Veblen’s conspicuous consumption and Marx’s commodity fetishism: two theories of value

-- By ThaliaJulme - 03 Apr 2008

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.

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 (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 […] 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, 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 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.

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!