Marx Veblen Dilemma

21 April 2005

Union under an Elite Consciousness

Karl Marx proclaimed to the world in the Communist Manifesto that the organization of= the proletariat revolution was of imminent undertaking. Revolution was the inevitable conc= lusion in the process of historical change and the missing link in the evolution of class struggle. We have seen = many a revolution throughout history, but none that meet the theoretical enigmas o= f Karl Marx. Was Marx wrong? Will there be a glorious revolutio= n of the proletariat against their oppressive masters: the capitalist? Because the non-existence of such a claim does not disprove its inevitability in the future, the answer may nev= er be known. However, we can rea= lize those factors which may prevent a revolution from ever materializing, one of which, this essay will clarify. The worker is bound to the capitalist by similar interests that prevent him from breaking the chains of oppression through revolution. Instead, the worker emulates the conspicuous architect of social desires and seeks to become like him. Where Marx leaves us questioning t= he actuality of a revolution, Thorstein Veblen provides the answer to its non-existence: the homogeneity of social admiration.

This essay= will describe why Marx’s idea of revolution does not mold with the aspirat= ions of the working class. I will = show how Veblen contradicted Marx’s conclusion through his theory of the leisure class, and how this theory realized deeply embedded, congruent attitudes between worker and capitalist on what is desirable within society= .

Marx’= ;s conclusion that a proletariat revolution will overthrow the capitalist bourgeois has been significantly stalled, if not forever terminated because= of human nature itself. Marx und= erstands that there will be continual transformations of capitalism that act to perp= etuate its existence. However, the continual barrage of social restraints acting against the market move capitalism on and off the path toward inevitable self-destruction.

It is the = capitalist, through the process of industrialization that creates the protagonist in th= is story. The truly revolutionary figure that will overthrow the free market is the proletariat. In dialectical terms, he acts as t= he thesis whether as a proletariat, a serf, or a slave in eternal contention w= ith the antithesis: the elite of society. Once united under the horrors of the division of labor, the proletar= iat realizes their plight and decides to stand together instead of competing. However the proletariat cannot do = this alone. Marx tells us the proletariat is unable to unite a revolutionary takeover of the ruling class= and will only be able to do so under the leadership of those select “bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole” (Tuck= er 481). In other words, the intellectual middle class who realizes and sympathizes with the proletariat struggle. Thus is born the revolutionary class that will violently take back the nine-tenths of proper= ty owned by society’s elite (Tucker 486). Yet, here-in lies the problem. A class can not be realized if the individuals of that group do not accept it. If there is no united consciousness among the proletariat, than there is no class struggle. However, let us assume an identity exists among the proletariat: a united inner monologue, but one that is counter-revolutionary.

Is class s= truggle an underlying theme of human society? Or are there other factors at work?= Thorstein Veblen provides us with insight into the nature of human relations that shows more in common between proletariat and elite than othe= rwise assumed.

VeblenR= 17;s Theory of the Leisure Class gives us a different perspective into the inner-workings of human nature. It tells us that our sole priority in life is not an economic one, rather the never-ending superiority over our fellow man, which becomes evident in a capitalist society as economic dominance.&= nbsp; The theory takes us on a journey back to our more primitive state and forces us to question the rational behind both our most simple and complex decisions. Within the story w= e see a glimpse of our own lives, and the choices we make as actors within the ma= rket economy.

One of the= central questions Veblen seeks to answer is why do we create a leisure class? As Robert Heilbroner points out, classical economists like Malthus and Marx see it as an effect of people seeking their rational self-interest. Those who work hard enough will make it to the top of the economic ladder, control the means of production, and will naturally minimize their labor (Worldly Philosophers 230).&n= bsp; From classical economic thinkers like Adam Smith, one would have the impression, that work held a sense of honor or value that would enhance self and society’s interests. But within the division of labor, as Marx would point out, the laborer was held= in contempt, while the capitalist who did very little, was honored: “for those of its members who work, acquire nothing and those who acquire anythi= ng, do not work” (Tucker 486). The transition of ideals is evident as Veblen describes the nature of identity applied to the industrial capitalist and worker:

Conspicuous abstention from lab= our therefore becomes the conventional mark of superior pecuniary achievement a= nd the conventional index of reputability; and conversely, since application to productive labour is a mark of poverty and subjection, it becomes inconsist= ent with a reputable standing in the community (25).

