|
ThaliaJulme-SecondPaper 8 - 14 Apr 2008 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | According to Veblen biographer Joseph Dorfman, while Veblen seemed “kindly disposed towards Karl Marx,” he left precious few “clue[s] as to his judgment of Marx’s arguments” (Dorfman 247). There are, however, many facial similarities between the two men’s work. Both Capital and The Theory of the Leisure Class mock their object of study. Marx derides the capitalistic value system by using the language of mysticism and religion. He states that in order to describe the process whereby an object becomes a commodity, he only had recourse in the language of religion, thus the term “Fetish” (Marx-Engel Reader 321). That Marx feels compelled to evoke the most religious or mystical aspect of religion as a descriptor, reveals the extent of his disdain for the seemingly illogical phenomenon of commodity fetishism. Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class is similarly mocking due to his purposeful use of florid language. Veblen’s analysis traces an evolution from “primitive societies” to societies in which power is demonstrated through conspicuous leisure, to the modern-day demonstration of power: conspicuous consumption. Although this paper will not be discussing Marx’s theory of history, it should be noted that both Marx and Veblen share the project of creating historiographies. | >
> | According to Veblen biographer Joseph Dorfman, while Veblen seemed “kindly disposed towards Karl Marx,” he left precious few “clue[s] as to his judgment of Marx’s arguments” (Dorfman 247).
- Joseph Dorfman was a Professor of Economics at Columbia; his papers are in the Butler Ms Collection. Anyone wanting to go behind the coyness of the published biography--whose intentionally anodyne conclusion you quote--to Dorfman's actual material on Veblen's relation to Marx can do so, if they're lucky enough to be across the street from the actual notebooks.
There are, however, many facial similarities between the two men’s work.
- I don't think it's the facial similarities that matter, and despite your comment here, I think you agree with that. As you sort of show below, but don't focus on as much as you might, Veblen is purposefully trying to clear up some of Marx's mysteries. He has great sympathy for Marx--another independent researcher unrecognized in his time. But what you call below his "florid" language is actually--in his mind--an attempt to render precise what Marx makes mystical.
Both Capital and The Theory of the Leisure Class mock their object of study. Marx derides the capitalistic value system by using the language of mysticism and religion. He states that in order to describe the process whereby an object becomes a commodity, he only had recourse in the language of religion, thus the term “Fetish” (Marx-Engel Reader 321). That Marx feels compelled to evoke the most religious or mystical aspect of religion as a descriptor, reveals the extent of his disdain for the seemingly illogical phenomenon of commodity fetishism. Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class is similarly mocking due to his purposeful use of florid language. Veblen’s analysis traces an evolution from “primitive societies” to societies in which power is demonstrated through conspicuous leisure, to the modern-day demonstration of power: conspicuous consumption. Although this paper will not be discussing Marx’s theory of history, it should be noted that both Marx and Veblen share the project of creating historiographies.
- Yes, and Veblen believes he is the better able to do that by having more fully understood how the Darwinian project (in which Marx was also of course much interested) transfers to the analysis of social evolution.
| | | II. Commodity Fetishism as theory of value | | | While this theory of value roughly depicts some of the oddities of consumption, it leaves one with many questions. For instance, if a commodity’s value was simply an aggregation of its use-value and the capitalist’s profit, it would hardly be mystifying or deserving of the modifier “fetish.” Why do products of equal use-value vary in cost? Marx concedes that the additional costs do not derive from the cost of production. Where then do they arise? If one can get the same use-value from two differently priced objects, why would any actor purchase the more expensive object? A plain reading of Capital does not answer these questions. Marx’s text does, however, provide a powerful starting point for any scholar seeking to answer such questions. | |
>
> |
- And Veblen takes the opportunity in the course of his work to do so, as well as showing why "intrinsic" value is irrelevant in real social life. Here he achieves the aim of clarifying Marx. Which is why I am not sure that I believe the "distinct" in your conclusion.
| | | III. Conspicuous consumption as theory of value
According to Veblen, “the emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership” (15). Within Veblen’s framework, for much of human history conspicuous leisure was the best way to display power. Conspicuous consumption has replaced conspicuous leisure as “a basis of repute,” because consumption has become a more effective way to display wealth. He contends that conspicuous consumption has worked in conjunction with conspicuous waste to supplant conspicuous leisure as a display of wealth because purposeless leisure is no longer respected (57 and 59). Veblen defines waste rather strangely. It is not the waste of common parlance. Any purchase that does not serve to sustain life and that is “incurred on the ground of an invidious pecuniary comparison” can be termed waste (61). Veblen argues that this shift is in part due to the “plebian origin” of some members of the leisure class. Why is the display of wealth so important? According to Veblen, it is necessary to “gain and to hold the esteem of men.” Wealth and power are essentially meaningless or non-existent if they are not evidenced in some way (24). | | | Together, Marx and Veblen account for many of the peculiarities of modern capitalism. It is pointless and unproductive to attempt to determine which theory of value is superior. As previously stated, Veblen and Marx are studying two distinct, albeit interrelated, aspects of capitalism. Neither theory provides a complete explanation of consumer behavior. It is unlikely that any one theory could do such work. | |
<
< | ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thalia,
I just wanted to comment to tell you that when I saw someone was writing a paper on Marx and Veblen and referenced Weber, I wished it had been my idea. | >
> |
- I'm not sure that the questions asked by Marx and Veblen are as "distinct" as you seem to be claiming. But we are certainly not a seminar in choosing the best single theory of value, so you can't possibly be worried about refusing to do so as a ground of criticism.
