic issue to an individual failing, reinforcing capitalist structures of control.
This shift created lifelong consumers for pharmaceutical companies, whilst the systemic causes of distress were conveniently ignored / hidden. Like the dispossession of land during the Enclosures, the removal of accessible education and the rise of debt created a new class of economically vulnerable individuals who were forced into a medical regime, feeding corporate profits while concealing the structural inequalities at the root of their suffering.
The Digital Era: Big Tech and Modern Enclosures
In the digital era, the enclosure of the commons has evolved into new, more insidious forms, as Big Tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook (Meta) have created “digital enclosures.” Much like the Enclosure Acts that privatised common lands, these companies have monopolised what was once a free and open internet, turning it into a space where user data, content, and even access are controlled by a few corporations. The internet, once envisioned as a ‘digital commons’ where individuals could freely exchange ideas and information, has become a space dominated by profit-driven algorithms and surveillance capitalism.
This control extends beyond just ownership of platforms; it reaches into the very behaviour of users. The addictive nature of these digital spaces, designed to maximise engagement and profit, creates a cycle of dependency for users. Companies exploit user data for advertising revenue, whilst subtly manipulating behaviour through algorithms that control the content people see. This illusion of “freedom” in digital spaces hides the reality of exploitation, where individuals are reduced to products in the attention economy. The constant pressure to engage, share, and consume leaves people believing that their digital addiction and overconsumption are personal failings, rather than symptoms of a system designed to extract value at every opportunity.
This trend is starkly visible in education as well, where technology is often blamed for student failure, especially the widespread use of mobile phones. School districts and policymakers point to devices as the root cause of distraction and poor performance, yet they ignore the larger issue: the packaged curricula, like the neoliberal Common Core, foisted upon schools. These one-size-fits-all solutions, often driven by corporate interests, fail to meet the needs of diverse learners, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Blaming students for their perceived lack of focus gaslights them into believing they are the problem, masking the failures of a rigid, profit-driven educational system.
Marx’s theory of alienation is apt here—just as capitalism alienates individuals from their labour, Big Tech alienates people from their own identities and relationships, trapping them in digital spaces that control and commodify their very existence. This digital enclosure, much like its historical predecessor, consolidates power in the hands of a few whilst perpetuating inequality and exploitation.
Cultural and Economic Displacement: Student Debt, Housing Crises, and Addiction
In modern times, economic displacement has become a dominant form of enclosure, trapping individuals in cycles of debt and dependency. Student loans, skyrocketing housing costs, and the rise of precarious gig work all represent new forms of economic control that echo the historical enclosures of common land. Rising student debt, for example, leaves individuals burdened for decades, preventing them from accumulating wealth or achieving financial stability. This debt is often framed as an “investment” in one’s future, but in reality, it creates a lifetime of servitude to financial institutions, much like the dispossessed peasants who were forced into wage labour after the Enclosure Acts.
The housing crisis further exacerbates this displacement. With rent-seeking landlords and the commodification of housing, affordable living spaces are increasingly out of reach for many. This creates a cycle where people are forced to work longer hours in exploitative jobs just to afford basic necessities, reinforcing their dependence on capitalist structures. The gig economy, touted as flexible and empowering, often leaves workers with unstable incomes, no benefits, and minimal labour protections, trapping them in a system designed to extract maximum value without offering stability or security.
The opioid and addiction crises are direct responses to the despair bred by this capitalist system. As economic pressures increase and people find themselves trapped in cycles of debt, poverty, and insecurity, many turn to pharmaceuticals or substances to cope. Companies like Purdue Pharma, which aggressively marketed OxyContin whilst downplaying its addictive potential, profited massively from this misery. Whilst Purdue faced billions in fines, the real devastation was left in its wake: communities ravaged by addiction, with individuals being criminalised and thrown into overcrowded jails for issues stemming from corporate greed.
Capitalism, true to form, offers quick fixes—pharmaceuticals, self-help, and tech solutions—that provide short-term relief whilst ignoring the structural causes of inequality and disempowerment. This narrative shifts the blame onto individuals, suggesting that addiction, financial ruin, or homelessness are personal failings. Rather than addressing the systemic issues that drive these crises, the solution is always presented as personal responsibility, whether through therapy, medication, or “working harder.” This gaslighting mirrors the broader capitalist strategy of shifting the burden from system to self, whilst those profiting from the system remain insulated from accountability. The criminalisation of addiction and the scapegoating of the vulnerable contrast starkly with the slap-on-the-wrist fines received by corporations like Purdue Pharma, illustrating how capitalism protects its own whilst penalising those it exploits.
Reclaiming the Commons: Resisting Capitalism’s Gaslighting
To resist the gaslighting tactics of capitalism, it is crucial to recognise and confront the ways in which the system shifts blame for social and economic crises onto individuals. One of the most powerful tools capitalism wields is the narrative of individualism—convincing people that their personal efforts, struggles, and choices are the root causes of their success or failure. However, understanding that systemic forces are at play allows us to challenge this narrative and begin reclaiming the commons—both physical and digital—through collective action and solidarity.
Reclaiming the commons involves the restoration of spaces and resources that have been enclosed by capitalist interests. In the physical realm, this can mean creating community land trusts and housing cooperatives, where housing is treated as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Community-led initiatives like these offer an alternative to rent-seeking landlords and gentrification, giving control back to the people. Similarly, worker cooperatives allow employees to own and manage the businesses they work for, redistributing profits more equitably and providing a sustainable alternative to the corporate model.
In the digital sphere, reclaiming the commons means supporting open-source software and data privacy initiatives. Tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook have enclosed the digital commons by monopolizing platforms and controlling user data. Movements toward open-source technology and privacy protection are crucial steps in challenging the power of these monopolies. By choosing platforms that respect user privacy and encourage communal development, we resist the commodification of personal data and reclaim our digital autonomy.