The idea of work as a socia= lly justifiable expression of one’s existence had become a detriment to one’s social status depending on how hard one worked. A life spent behind the desk could= hold more honor and grace than one behind a shovel. One’s means of living not on= ly indicated a lack of sufficient funds for a leisurely life, but also oneR= 17;s subordination to the capitalist. Whereas one’s authority in primitive society was evident by his social standing within the community, the capitalist’s authority and social standing was apparent b= y his evidence of capital. Again, Heilbroner adds: “Capital exists within the capitalist mode of produc= tion as a social relation of domination” (Marxism 117). Marx also r= ealized the social power that capital held within society: “To be a capitalis= t, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production” (Tucker 485). The ownership of capital became no= t only evidence of power, domination, and superiority over fellow man, but somethi= ng to be emulated.

Emulation = is a purely natural reaction as humans adapt to their environment. The same process can be found from= the most primitive to the most civilized society. It is the process though that shou= ld interest us, and the enthusiasm humans have in emulating their leaders, or = in a more mystifying sense, their conquerors.

Under feud= al conditions in the 12^th century, the guild master set the living conditions. One could rest as= sured they would have what was necessary to survive even if their freedoms were inadequate. Nobles living in leisure however, spent considerable time parading their luxuries around the= ir fiefdoms. As Veblen describes= :

(…) the base, industrious= class should consume only what may be necessary to their subsistence (…) ce= rtain victuals, and more particularly certain beverages, are strictly reserved for the use of the superior class (44).

Here we find the mark of superiority symbolized by what is consumed and the liberty to consume it. Transfer ourselves into the late 1= 9^th century and we find Western society thriving as a consumer culture. The industrious worker is given his= first opportunity to choose what he will buy and has been emboldened with the lib= erty to freely do so. He feels himself to be a free man l= ike his elder brother, the capitalist. <= /span>

The perpet= uation of elite emulation in capitalist society became more evident through the bi= rth of a consumer culture. Veblen described the act as “Conspicuous Consumption”: the art of self-exultation through = the purchase of luxury products. The mere ownership of such products became proof of inherent wealth, and ability greater than one’s neigh= bor. Since elites owned similar lu= xury products, one felt closer to elite-hood and could proudly celebrate it. This process of “invidious comparison” was nothing new, but it was enhanced by a consumer culture constantly adjusting and enforcing the looks and lifestyles of elites. A simple example of invidious comp= arison can be seen by the choices we make in the market place. Veblen notes where we feel subject = to the observation of others, we move to impress them by our manner of dress: “the signature of one’s pecuniary strength should be written in characters which he who runs may read” (54). We can imagine this at any public = high school, where parades of fashion titles are advertised by willing teenagers= . Veblen is particularly interested = in the consumption patterns he sees in American society and how they have overtaken the previous ideals of a leisure lifestyle. It is better to have than to have-= not, and he finds individuals are willing to work longer hours and spend more ti= me away from leisure or social activity so as to have more luxury goods.

Let us loo= k at another example. In Naomi Aro= nson essay on industrialization in America, she examines the transition in values from internal family relations, to external social aspirations. = The “self esteem” of both proletariat and bourgeoisie were “defined in terms of the goods they purchased.” She adds that newly emerging prole= tariat women came to understand their way up the social ladder depended on what th= ey bought and how they adorned their homes: “They could display the exte= nt of their husband’s wealth and his success in business by lavishly furnishing their homes and adorning themselves. In every strata of society, the woman’s role as consumer was idealized” (211). By impressing upon society the lev= el of her wealth, the proletariat woman, “turns herself into a commodity of certain value and desirability” (213). The focus on pecuniary standards b= ecame one that held an ever increasing role in an individual’s life.

The extent= to which individuals will go to hold onto pecuniary status adds credence to his satirical book while at the same time enlarging the cracks in Marx’s = call to revolution:

No class of society, not even t= he most abjectly poor, foregoes all customary conspicuous consumption. The last items of this category of consumption are not given up except under stress of the direct necessity. Very much of squalor and discomfor= t will be endured before the last trinket or the last pretence of pecuniary decenc= y is put away. There is no class a= nd no country that has yielded so abjectly before the pressure of physical want a= s to deny themselves all gratification of this higher or spiritual need (53).

It is not only the difficul= t task of the bourgeois intellectual to rally the proletariat to revolution, but he must make sure the radical leaves his trinkets behind. Even those unfortunate individuals= , who lost all during the Great Depression, were able to hold onto something of value, of taste, something which they felt brought them dignity.