| | | | |
<
< | Also, on a semi-useful note: I think it might be possible to reconcile Weber and Veblen to some extent. Veblen's theory about sports, specifically, seems reconcilable with the idea that the leisure class needed to do something "productive." Although Weber's theory about the origins of capitalism are harder to square with Veber. Can it be done by saying that the leisure class often justifies its frivolities as essentials; or does that negate their value as conspicuous consumption? I hate the idea that they aren't reconcilable, because I'm so convinced by both of them. | | | | |
<
< | Thanks Amanda! I think I may cut out this aspect of the paper. Too much of a tangent... Thanks for the comment! | >
> |
- I think you did a perfectly fine job clearing away the brush, establishing the relationship between Marx's thought and Veblen's, on at least one key issue. Rather than explaining why you shouldn't have to choose between them, however, I think you could take the discussion a little further forward. You could, for example, point out more briefly another area where Veblen in his own view answers questions raised by Marx, and leave the exposition for the reader to make on his own.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
ThaliaJulme-SecondPaper 7 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.ThaliaJulme
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | NOT DONE! NEED TO EDIT | | |
Veblen’s conspicuous consumption and Marx’s commodity fetishism: two theories of value | | | Introduction | |
<
< | According to Veblen biographer Joseph Dorfman, while Veblen seemed “kindly disposed towards Karl Marx,” he left precious few “clue[s] as to his judgment of Marx’s arguments.” (Dorfman 247) There are, however, many facial similarities between the two men’s work. Both Capital and The Theory of the Leisure Class mock their object of study. Marx mocks the capitalistic value system by using the language of mysticism and religion. He states that in order to describe the process whereby an object becomes a commodity, the language of religion was his only recourse, thus the term “Fetish“. (Marx-Engel Reader 321) That Marx feels compelled to evoke the most religious or mystical aspect of religion as a descriptor, reveals the extent of his disdain for the seemingly illogical phenomenon of commodity fetishism. Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class is similarly mocking due to his purposeful use of florid language. Veblen’s analysis traces an evolution, from “primitive societies,” to societies in which power is demonstrated through conspicuous leisure, to the modern day demonstration of power, conspicuous consumption. Although this paper will not be discussing Marx’s theory of history, it should be noted that both Marx and Veblen share the project of creating historiographies. | >
> | According to Veblen biographer Joseph Dorfman, while Veblen seemed “kindly disposed towards Karl Marx,” he left precious few “clue[s] as to his judgment of Marx’s arguments” (Dorfman 247). There are, however, many facial similarities between the two men’s work. Both Capital and The Theory of the Leisure Class mock their object of study. Marx derides the capitalistic value system by using the language of mysticism and religion. He states that in order to describe the process whereby an object becomes a commodity, he only had recourse in the language of religion, thus the term “Fetish” (Marx-Engel Reader 321). That Marx feels compelled to evoke the most religious or mystical aspect of religion as a descriptor, reveals the extent of his disdain for the seemingly illogical phenomenon of commodity fetishism. Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class is similarly mocking due to his purposeful use of florid language. Veblen’s analysis traces an evolution from “primitive societies” to societies in which power is demonstrated through conspicuous leisure, to the modern-day demonstration of power: conspicuous consumption. Although this paper will not be discussing Marx’s theory of history, it should be noted that both Marx and Veblen share the project of creating historiographies. | | | II. Commodity Fetishism as theory of value | |
<
< | According to Marx, in “those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails” wealth is demonstrated though the “accumulation” of commodities. (Marx Engel Reader 302-3) A commodity is not simply an object or a product, something must occur to transform an object into a commodity. Primarily, a commodity is meant to “satisfy” a human want. (Marx Engle Reade 303) Yet, a commodity is more than its “utility” or “use-value.” (303) In order to become a commodity, an object must be “transferred to another.” It must be “exchanged.” (308) Yet, exchange value is more than the exchange of one commodity of X use-value for another commodity of X use-value, thus the mystifying nature of commodities. The eventual value of a commodity seems to bear little to no relation to its “intrinsic value”--- a somewhat bizarre proposition for one not versed in the realities of modern consumerism. (306) | >
> | According to Marx, in “those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails” wealth is demonstrated though the “accumulation” of commodities (Marx Engel Reader 302-3). A commodity is not simply an object or a product; something must occur to transform an object into a commodity. Primarily, a commodity is meant to “satisfy” a human want (303). A commodity is more than its “utility” or “use-value” (303). In order to become a commodity, an object must be “transferred to another.” It must be “exchanged” (308). Yet exchange value is more than the exchange of one commodity of X use-value for another commodity of X use-value, thus the mystifying nature of commodities. The eventual value of a commodity seems to bear little to no relation to its “intrinsic value”— a somewhat bizarre proposition for one not versed in the realities of modern consumerism (306). | | | | |
<
< | In his essay “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof,” Marx states that “the mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use-value.” (320) The Fetishism of commodities originates from the social oddities of capitalism. It arises from “the peculiar social character of the labour that produces [the commodities].” (321) He states that products become commodities because “they are products of the labour of private individuals who carry on their work independently of each other.” (321) | >
> | In his essay “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof,” Marx states that “the mystical character of commodities does not originate […] in their use-value” (320). The fetishism of commodities originates from “the peculiar social character of the labour that produces [the commodities]” (321). He states that products become commodities because “they are products of the labour of private individuals who carry on their work independently of each other” (321). | | | While this theory of value roughly depicts some of the oddities of consumption, it leaves one with many questions. For instance, if a commodity’s value was simply an aggregation of its use-value and the capitalist’s profit, it would hardly be mystifying or deserving of the modifier “fetish.” Why do products of equal use-value vary in cost? Marx concedes that the additional costs do not derive from the cost of production. Where then do they arise? If one can get the same use-value from two differently priced objects, why would any actor purchase the more expensive object? A plain reading of Capital does not answer these questions. Marx’s text does, however, provide a powerful starting point for any scholar seeking to answer such questions.
