Law in Contemporary Society

View   r4  >  r3  ...
ThaliaJulme-SecondPaper 4 - 04 Apr 2008 - Main.AmandaHungerford
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="WebPreferences"
Feel free to comment but know that this is just a crap outline, a bunch of quotes, and scattered thoughts!
Added:
>
>
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


Revision 4r4 - 04 Apr 2008 - 01:38:54 - AmandaHungerford
Revision 3r3 - 03 Apr 2008 - 19:30:29 - ThaliaJulme
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM