Worker vs Consumer?

[Questionable]

One of the most common arguments from right-wingers against social-democratic type reforms is that the costs of insuring a higher living standard among workers will be shifted onto the consumer. Higher wages, better working conditions, unions - all these things are said to increase costs. Some studies have shown this to be the truth.

However, as revolutionary Marxists, should we accept this as an inevitable part of the class struggle? Is there simply a contradiction between the worker and the consumer under capitalism?

It seems as though there is. The interests of the consumer are to buy the commodity with the best quality and the lowest price. However, these commodities are made by the exploitation of the labor power of the proletariat. Greater exploitation means commodities with lower prices and higher qualities.

There are also other ways in which this antagonism manifests. For instance, longer working hours are arguably better for a consumer, because it means more commodities are produced in that time for them to purchase, as well as services being available more often.

I'm not suggesting some kind of workers vs. consumers revolution. Obviously consumers are an inevitable component of market economies based on private commodity production. However, does this contradiction exist?

[Blake's Baby]

Yes.

That's why it's so absolutely necessary to capitalism for us to identify as consumers not workers. Brands, subcultural styles, ethical shopping, celebrity endorsements... our identity is patterned by what we own, use, buy, wear... these are our communities - what our trainers or our taste in music or magazines or computers say about us, not whether we're exploited and how.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One of the most common arguments from right-wingers against social-democratic type reforms is that the costs of insuring a higher living standard among workers will be shifted onto the consumer. Higher wages, better working conditions, unions - all these things are said to increase costs. Some studies have shown this to be the truth.

However, as revolutionary Marxists, should we accept this as an inevitable part of the class struggle? Is there simply a contradiction between the worker and the consumer under capitalism?

It seems as though there is. The interests of the consumer are to buy the commodity with the best quality and the lowest price. However, these commodities are made by the exploitation of the labor power of the proletariat. Greater exploitation means commodities with lower prices and higher qualities.

There are also other ways in which this antagonism manifests. For instance, longer working hours are arguably better for a consumer, because it means more commodities are produced in that time for them to purchase, as well as services being available more often.

I'm not suggesting some kind of workers vs. consumers revolution. Obviously consumers are an inevitable component of market economies based on private commodity production. However, does this contradiction exist?

I'm not quite sure that I'm understanding you here, so I apologize in advance if my responce is sort of off.

If the question is, do increased wages or benifits (or control over pace and job conditions) for workers increase the price of commodities, well my understanding is that Marx didn't think so. I believe he argues against this idea in "Value, Price, and Profit" and I think he basically argues that increased wages at one location do not impact price, it impacts the amount of surplus, the profits, that the bosses/investors control. Because capitalists are in competition, they can not just inflate prices unilaterally - prices are confined to more or less a "market price" and the cost of labor that is factored into the value of commodities is a "generalized labor cost", not the specific cost of the labor for one company. The right-wing argument may make some sense on a surface level, but if you flip it and say would lowering wages mean cheaper products, well wages have gone down over the last generation while cost of living has increaed; social wage costs have been slashed or pushed more onto workers and off of companies and the rich. Profits went up considerably for a lot of this period, and inequality too. The increased profits though may make it possible for more investment which might result in cheaper or more consumer products being produced. Economics isn't my strongest area of knowledge, so I may be off here.

As far as consumer vs. workers, well for many workers, most of their consumption, and most of their wages, goes towards just self-reproduction. This is reflected in the 40% of people in the US who hold no wealth - all their money and consumption basically goes to daily costs, debt, rent, and mortages. So higher wages, or lessening of the privitization of the social costs of working class self-reproduction (transportation, housing, schooling, etc) might mean less profits for investing, but that wealth instead goes for working class consumption. Decreases in profitability will probably push capitalists to find other avenues to increase exploitation (at the height of US wages and as the post-war boom declines, major companies engaged in tons of speed-ups, not because they weren't making money or produceing, but because they needed to increase the rate of exploitation and squeeze more profits out of workers). This is why reforms like this can't be an "answer" ultimately.

So it is a problem or barrier for capitalism because they end up not controlling as much of the wealth and being able to direct it towards more profitable investing, but that's the class struggle within capitalism for ya. They try and take as much of the wealth we create as possible and (when we have our class-shit together) we try and take back as much as possible. I don't think it's a direct problem for induvidual consumption though, and it would benifit most people by allowing them to consume more.

[Fionnagáin]

The proposition is that if wages go up, prices go up. If wages come down, prices come down. Assuming that all else remains constant, this is true. But it is not the case that all else must remain constant.