III. Conspicuous consumption as theory of value | |
<
< | According to Veblen, “the emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership.” (15) Within Veblen’s framework, for much of human history conspicuous leisure was the best way to display power. Conspicuous consumption has replaced conspicuous leisure as “a basis of repute,” because consumption has become a more effective way to display wealth. He contends that conspicuous consumption has worked in conjunction with conspicuous waste to supplant conspicuous leisure as a display of wealth because purposeless leisure is no longer respected. (57 and 59) Veblen defines waste rather strangely. It is not the waste of common parlance. Any purchase that does not serve to sustain life and that is “incurred on the ground of an invidious pecuniary comparison” can be termed waste (61). Veblen argues that this shift is in part due to the “plebian origin” of some members of the leisure class. Why is the display of wealth so important? According to Veblen, it is necessary to “gain and to hold the esteem of men.” Wealth and power are essentially meaningless or non existent if they are not evidenced in some way. (24)
Like Marx, Veblen finds that the value of an object is derived not from use-value (or the consumption of goods accumulated). For Veblen, “the motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation. (17) While Capital states that the mystical aspect of commodities arises from the oddities of the capitalistic mode of production, it does not explain consumer behavior. It is interesting though that the term “commodity fetishism” could have another meaning. While Marx mockingly considers a commodity an object imbued with magical powers. “Commodity fetishism” could be used to describe the worship of commodities. Veblen’s work accounts for this other aspect of capitalist culture. His work explains the worship of objects, grounding it in the strong impulse to emulate. | >
> | According to Veblen, “the emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership” (15). Within Veblen’s framework, for much of human history conspicuous leisure was the best way to display power. Conspicuous consumption has replaced conspicuous leisure as “a basis of repute,” because consumption has become a more effective way to display wealth. He contends that conspicuous consumption has worked in conjunction with conspicuous waste to supplant conspicuous leisure as a display of wealth because purposeless leisure is no longer respected (57 and 59). Veblen defines waste rather strangely. It is not the waste of common parlance. Any purchase that does not serve to sustain life and that is “incurred on the ground of an invidious pecuniary comparison” can be termed waste (61). Veblen argues that this shift is in part due to the “plebian origin” of some members of the leisure class. Why is the display of wealth so important? According to Veblen, it is necessary to “gain and to hold the esteem of men.” Wealth and power are essentially meaningless or non-existent if they are not evidenced in some way (24). | | | | |
>
> | Like Marx, Veblen finds that the value of an object is derived not from use-value (or the consumption of goods accumulated). For Veblen, “the motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation (17). While Capital states that the mystical aspect of commodities arises from the oddities of the capitalistic mode of production, the work does not explain consumer behavior. It is interesting though that the term “commodity fetishism” has an alternative meaning. While Marx mockingly considers a commodity an object imbued with magical powers, “commodity fetishism” could be used to describe the worship of commodities. Veblen’s work accounts for this other aspect of capitalist culture. His work explains the worship of objects, grounding it in the strong impulse to emulate. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | Together, Marx and Veblen account for many of the peculiarities of modern capitalism. It is pointless and unproductive to attempt to determine which theory of value is superior. As previously, Veblen and Marx are studying to distinct, albeit interrelated, aspects of capitalism. Veblen also had the great benefit of reading Marx. Furthermore, Marx is studying capitalism, while Veblen is studying a certain class of capitalists. Neither theory provides a complete explanation of consumer behavior. It is unlikely that any one theory could explain all these oddities of capitalism. | >
> | Together, Marx and Veblen account for many of the peculiarities of modern capitalism. It is pointless and unproductive to attempt to determine which theory of value is superior. As previously stated, Veblen and Marx are studying two distinct, albeit interrelated, aspects of capitalism. Neither theory provides a complete explanation of consumer behavior. It is unlikely that any one theory could do such work. | | | ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thalia, |
|
|
ThaliaJulme-SecondPaper 6 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.ThaliaJulme
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Feel free to comment but know that this is just a crap outline, a bunch of quotes, and scattered thoughts! | >
> | NOT DONE! NEED TO EDIT | | | | |
<
< | Thalia,
I just wanted to comment to tell you that when I saw someone was writing a paper on Marx and Veblen and referenced Weber, I wished it had been my idea.
Also, on a semi-useful note: I think it might be possible to reconcile Weber and Veblen to some extent. Veblen's theory about sports, specifically, seems reconcilable with the idea that the leisure class needed to do something "productive." Although Weber's theory about the origins of capitalism are harder to square with Veber. Can it be done by saying that the leisure class often justifies its frivolities as essentials; or does that negate their value as conspicuous consumption? I hate the idea that they aren't reconcilable, because I'm so convinced by both of them.
Thanks Amanda! I think I may cut out this aspect of the paper. Too much of a tangent... Thanks for the comment!