Solidarity is central to resisting capitalism’s gaslighting. Capitalism thrives on individualism and competition, but collective action offers a powerful counter-narrative. Grassroots movements—whether for housing justice, labour rights, or digital privacy—provide examples of how people can come together to resist capitalist exploitation. From rent strikes to union organizing, these movements challenge the idea that individual struggle is the solution, instead highlighting the strength of collective action.
A fundamental part of this resistance is educating ourselves and others about the systemic nature of capitalism. Every Marxist encourages people to read and study Marx’s works, myself included. Corporate media and its political representatives frequently invoke Marx as a strawman, offering simplistic and distorted portrayals of his ideas. However, his critiques of capitalism remain as valid today, if not more so, than they were at the time of his writing. Marx understood how capitalism alienates individuals from themselves and others, exploiting labour for profit whilst concealing the root causes of inequality. By studying Marx, we gain the analytical tools necessary to understand the structural forces at play and the alternatives to the status quo that are often obscured by dominant media narratives.
Reclaiming the commons and resisting capitalism’s gaslighting require systemic change that addresses the root causes of suffering—economic inequality, corporate control, and the commodification of every aspect of life. It involves rejecting the capitalist framing of social issues as personal failings and instead recognising the collective power we hold to create a more just and equitable society. From housing cooperatives to digital privacy movements, and from labour strikes to mutual aid networks, these efforts represent a reclaiming of both physical and digital spaces, providing pathways to resist capitalist control and build a future based on shared resources and communal well-being. In doing so, we challenge the foundations of capitalism itself and work toward a more equitable and humane society.
An important aside …
One of the most powerful forms of gaslighting under capitalism has been the spiritual reframing of Christianity in the West, particularly through the rise of the modern mega-church and prosperity gospel. In an age of increasing inequality, corporate dominance, and systemic exploitation, the church—once a bastion for collective care and social justice—has often become a staunch defender of capitalism. This shift aligns with the broader capitalist narrative that individual wealth and success are divine blessings, whilst poverty and struggle are personal failings. In this way, the church reinforces capitalism’s grip on society, acting as an unassailable spiritual gaslight, making it difficult for people to critique the system or even recognise their suffering as part of a larger structural issue.
The transformation of Jesus from a collectivist Essene of Qumran, deeply embedded in a radical communal tradition, to a champion of individualism is central to this spiritual gaslighting. Historically, Jesus was part of a movement that rejected material wealth and emphasised the collective responsibility to care for the poor, the sick, and the marginalised. His teachings were focused on mutual aid, communal living, and opposition to the material excesses of the Roman Empire. However, modern Western Christianity, particularly in the form of the prosperity gospel, has reframed this message to align with capitalist ideals of individual achievement and material success.
Mega-churches exemplify this shift. These vast, opulent spaces often sit empty during the week, whilst homelessness and poverty grow in the surrounding communities. Their leaders, dazzling their congregations with cutting-edge technology, fashion, and theatrical performances, promote a version of Christianity that celebrates wealth as a sign of divine favour. The prosperity gospel preaches that financial success is a reward for faith, implying that poverty or financial struggle is a personal or spiritual failing. This narrative not only obscures the systemic roots of inequality but also gaslights individuals into believing their hardships are their fault, removing the focus from broader economic structures.
The tax-exempt status of churches further entrenches this dynamic. Many churches, especially large ones, accumulate vast wealth whilst contributing little to the public good. Functioning more like corporations than community centers, they are often exempt from the taxes that could support social services, housing initiatives, or poverty relief. Whilst massive church buildings stand empty, people in the community go hungry, and the homeless sleep on the streets. In this way, the modern Western church has become complicit in capitalism, functioning as a corporation in all but name, whilst offering spiritual justification for systemic inequality.
This distortion of Christian teachings allows the church to maintain a veneer of moral authority whilst subtly supporting the very structures that perpetuate poverty and inequality. It is the ultimate form of spiritual gaslighting—convincing people that their suffering is the result of personal or spiritual deficiency, whilst the system that created their suffering remains untouched, sanctified by religious rhetoric.
Final thoughts …
To wrap up today’s article, capitalism’s historical and ongoing processes have consistently displaced blame onto individuals, obscuring the systemic oppression at the root of so much suffering. From the Enclosure Acts that dispossessed people of their land, to the rise of Big Tech monopolies, and the commodification of education and healthcare, capitalism gaslights individuals into believing that their struggles—whether financial, mental, or social—are personal failings. This obscures the collective nature of these issues and how they stem from deeply entrenched structural inequalities.
The struggles with mental health, financial instability, and alienation are not signs of individual weakness but rather symptoms of a system designed to perpetuate inequality and exploitation. The solution lies not in personal therapy, self-help, or medication alone, but in collective awareness and action. We must reclaim the commons—both physical and digital—for the collective good, resisting capitalist control over the very resources we depend on.
However, we must also recognise that the government itself has been captured by capitalist interests, often working to suppress or undermine radical movements that seek to challenge the status quo. History shows us how agents of the state infiltrated groups like the Black Panthers, leading to the assassination of leaders like Chairman Fred Hampton, the FBI’s role in the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and more recently via ‘pundits’ in corporate media, blaming Paulo Freire’s “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” for the problems on college campuses. These examples serve as a warning that genuine efforts for change are often sabotaged from within. Therefore, it is crucial to be vigilant and cautious as we engage in collective action, seeking communal solutions whilst understanding the forces that may try to derail these efforts.
Only through awareness and solidarity can we begin to dismantle the structures that perpetuate suffering and build a society where collective wellbeing is prioritised over profit.