What is missing from this picture? Profits.

If wages go up, and profits go down, prices stay the same. If wages go down, and profits go up, prices stay the same. (A far more likely outcome of attacks on wages!) The opposition of worker and consumer, then, is a denial of profit, a denial of the existence of a class which subsist on profit, the ruling class, and so a denial of class struggle.

As workers we demand higher wages, as consumers we demand lower prices. Not either/or, but both, together. If that impacts upon the rate of profit, fuck 'em, it's not our problem.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes.

That's why it's so absolutely necessary to capitalism for us to identify as consumers not workers. Brands, subcultural styles, ethical shopping, celebrity endorsements... our identity is patterned by what we own, use, buy, wear... these are our communities - what our trainers or our taste in music or magazines or computers say about us, not whether we're exploited and how.

To riff off of this quickly, I think that a large part of this is due to commodity fetishism, which in many ways is probably the main reasons that workers identify as consumers; these commodities to us, don't represent an economic value, but something which has intrinsic value. Ultimately though, workers make up the majority of consumers. So it seems to me, to be a bit of a circular argument to think that if wages go up, workers are hurt because prices will as well (that is if we take the premise to be true).

I think Jimmie's post though, shows how Marx would have disagreed with the notion.

[goalkeeper]

I thought the majority of consumers were workers.

[Fionnagáin]

To riff off of this quickly, I think that a large part of this is due to commodity fetishism, which in many ways is probably the main reasons that workers identify as consumers[.]
As if commodity fetishism only became a generalised phenomenon in the last thirty years?

[Blake's Baby]

The conscious promotion of 'style' as a concept has been particularly prevelant over the last 40 years or so. Even as a kid I remember a lot more stuff (clothes for instance) was hand-made; now in much of the west hardly anything is made at home any more. Easier to buy it or download it. Even our leisure is commodified - we consume leisure now, we used to produce it.

[Art Vandelay]

As if commodity fetishism only became a generalised phenomenon in the last thirty years?

Where did I say that?

[Fionnagáin]

The production of self-identity through consumption only became a general phenomenon in the last thirty years or so, maybe fifty or sixty in the US. Before that, the majority of people identified in more communal terms, such as locale, occupation, and religious denomination- or, very frequently, by social class. To attribute consumerist forms of identity to "commodity fetishism" is to propose that this is a recent phenomenon, and not, as Marx would have it, the epistemological premise of all capitalist social relations.

[Art Vandelay]

The production of self-identity through consumption only became a general phenomenon in the last thirty years or so

I'm not entirely certain about that. I think its always been present, if perhaps only among the ranks of the bourgeoisie. Its merely that in more recent years, its become more widespread. Why is this? I'm not entirely sure, but I would venture to guess that it has something to do with helping to continue capital's strength.


Before that, the majority of people identified in more communal terms, such as locale, occupation, and religious denomination- or, very frequently, by social class.

Which hasn't changed (minus the social class part, due to the rise of the 'middle class' during the post WWII boom), people still predominantly identify in those ways, the role of the commodity has simply grown.


To attribute consumerist forms of identity to "commodity fetishism" is to propose that this is a recent phenomenon, and not, as Marx would have it, the epistemological premise of all capitalist social relations.

Except I don't propose that commodity fetishism is a recent phenomenon; that being said I also don't propose that its reaction in society is entirely static. Again I'm not authority of this issue, economics is far from my strong suit, I was just throwing out an idea.

What do you think is a better explanation for this phenomena of 'consumerist identity?'

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not entirely certain about that. I think its always been present, if perhaps only among the ranks of the bourgeoisie. Its merely that in more recent years, its become more widespread. Why is this? I'm not entirely sure, but I would venture to guess that it has something to do with helping to continue capital's strength...

There's a lot contained in that 'merely'. Yes, behaviour whaich was at one point largely confined to the small upper-class sector (emulation, after all, is a very old phenomenon that predates capitalism) has in recent decades been deliberately generalised among the poorer classes. No-one is claiming that competitive castle/palace/church building, or the acquisition of the latest Chinese imported teapots, was not a feature of earlier epochs; but during the 20th century, the notion of a mass-market consumer society was deliberately developed and promoted.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

but during the 20th century, the notion of a mass-market consumer society was deliberately developed and promoted.