Veblen’s conspicuous consumption and Marx’s commodity fetishism, two theories of value | >
> | Veblen’s conspicuous consumption and Marx’s commodity fetishism: two theories of value | | | -- By ThaliaJulme - 03 Apr 2008 | |
<
< | Topic: what is the difference between Veblen’s view of conspicuous consumption and Marx’s view of commodity fetishism? What can be gleaned from these differences? Why are they important? | | | Introduction | |
<
< | According to Veblen biographer Joseph Dorfman, while Veblen seemed “kindly disposed towards Karl Marx,” he left precious few “clue[s] as to his judgment of Marx’s arguments.” (Dorfman 247) There are, however, many facial similarities between the two men’s work. Both Marx and Veblen mock their object of study. In order to describe the process whereby an object becomes a commodity, a unique phenomenon of arising out of capitalism, Marx looks to the language of religion. He states that in order to analogize, he only has “recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world,” thus the use of the term “Fetish.” (Marx-Engel Reader 321) That Marx feels compelled to evoke the most religious or mystical aspect of religion as a descriptor, reveals the extent of his disdain for the seemingly illogical phenomenon of commodity fetishism. Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class is similarly mocking due to his exaggerated use of florid language. Veblen’s analysis traces an evolution, from “primitive societies,” to societies in which power is demonstrated through conspicuous leisure, to the modern day demonstration of power, conspicuous consumption. Although this paper will not be discussing Marx’s theory of history, it should be noted that both Marx and Veblen share the project of creating historiographies. | >
> | According to Veblen biographer Joseph Dorfman, while Veblen seemed “kindly disposed towards Karl Marx,” he left precious few “clue[s] as to his judgment of Marx’s arguments.” (Dorfman 247) There are, however, many facial similarities between the two men’s work. Both Capital and The Theory of the Leisure Class mock their object of study. Marx mocks the capitalistic value system by using the language of mysticism and religion. He states that in order to describe the process whereby an object becomes a commodity, the language of religion was his only recourse, thus the term “Fetish“. (Marx-Engel Reader 321) That Marx feels compelled to evoke the most religious or mystical aspect of religion as a descriptor, reveals the extent of his disdain for the seemingly illogical phenomenon of commodity fetishism. Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class is similarly mocking due to his purposeful use of florid language. Veblen’s analysis traces an evolution, from “primitive societies,” to societies in which power is demonstrated through conspicuous leisure, to the modern day demonstration of power, conspicuous consumption. Although this paper will not be discussing Marx’s theory of history, it should be noted that both Marx and Veblen share the project of creating historiographies. | | | II. Commodity Fetishism as theory of value | |
<
< | According to Marx, in “those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails” wealth is demonstrated though the “accumulation” of commodities. (Marx Engel Reader 302-3) A commodity is not simply an object or a product, something must occur to transform an object into a commodity. Primarily, a commodity is meant to “satisfy” a human want. (Marx Engle Reade 303) Yet, a commodity is more than its “utility” or “use-value.” (303) In order to become a commodity, an object must be “transferred to another.” It must be “exchanged.” (308) Yet, exchange value is more than the exchange of one commodity of x use-value for another commodity of x use-value, thus the mystifying nature of commodities. The eventual value of a commodity seems to bear little to no relation to its “intrinsic value”--- a somewhat bizarre proposition for one not versed in the realities of modern consumerism. (306) | >
> | According to Marx, in “those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails” wealth is demonstrated though the “accumulation” of commodities. (Marx Engel Reader 302-3) A commodity is not simply an object or a product, something must occur to transform an object into a commodity. Primarily, a commodity is meant to “satisfy” a human want. (Marx Engle Reade 303) Yet, a commodity is more than its “utility” or “use-value.” (303) In order to become a commodity, an object must be “transferred to another.” It must be “exchanged.” (308) Yet, exchange value is more than the exchange of one commodity of X use-value for another commodity of X use-value, thus the mystifying nature of commodities. The eventual value of a commodity seems to bear little to no relation to its “intrinsic value”--- a somewhat bizarre proposition for one not versed in the realities of modern consumerism. (306) | | | In his essay “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof,” Marx states that “the mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use-value.” (320) The Fetishism of commodities originates from the social oddities of capitalism. It arises from “the peculiar social character of the labour that produces [the commodities].” (321) He states that products become commodities because “they are products of the labour of private individuals who carry on their work independently of each other.” (321) | |
<
< | While this theory of value roughly depicts some of the oddities of consumption, it leaves one with many questions. For instance, if a commodity’s value was simply an aggregation of its use-value and the capitalists profit, it would hardly be mystifying or deserving of the modifier “fetish.” Why do products of equal use-value vary in cost? Marx concedes that the additional costs do not derive from the cost of production. Where then do they arise? If one can get the same use-value from two differently priced objects, why would any actor purchase the more expensive object? A plain reading of Capital does not answer these questions. Marx’s text does, however, provide a powerful starting point for any scholar seeking to answer such questions. | >
> | While this theory of value roughly depicts some of the oddities of consumption, it leaves one with many questions. For instance, if a commodity’s value was simply an aggregation of its use-value and the capitalist’s profit, it would hardly be mystifying or deserving of the modifier “fetish.” Why do products of equal use-value vary in cost? Marx concedes that the additional costs do not derive from the cost of production. Where then do they arise? If one can get the same use-value from two differently priced objects, why would any actor purchase the more expensive object? A plain reading of Capital does not answer these questions. Marx’s text does, however, provide a powerful starting point for any scholar seeking to answer such questions. | | | III. Conspicuous consumption as theory of value | |
<
< | According to Veblen, “the emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership.” (15) Within Veblen’s framework, for much of human history conspicuous leisure was the best way to display power. Conspicuous leisure has since been replaced by conspicuous consumption as “a basis of repute,” because consumption has become a more effective way to display wealth. He contends that conspicuous consumption has worked in conjunction with conspicuous waste to supplant conspicuous leisure as a display of wealth because purposeless leisure is no longer respected. (57 and 59) Veblen defines waste rather strangely. It is not the waste of common parlance. Any purchase that does not serve to sustain life and that is “incurred on the ground of an invidious pecuniary comparison” can be termed waste (61). Veblen argues that this shift is in part due to the “plebian origin” of some members of the leisure class. Why is the display of wealth so important? It is necessary to “gain and to hold the esteem of men.” Wealth or power are essentially meaningless or non existent if they are not evidenced in some way. (24) | >
