How does Marx explain brand names and luxury goods?

[Blanquist]

What does he have to say about them?

[NorwegianCommunist]

Basically as something you don't need.
Brands use looks over quality

[Rooster]

What about them? Brands usually represent a monopoly, however slight, in the market. Walmart and McDonalds and Starbucks have the economic muscle to push out other competition. They're able to buy up more heavily trafficked areas of cities and usually are able to have more stores in a single area. Certain brands also have a use-value beyond just quality; they usually hold a social status. So, one child might get laughed at for not wearing nike. Some brands also do represent a higher quality of product than non-branded ones. If you're asking for any specific quotes by Marx referring to brands then I don't think you'll find much success.

[gorillafuck]

he didn't say anything about brands

[citizen of industry]

He writes about luxury goods in vol.2 of Capita in detail. A section of the consumer goods producers who cater to the bourgeoisie. The producers receive wages like any other. The buyers are the bourgeoisie. They spend a similar amount as a worker on necessities, and have more to spend on luxury goods. It still belongs to department II in the reproduction schemas.

As for brands, you can account for them under commodity fetishism. Also, consider monopoly.

[Blanquist]

He writes about luxury goods in vol.2 of Capita in detail. A section of the consumer goods producers who cater to the bourgeoisie. The producers receive wages like any other. The buyers are the bourgeoisie. They spend a similar amount as a worker on necessities, and have more to spend on luxury goods. It still belongs to department II in the reproduction schemas.

As for brands, you can account for them under commodity fetishism. Also, consider monopoly.


Can you please expand on this for me? What does " department II in the reproduction schemas" mean?

Also, what does this mean? "The buyers are the bourgeoisie. They spend a similar amount as a worker on necessities, and have more to spend on luxury goods."? Why do they have to spend more on luxury goods?

[Thirsty Crow]

Also, what does this mean? "The buyers are the bourgeoisie. They spend a similar amount as a worker on necessities, and have more to spend on luxury goods."? Why do they have to spend more on luxury goods?
They don't have to do it if they don't want to. But they can since they enjoy a far better portion of the total social product than individual proletarians, workers that is, do. Thus they are in a position where their bank accounts are brimming with figures, and they are free to spend it.

[Blanquist]

They don't have to do it if they don't want to. But they can since they enjoy a far better portion of the total social product than individual proletarians, workers that is, do. Thus they are in a position where their bank accounts are brimming with figures, and they are free to spend it.

I see now.

Why are 'poor' people all over the world the most obsessed with luxury goods? Anything good written about this by any Marxists?

[citizen of industry]

Can you please expand on this for me? What does " department II in the reproduction schemas" mean?

Also, what does this mean? "The buyers are the bourgeoisie. They spend a similar amount as a worker on necessities, and have more to spend on luxury goods."? Why do they have to spend more on luxury goods?

In Vol.II he gives schemes for simple reproduction and enlarged reproduction.
There are two departments, I., which produces goods to be used in the production process, i.e; machines, raw materials, etc. And department II, which produces consumption goods. In modern economics, you could call these capital goods and consumer goods. The schema for simple reproduction:

I. 4,000c + 1000v + 1000s = 6,000 (capital goods)
II.2,000c + 500v + 500v = 3,000 (consumer goods)

The numbers aren't important, they could be anything. The formulas are important: II(c) = I(v+s)
II(3,000)= I(v+s) + II(v+s)
I(6,000) = I(c) + II(c)

In other words, for simple reproduction to happen, department II must produce consumer goods to the amount that can be purchased by the workers and capitalist in both departments, and department I must produce capital goods to provide for both departments. Department II spends 1,000(v+s) on it's own goods, and 2,000 are sold to department I to reproduce it's constant capital. Department I purchases 4,000 of it's own product, and sells 2,000 to department II to replace it's capital, and uses the money to buy consumption goods. Obviously this is just generalization, and society doesn't work exactly like this. Capitalists don't consume all of their surplus.

For enlarged reproduction to happen, part of the surplus from both departments are invested in C rather than spent on consumption items. This means there aren't enough buyers for the consumer goods. So how can it expand? Not in a closed system - capitalism must sell them in other countries, colonies, spheres of influence, dependents, etc. i.e; imperialism.

Luxury items are part of department II, consumables. A worker might hoard their wages for awhile and purchase a luxury good, but for the most part it is the capitalists who purchase these goods. The production of luxury goods is the same as any other, C + V + S, or in total circulation, M - C (mp + L) - P...C' - M' [money exchanged for commodity(means of production and labor power) -production process - new commodity(with surplus value) - exchanged for money (with realized surplus value)].

Why would a worker want to purchase a luxury good? Think about our society - money fetishism, commodity fetishism, alienation. Some people want a little "bling" to make their lives more meaningful. And who doesn't want luxury items? We don't eat the cheap stuff because we like it better, we just can't afford the expensive stuff. Often luxury goods are of a much better quality, think watches, bags, clothes, etc.

[Dean]

I see now.

Why are 'poor' people all over the world the most obsessed with luxury goods? Anything good written about this by any Marxists?

I can't think of any works off hand, but its kind of obvious. Society offers more social currency, respect and glory to those who appear in society to be more well off. Shouldering an IBook, walking in Air Jordans, and glancing at a designer gold watch all convey that message of social status.

And if you are a poor person, the longing to acquire these symbols of social status are that much greater. Now that we live in an advanced financial capitalism, credit allows more impoverished people to purchase these goods - so we can now wear the costume of a rich person without the background, or the financial solvency, to reliably support that lifestyle.

[NewLeft]

Branding = creating demand before producing?