The elite are not removed from such irrational behavior. The accumulation of their wealth typically exceeds the rational limits of their needs, while the greater portion of the world is left in starva= tion. Marx was so moved by this that he started a reactionary movement that has not ended to this day. Still, the greater achievements of capitalism tend to draw more into its flock than do communism. The relative successes of capitali= sm have not only “defused the revolutionary temper of the working class,= but have nurtured a growth of conservative sentiment that has strongly tied wor= kers in most capitalist nations to the preservation of the existing system” (Heilbroner: Marxism 135). The success is seen not only on society’s level but on an individual level.

Today’s proletariat and bourgeois can both take part in the pecuniary awards capita= lism has to offer, even if those pecuniary awards are conspicuously greater for = the elite. Within the capitalist = system, the notion of economic opportunity exists.= While it may not be an equal opportunity for all, the elite ideology proclaims opportunity exists, and internal aspirations among both proletari= at and bourgeoisie perpetuate this myth. With great motivation, workers go to extreme lengths, sometimes sacrificing all, to realize their dreams and be successful. Veblen saw the emergence of what w= ould be the “American Dream”. He saw this as an inevitable result of outwardly peaceful, but inwar= dly savage individuals striving to dominate their environment and the people ar= ound them. While elites rose to th= e top and typically remained there, the proletariat and the bourgeois saw and adm= ired the elite, far away towards the horizon.&n= bsp; A capitalist system would provide the opportunity to take any little piece of elite status and apply it to their lives as an ornament. While few touched the horizon, oth= ers simply admired and emulated the masters of the universe.

So what about the inexorable revolution? It appears to have been completely thrown off its tracks. The proletariat can not be mobiliz= ed if they are happy with their stuff= and feel ever-closer toward the American Dream. Today, the goal of most low-income families is home ownership, yet the dream is becoming more of a nightmare as the level of debt required puts one into a life of slavery to their profession. But it is still n= ot enough to keep the proletariat from fighting against each other in the marketplace of wage labor, it only magnifies their efforts.

To have a = class struggle as Marx claims, a single consciousness must exist among the proletariat. That consciousne= ss must be revolutionary in nature because it must upend all of the current notions of climbing the social ladder.&nbs= p; But the proletariat class refuses to deny their American Dream. They will continue to work for mat= erial possession, continue to compare themselves to elite figures and celebrities, and continue to compete with each other in hopes of at least surpassing the= pecuniary appearance of their neighbor. In effect, they are not a proletariat class, but a consumer class.

The bourge= oisie can not be expected to join the proletariat while they perpetuate the eliti= st myth and believe they are ever-closer toward noble status. The elite in the meantime battle i= t out on top, trying to find ways to keep the consumer culture alive and their el= itist positions intact. The revolut= ion appears less likely as long as the needs, and maybe more importantly, the i= maginations of the proletariat are successfully realized. As long as they continue to believ= e the myth, they will only be united under the ideal of one day becoming wealthy = and powerful. As long as they com= pete amongst one another, the elite will forever control the reigns of social desires.

The theme = of this story seems like an elite conspiracy to control the masses. Marx would certainly agree, but th= at may be taking it too far. I tend = to think people control their own destinies if they learn to defy the persuasi= on of consumerism. But one can s= ee how easy it is to be caught within the trap.&n= bsp; Veblen noticed this not as elite manipulation, but as the inevitable result of human nature. One c= an try and program himself not to buy brand-name shoes, but he cannot separate him= self from his inherent nature.

The nature= of capitalism seems to draw out the worst in human beings as they forever comp= ete to be in the privileged class. With that conclusion, one would think a true Marxist revolution is incapable of = ever emerging. Until the proletari= at realizes his struggle as a working class, he may forever be in chains.

Works Cited

Aronson, Naomi. “Working Up an Appetite”, Chp. 11: A Woman’s Conflict<= /u>. In: Controlling

Processes Reader, By: Prof. Laura Nader. University of California Berkeley, Spring 2005.

Heilbroner, Robert L.= Marxism For and Against. New York: W &= ; W Norton Company Inc. 1980

Heilbroner, Robert L.= The Worldly Philosophers. 7^th ed. New York: Touchstone, 1953.=

Tucker, Robert C. = The Marx-Engels Reader. 2^nd Ed. NewYork: W & W Norton Company Inc.

1972.

Veblen, Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Macmillan, 1899.