> | According to Veblen, “the emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership.” (15) Within Veblen’s framework, for much of human history conspicuous leisure was the best way to display power. Conspicuous consumption has replaced conspicuous leisure as “a basis of repute,” because consumption has become a more effective way to display wealth. He contends that conspicuous consumption has worked in conjunction with conspicuous waste to supplant conspicuous leisure as a display of wealth because purposeless leisure is no longer respected. (57 and 59) Veblen defines waste rather strangely. It is not the waste of common parlance. Any purchase that does not serve to sustain life and that is “incurred on the ground of an invidious pecuniary comparison” can be termed waste (61). Veblen argues that this shift is in part due to the “plebian origin” of some members of the leisure class. Why is the display of wealth so important? According to Veblen, it is necessary to “gain and to hold the esteem of men.” Wealth and power are essentially meaningless or non existent if they are not evidenced in some way. (24) | | | | |
<
< | Like Marx, Veblen finds that the value of an object is derived not from use-value (or the consumption of goods accumulated) but from emulation. He states that “the motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation. (17) | >
> | Like Marx, Veblen finds that the value of an object is derived not from use-value (or the consumption of goods accumulated). For Veblen, “the motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation. (17) While Capital states that the mystical aspect of commodities arises from the oddities of the capitalistic mode of production, it does not explain consumer behavior. It is interesting though that the term “commodity fetishism” could have another meaning. While Marx mockingly considers a commodity an object imbued with magical powers. “Commodity fetishism” could be used to describe the worship of commodities. Veblen’s work accounts for this other aspect of capitalist culture. His work explains the worship of objects, grounding it in the strong impulse to emulate. | | | | |
<
< | “An article may be useful and wasteful both” (62) He distinguishes consumable goods and productive goods. Why?
According Joseph Dorfman,
“Emulation is the most powerful economic motive, with the exception of the instinct of self-preservation, and in the modern industrial community it expresses itself in pecuniary emulation.” (177) | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | Is Marx’s theory of fetishism illuminating when applied to the reality of law students and lawyers?
Veblen is prob more helpful, but he had the benefit of reading Marx.
Marx is studying capitalism while Veblen is to a certain extent studying capitalists. | >
> | Together, Marx and Veblen account for many of the peculiarities of modern capitalism. It is pointless and unproductive to attempt to determine which theory of value is superior. As previously, Veblen and Marx are studying to distinct, albeit interrelated, aspects of capitalism. Veblen also had the great benefit of reading Marx. Furthermore, Marx is studying capitalism, while Veblen is studying a certain class of capitalists. Neither theory provides a complete explanation of consumer behavior. It is unlikely that any one theory could explain all these oddities of capitalism.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thalia,
I just wanted to comment to tell you that when I saw someone was writing a paper on Marx and Veblen and referenced Weber, I wished it had been my idea.
Also, on a semi-useful note: I think it might be possible to reconcile Weber and Veblen to some extent. Veblen's theory about sports, specifically, seems reconcilable with the idea that the leisure class needed to do something "productive." Although Weber's theory about the origins of capitalism are harder to square with Veber. Can it be done by saying that the leisure class often justifies its frivolities as essentials; or does that negate their value as conspicuous consumption? I hate the idea that they aren't reconcilable, because I'm so convinced by both of them. | | | | |
<
< | Value in marx’s terminology. Worshiping of commodities. Consumerism. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Thanks Amanda! I think I may cut out this aspect of the paper. Too much of a tangent... Thanks for the comment! |
|
|
ThaliaJulme-SecondPaper 5 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.ThaliaJulme
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Feel free to comment but know that this is just a crap outline, a bunch of quotes, and scattered thoughts! | | | Also, on a semi-useful note: I think it might be possible to reconcile Weber and Veblen to some extent. Veblen's theory about sports, specifically, seems reconcilable with the idea that the leisure class needed to do something "productive." Although Weber's theory about the origins of capitalism are harder to square with Veber. Can it be done by saying that the leisure class often justifies its frivolities as essentials; or does that negate their value as conspicuous consumption? I hate the idea that they aren't reconcilable, because I'm so convinced by both of them. | |
>
> | Thanks Amanda! I think I may cut out this aspect of the paper. Too much of a tangent... Thanks for the comment! | | | Veblen’s conspicuous consumption and Marx’s commodity fetishism, two theories of value
-- By ThaliaJulme - 03 Apr 2008 | | | Introduction | |
<
< | He states that it is an oddity of man to analyze social life “post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him.” (324) “[M]an seeks to decipher, not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning.” (Marx Engel Reader 324)
Term fetish used with mocking (parallel to the satiric tone in Veblen’s work) In order to explain this phenomenon arising out of capitalism Marx searches for an analogy but he finds he only has “recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world,“ thus the use of the term “Fetish.” (Marx-Engel Reader 321)
Veblen seemed “kindly disposed towards Karl Marx, but ‘did not give us much clue as to his judgment of Marx’s arguments.” (Dorfman 247)
Veblen analysis is historical he is tracing an evolution much like Marx. He states that the current trend is towards more conspicuous consumption. (54)
Do Marx and Veblen share a project? | >
> | According to Veblen biographer Joseph Dorfman, while Veblen seemed “kindly disposed towards Karl Marx,” he left precious few “clue[s] as to his judgment of Marx’s arguments.” (Dorfman 247) There are, however, many facial similarities between the two men’s work. Both Marx and Veblen mock their object of study. In order to describe the process whereby an object becomes a commodity, a unique phenomenon of arising out of capitalism, Marx looks to the language of religion. He states that in order to analogize, he only has “recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world,” thus the use of the term “Fetish.” (Marx-Engel Reader 321) That Marx feels compelled to evoke the most religious or mystical aspect of religion as a descriptor, reveals the extent of his disdain for the seemingly illogical phenomenon of commodity fetishism. Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class is similarly mocking due to his exaggerated use of florid language. Veblen’s analysis traces an evolution, from “primitive societies,” to societies in which power is demonstrated through conspicuous leisure, to the modern day demonstration of power, conspicuous consumption. Although this paper will not be discussing Marx’s theory of history, it should be noted that both Marx and Veblen share the project of creating historiographies. | | | II. Commodity Fetishism as theory of value | |
<
< | A. A theory of commodity
Capital, Volume One, Part I. Commodities and Money. Chapter I. Commodities. Section 1. The Two Factors of a Commodity: Use-Value and Value (The Substance of Value and the Magnitude of Value)
“The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist modesof production prevails, presents itself as ‘an immense accumulation of commodities,’ its unit being a single commodity.” (302-3)
“A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another.” (303)
“ The utility of a thing makes it a use-value.” (303)
“Exchange-value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort.” (304)
Exchange-value is representing as some logical quantitative entity, an “intrinsic value.” (304)
The value of a commodity is not derived from the “quantity of labour spent on it.” (306)
“The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.” (307)
“To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use-value, by means of an exchange.” (308)
My interpretation: use-value + surplus value = exchange value (grosso modo? Marx writings so fucking murky.)
