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

-- 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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

Value in marx’s terminology. Worshiping of commodities. Consumerism.