It was hardly "deliberate", it was absolutely necessary to keep the capitalist system stable. Consumer products bought today by workers, are self-evidently paid for by credit. Consumer debt in the US has increased twofold in the last 30 years. This is of course the outcome of the crisis of profitability of the 1970's.

Generally, workers' wages everywhere have been stagnated since the 70's as in the US, or 80's as in Britain or Germany. While workers wages have been stagnating and the surpluses lent back to them through the modern intricate credit system, the Bourgeoisie has been getting fatter and fatter, with 5% of the US population consuming a whooping 37% of total consumer goods and increasingly reaping the gains of the faux 'recovery' (brought through reduction of wages and mass increase and socialization of debts) the last three years.

But, the Capitalists of today are not feeling very confident about their returns on investments, resulting in massive Bourgeois lobbying for austerity and privatization to make them feel more 'secure'. Within the next years, if the global economy is not brought down by another major cancellation on the ever-increasing mountains of debts, we will see austerity, demand being destroyed everywhere and lead to more closer-to-home Imperialist Wars.

[Fionnagáin]

I'm not entirely certain about that. I think its always been present, if perhaps only among the ranks of the bourgeoisie. Its merely that in more recent years, its become more widespread.
Hence, "general phenomenon".


Except I don't propose that commodity fetishism is a recent phenomenon; that being said I also don't propose that its reaction in society is entirely static. Again I'm not authority of this issue, economics is far from my strong suit, I was just throwing out an idea.
Commodity fetishism is the phenomenon by which social relations between people appear as economic relations between objects. What, in that, entails a "reaction in society", or the possibility that this "reaction" may take the form of modern society?


What do you think is a better explanation for this phenomena of 'consumerist identity?'
Capital has a habit of tearing up traditional communities- "all that is solid melts into air"- which leaves people casting around for new social identities. That's a demand. Firms are always looking for ways to beat out the competition, which in the consumer-goods business means convincing people that your product is better worth their money. That's a supply. Put demand and supply together, and things have a way of working themselves out.

[Art Vandelay]

Commodity fetishism is the phenomenon by which social relations between people appear as economic relations between objects. What, in that, entails a "reaction in society", or the possibility that this "reaction" may take the form of modern society?

So has commodity fetishism always had the same effects in capitalist society, then? And by reaction, I mean in what ways has the perception of this 'economic relationship between objects' changed in the general populace?


Capital has a habit of tearing up traditional communities- "all that is solid melts into air"- which leaves people casting around for new social identities. That's a demand. Firms are always looking for ways to beat out the competition, which in the consumer-goods business means convincing people that your product is better worth their money. That's a supply. Put demand and supply together, and things have a way of working themselves out.

Which makes alot of sense to me. Again I wasn't trying to talk authoritatively on the subject. I still have alot of reading to do, as far as economics. I have a copy of capital and will start studying it one of these days.

[Luís Henrique]

One of the most common arguments from right-wingers against social-democratic type reforms is that the costs of insuring a higher living standard among workers will be shifted onto the consumer. Higher wages, better working conditions, unions - all these things are said to increase costs. Some studies have shown this to be the truth.

However, as revolutionary Marxists, should we accept this as an inevitable part of the class struggle? Is there simply a contradiction between the worker and the consumer under capitalism?

It seems as though there is. The interests of the consumer are to buy the commodity with the best quality and the lowest price. However, these commodities are made by the exploitation of the labor power of the proletariat. Greater exploitation means commodities with lower prices and higher qualities.

There are also other ways in which this antagonism manifests. For instance, longer working hours are arguably better for a consumer, because it means more commodities are produced in that time for them to purchase, as well as services being available more often.

I'm not suggesting some kind of workers vs. consumers revolution. Obviously consumers are an inevitable component of market economies based on private commodity production. However, does this contradiction exist?

Well, this does not only ignore profits, as Fionnagáin says, but also all the other costs of production except wages (depreciation of machinery and tools, raw materials, rents, interests, taxes, etc).