B. Fetishism
Marx: Capital, Volume One. Section 4. The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof. From the Marx-Engels Reader.
“The mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use-value.” (320)
“This Fetishism of commodities has its origin […] in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces them.” (321)
Fetishism of commodities thus arises out of the capitalist mode of production.
“Articles of utility become commodities only because they are products of the labour of private individuals who carry on their work independently of each other.” (321)
“It is only be being exchanged that the products of labour acquire, as values, one uniform social status, distinct from their varied forms of existence as objects of utility.” (321)
“To stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language.” (322)
III. Conspicuous consumption as theory of value
Thorstein Veblen and his America by Joseph Dorfman. 1934. Dissertation thesis.
For Veblen, the “weakness of Marx was that he emphasized inner necessity, self-interest, as factors in the change to socialism, rather the influence of environment.” (244)
“Emulation is the most powerful economic motive, with the exception of the instinct of self-preservation, and in the modern industrial community it expresses itself in pecuniary emulation.” (177)
The Theory of the Leisure Class. Thorstein Veblen | >
> | According to Marx, in “those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails” wealth is demonstrated though the “accumulation” of commodities. (Marx Engel Reader 302-3) A commodity is not simply an object or a product, something must occur to transform an object into a commodity. Primarily, a commodity is meant to “satisfy” a human want. (Marx Engle Reade 303) Yet, a commodity is more than its “utility” or “use-value.” (303) In order to become a commodity, an object must be “transferred to another.” It must be “exchanged.” (308) Yet, exchange value is more than the exchange of one commodity of x use-value for another commodity of x use-value, thus the mystifying nature of commodities. The eventual value of a commodity seems to bear little to no relation to its “intrinsic value”--- a somewhat bizarre proposition for one not versed in the realities of modern consumerism. (306) | | | | |
<
< | “The emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership.” (15) | >
> | In his essay “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof,” Marx states that “the mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use-value.” (320) The Fetishism of commodities originates from the social oddities of capitalism. It arises from “the peculiar social character of the labour that produces [the commodities].” (321) He states that products become commodities because “they are products of the labour of private individuals who carry on their work independently of each other.” (321) | | | | |
<
< | “The end of acquisition and accumulation is conventionally held to be the consumption of the goods accumulated […] This is at least felt to be the economically legitimate end of acquisition […] The motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation.” (17)
Like Marx, Veblen finds that the value is derived not from use-value (or the consumption of goods accumulated) but from emulation (analogous to Marx’s exchange value)
[think out all this is a little confused] | >
> | While this theory of value roughly depicts some of the oddities of consumption, it leaves one with many questions. For instance, if a commodity’s value was simply an aggregation of its use-value and the capitalists profit, it would hardly be mystifying or deserving of the modifier “fetish.” Why do products of equal use-value vary in cost? Marx concedes that the additional costs do not derive from the cost of production. Where then do they arise? If one can get the same use-value from two differently priced objects, why would any actor purchase the more expensive object? A plain reading of Capital does not answer these questions. Marx’s text does, however, provide a powerful starting point for any scholar seeking to answer such questions. | | | | |
<
< | “In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence.” (24)
“The subsequent relative decline in the use of conspicuous leisure as a basis of repute is due partly to an increasing relative effectiveness of consumption as an evidence of wealth; but in part it is traceable to another force, alien, and in some degree antagonistic, to the usage of conspicuous waste.” (57)
“Ostensibly purposeless leisure has come to be deprecated.” (59) Veblen argues that this is in part due to the “plebian origin” of some members of the leisure class.
Meritocracy today. Also there would be no way to square Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic with a society that demonstrates power through conspicuous leisure.
Defining the term waste: “it is here called ‘waste’ because this expenditure does not serve human life or human well-being on the whole, not because it is waste or misdirection of effort or expenditure as viewed from the standpoint of the individual consumer who chooses it. If he chooses it, that disposes of the question of its relative utility to him […] Whatever form of expenditure the consumer chooses, or whatever end he seeks in making his choice, has utility to him by virtue of his preference.” (60) | >
> | III. Conspicuous consumption as theory of value | | | | |
<
< | For Veblen, strictly speaking nothing should “be included under the head of conspicuous waste but such expenditure as is incurred on the ground of an invidious pecuniary comparison.” (61) | >
> | According to Veblen, “the emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership.” (15) Within Veblen’s framework, for much of human history conspicuous leisure was the best way to display power. Conspicuous leisure has since been replaced by conspicuous consumption as “a basis of repute,” because consumption has become a more effective way to display wealth. He contends that conspicuous consumption has worked in conjunction with conspicuous waste to supplant conspicuous leisure as a display of wealth because purposeless leisure is no longer respected. (57 and 59) Veblen defines waste rather strangely. It is not the waste of common parlance. Any purchase that does not serve to sustain life and that is “incurred on the ground of an invidious pecuniary comparison” can be termed waste (61). Veblen argues that this shift is in part due to the “plebian origin” of some members of the leisure class. Why is the display of wealth so important? It is necessary to “gain and to hold the esteem of men.” Wealth or power are essentially meaningless or non existent if they are not evidenced in some way. (24) | | | | |
<
< | Objects or commodities can become so popular as to render them “a necessary of life.” (61) | >
> | Like Marx, Veblen finds that the value of an object is derived not from use-value (or the consumption of goods accumulated) but from emulation. He states that “the motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation. (17) | | | “An article may be useful and wasteful both” (62) He distinguishes consumable goods and productive goods. Why? | |
>
> | According Joseph Dorfman,
“Emulation is the most powerful economic motive, with the exception of the instinct of self-preservation, and in the modern industrial community it expresses itself in pecuniary emulation.” (177) | | | Conclusion
Is Marx’s theory of fetishism illuminating when applied to the reality of law students and lawyers?
Veblen is prob more helpful, but he had the benefit of reading Marx.
Marx is studying capitalism while Veblen is to a certain extent studying capitalists. | |
<
< | “Veblen presented a direct statement of his mature views on modern vapital int wo essays ‘One the Nature of Capital’ in the The Quarterly Journal of Economics. In the articles he carried his concept of intangible assets so far that he seems to have reformulated Marxian doctrines in the light of modern corporate practice. In Marx the productive agent in economic life is labour, inVeblen it is the accumulated experience and initiative of the race, techniques created by man for human use. Veblen, like Marx, hold that capital goods cost nothing but labour, and that all gain to capital, aside from those going to the working community, are surplus gain, but Veblen maintained that capital goods are instruments of production only by virtue of the technological knowledge possessed by the industrial community. In Marx surplus value arises from the control of the instruments of production by the capitalists, and causes the accumulation of capital with the consequences of increasing misery, the casting out of the bourgeoisie into the ranks of the proleteriat, the increasing reserve army of unemployed, depressions and crises of ever increasing intensity, until the capitalist system collapses. […] Veblen places more emphasis on the age long experience of mankind than on the comprehensive standardized machine process of his earlier work.” (Dorfman 285-6) | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Value in marx’s terminology. Worshiping of commodities. Consumerism. | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
ThaliaJulme-SecondPaper 4 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.AmandaHungerford
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Feel free to comment but know that this is just a crap outline, a bunch of quotes, and scattered thoughts! | |
>
> | Thalia,
I just wanted to comment to tell you that when I saw someone was writing a paper on Marx and Veblen and referenced Weber, I wished it had been my idea.
Also, on a semi-useful note: I think it might be possible to reconcile Weber and Veblen to some extent. Veblen's theory about sports, specifically, seems reconcilable with the idea that the leisure class needed to do something "productive." Although Weber's theory about the origins of capitalism are harder to square with Veber. Can it be done by saying that the leisure class often justifies its frivolities as essentials; or does that negate their value as conspicuous consumption? I hate the idea that they aren't reconcilable, because I'm so convinced by both of them. | | | Veblen’s conspicuous consumption and Marx’s commodity fetishism, two theories of value
-- By ThaliaJulme - 03 Apr 2008 |
|
|
ThaliaJulme-SecondPaper 3 - 03 Apr 2008 - Main.ThaliaJulme
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
>
> | Feel free to comment but know that this is just a crap outline, a bunch of quotes, and scattered thoughts! | | | | |
<
< | (please ignore this everyone. just trying to format...)
Statistics, Rationalization, and the Law | >
> | Veblen’s conspicuous consumption and Marx’s commodity fetishism, two theories of value | | | -- By ThaliaJulme - 03 Apr 2008 | |
>
> | Topic: what is the difference between Veblen’s view of conspicuous consumption and Marx’s view of commodity fetishism? What can be gleaned from these differences? Why are they important? | | | | |
<
< | Section I. Statistics and quantification as the methodology of the future. | >
> | Introduction | | | | |
<
< | Section II Why does modern man have such an admiration for statistics? | >
> | He states that it is an oddity of man to analyze social life “post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him.” (324) “[M]an seeks to decipher, not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning.” (Marx Engel Reader 324)
Term fetish used with mocking (parallel to the satiric tone in Veblen’s work) In order to explain this phenomenon arising out of capitalism Marx searches for an analogy but he finds he only has “recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world,“ thus the use of the term “Fetish.” (Marx-Engel Reader 321)
Veblen seemed “kindly disposed towards Karl Marx, but ‘did not give us much clue as to his judgment of Marx’s arguments.” (Dorfman 247) | | | | |
>
> | Veblen analysis is historical he is tracing an evolution much like Marx. He states that the current trend is towards more conspicuous consumption. (54)
Do Marx and Veblen share a project? | | | | |
<
< | Section III. Other societal harm? | >
> | II. Commodity Fetishism as theory of value
A. A theory of commodity
Capital, Volume One, Part I. Commodities and Money. Chapter I. Commodities. Section 1. The Two Factors of a Commodity: Use-Value and Value (The Substance of Value and the Magnitude of Value)
“The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist modesof production prevails, presents itself as ‘an immense accumulation of commodities,’ its unit being a single commodity.” (302-3)
“A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another.” (303)
“ The utility of a thing makes it a use-value.” (303)
“Exchange-value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort.” (304)
Exchange-value is representing as some logical quantitative entity, an “intrinsic value.” (304)
The value of a commodity is not derived from the “quantity of labour spent on it.” (306)
“The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it.” (307)
“To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use-value, by means of an exchange.” (308)
My interpretation: use-value + surplus value = exchange value (grosso modo? Marx writings so fucking murky.)
B. Fetishism
Marx: Capital, Volume One. Section 4. The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof. From the Marx-Engels Reader.
“The mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use-value.” (320)
“This Fetishism of commodities has its origin […] in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces them.” (321)
Fetishism of commodities thus arises out of the capitalist mode of production.
“Articles of utility become commodities only because they are products of the labour of private individuals who carry on their work independently of each other.” (321)
“It is only be being exchanged that the products of labour acquire, as values, one uniform social status, distinct from their varied forms of existence as objects of utility.” (321)
“To stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as much a social product as language.” (322)
III. Conspicuous consumption as theory of value
Thorstein Veblen and his America by Joseph Dorfman. 1934. Dissertation thesis.
For Veblen, the “weakness of Marx was that he emphasized inner necessity, self-interest, as factors in the change to socialism, rather the influence of environment.” (244)
“Emulation is the most powerful economic motive, with the exception of the instinct of self-preservation, and in the modern industrial community it expresses itself in pecuniary emulation.” (177)
The Theory of the Leisure Class. Thorstein Veblen
“The emergence of a leisure class coincides with the beginning of ownership.” (15)
“The end of acquisition and accumulation is conventionally held to be the consumption of the goods accumulated […] This is at least felt to be the economically legitimate end of acquisition […] The motive that lies at the root of ownership is emulation.” (17)
Like Marx, Veblen finds that the value is derived not from use-value (or the consumption of goods accumulated) but from emulation (analogous to Marx’s exchange value)
[think out all this is a little confused]
“In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient merely to possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence.” (24)
“The subsequent relative decline in the use of conspicuous leisure as a basis of repute is due partly to an increasing relative effectiveness of consumption as an evidence of wealth; but in part it is traceable to another force, alien, and in some degree antagonistic, to the usage of conspicuous waste.” (57)
“Ostensibly purposeless leisure has come to be deprecated.” (59) Veblen argues that this is in part due to the “plebian origin” of some members of the leisure class.
Meritocracy today. Also there would be no way to square Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic with a society that demonstrates power through conspicuous leisure.
Defining the term waste: “it is here called ‘waste’ because this expenditure does not serve human life or human well-being on the whole, not because it is waste or misdirection of effort or expenditure as viewed from the standpoint of the individual consumer who chooses it. If he chooses it, that disposes of the question of its relative utility to him […] Whatever form of expenditure the consumer chooses, or whatever end he seeks in making his choice, has utility to him by virtue of his preference.” (60)
For Veblen, strictly speaking nothing should “be included under the head of conspicuous waste but such expenditure as is incurred on the ground of an invidious pecuniary comparison.” (61)
Objects or commodities can become so popular as to render them “a necessary of life.” (61)
“An article may be useful and wasteful both” (62) He distinguishes consumable goods and productive goods. Why?
Conclusion
Is Marx’s theory of fetishism illuminating when applied to the reality of law students and lawyers?
Veblen is prob more helpful, but he had the benefit of reading Marx.
Marx is studying capitalism while Veblen is to a certain extent studying capitalists.
“Veblen presented a direct statement of his mature views on modern vapital int wo essays ‘One the Nature of Capital’ in the The Quarterly Journal of Economics. In the articles he carried his concept of intangible assets so far that he seems to have reformulated Marxian doctrines in the light of modern corporate practice. In Marx the productive agent in economic life is labour, inVeblen it is the accumulated experience and initiative of the race, techniques created by man for human use. Veblen, like Marx, hold that capital goods cost nothing but labour, and that all gain to capital, aside from those going to the working community, are surplus gain, but Veblen maintained that capital goods are instruments of production only by virtue of the technological knowledge possessed by the industrial community. In Marx surplus value arises from the control of the instruments of production by the capitalists, and causes the accumulation of capital with the consequences of increasing misery, the casting out of the bourgeoisie into the ranks of the proleteriat, the increasing reserve army of unemployed, depressions and crises of ever increasing intensity, until the capitalist system collapses. […] Veblen places more emphasis on the age long experience of mankind than on the comprehensive standardized machine process of his earlier work.” (Dorfman 285-6) |
|
|
ThaliaJulme-SecondPaper 2 - 03 Apr 2008 - Main.ThaliaJulme
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
>
> | | | | | |
>
> | (please ignore this everyone. just trying to format...)
Statistics, Rationalization, and the Law | | | | |
<
< | -- ThaliaJulme - 03 Apr 2008 | >
> | -- By ThaliaJulme - 03 Apr 2008 | | | | |
>
> | Section I. Statistics and quantification as the methodology of the future. | | | | |
>
> | Section II Why does modern man have such an admiration for statistics? | | | | |
<
< | Hello web admin. Can you please delete this?
Wrong template. | | | | |
<
< | -- ThaliaJulme - 03 Apr 2008
Hello web admin. Can you please delete this?
Wrong template.
-- ThaliaJulme - 03 Apr 2008
| >
> | Section III. Other societal harm? |
|
|