If we take a company with a very low composition of capital, the calculation would be as follows:

Wages: $1,000
Other costs and false costs: $1,000
Profits: $1,000
Total sales: $3,000
Profit rate: 50%

If the workers win a strike, and obtain a 10% rise, we will have:

Wages: $1,100
Other costs and false costs: $1,000
Profits: $900
Total sales: $3,000
Profit rate: 42.86%

So, if the capitalist wants to keep the profits at the same amount (and if he can do it), this is what would be necessary:

Wages: $1,100
Other costs and false costs: $1,000
Profits: $1,000
Total sales: $3,100
Profit rate: 47.62%

This implies a rise in 3.33% in the prices (($3,100-$3,000)/$3,000)

Now if the capitalist wants, and can, keep the profits at the same rate:

Wages: $1,100
Other costs and false costs: $1,000
Profits: $1,050
Total sales: $3,150
Profit rate: 50%

We see that he would need to rise his prices by 5% (($3,150-$3,000)/$3,000)

So he could, in theory, even expand his profit rate raising his prices below the proportion (10%) of the wage rise; in the limit:

Wages: $1,100
Other costs and false costs: $1,000
Profits: $1,200
Total sales: $3,300
Profit rate: 57.14%

if he raises his prices by 10% (($3,300-$3,000)/$3,000)

Of course, if we consider higher capital compositions, the impact of wages in the price is even lower.

Luís Henrique

[Fionnagáin]

So has commodity fetishism always had the same effects in capitalist society, then? And by reaction, I mean in what ways has the perception of this 'economic relationship between objects' changed in the general populace?
I think that you're grabbing the wrong end of the stick with the whole idea of "commodity fetishism". First and foremost, in taking commodity fetishism as an effect which commodities have upon people in capitalist society, you are actually engaging in commodity fetishism. The central thesis of Marx's capital is that capitalist society is a human product, something that we are actively engaged in producing and reproducing. Commodity fetishism is the psychological state by which the commodity-form appears ontologically prior to the human practice, and human practice as a circumstantial reaction to a given arrangement of commodities, rather than the reality, in which the commodity-form is simply the structure of human practice. It describes the phenomenological experience of life under capitalism, rather than being an interaction between entities (the commodity and society) that can be described in terms of cause-and-effect.

[Art Vandelay]

I think that you're grabbing the wrong end of the stick with the whole idea of "commodity fetishism". First and foremost, in taking commodity fetishism as an effect which commodities have upon people in capitalist society, you are actually engaging in commodity fetishism.

Interesting. I mean I realize that conversations like these, are no substitute for a thorough study of capital, but until I undertake that task, these types of conversations help me enter into it with a better understanding.


The central thesis of Marx's capital is that capitalist society is a human product, something that we are actively engaged in producing and reproducing. Commodity fetishism is the psychological state by which the commodity-form appears ontologically prior to the human practice, and human practice as a circumstantial reaction to a given arrangement of commodities, rather than the reality, in which the commodity-form is simply the structure of human practice. It describes the phenomenological experience of life under capitalism, rather than being an interaction between entities (the commodity and society) that can be described in terms of cause-and-effect.

I feel like I kinda understand what you're saying here, but if you'd be willing to elaborate further, I'd appreciate it. You've made the comment about the more recent phenomenon of 'consumer identity' being rather a large side effect of simple supply and demand; what do you think about Blake's characterization of the phenomenon being deliberately generalized?

[Blake's Baby]

It was hardly "deliberate", it was absolutely necessary to keep the capitalist system stable...

Why do you think these two statements are in opposition to each other? It was a deliberate policy of the capitalists, which was adopted as it was necessary to keep the capitalist system stable. There was even a meeting of American businessmen in 1928 (I think it was) that decided to promote 'consumption' - before this point a word associated with tuberculosis - as a virtue, in opposition to the thrifty 'make-do-and-mend' attitude associated with the 'pioneer spirit' (previously an American ideal).

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Why do you think these two statements are in opposition to each other? It was a deliberate policy of the capitalists, which was adopted as it was necessary to keep the capitalist system stable. There was even a meeting of American businessmen in 1928 (I think it was) that decided to promote 'consumption' - before this point a word associated with tuberculosis - as a virtue, in opposition to the thrifty 'make-do-and-mend' attitude associated with the 'pioneer spirit' (previously an American ideal).

Well, the word 'deliberate' (to me at least, as a non-english native speaker) seems to imply a conscious act. However, the Capitalists had no choice but to expand the risky financial sector.

[Blake's Baby]

Just because something is useful it doesn't mean that the action taken isn't deliberate. I'm not sure they had 'no choice' but I am sure that the strategy they adopted was deliberately chosen. I'm not sure it had much to do with the 'risky financial sector' either, rather than the expansion of commodification of a whole host of aspects of life that previously had been un-capitalised.

To take a totally different example, was Germany waging war in 1939 'deliberate'? Or was it 'compelled' to do so? Obviously, it was both; Germany was compelled by economic necessity to try to increase its power and influence and markets and access to raw materials, and deliberately chose to invade and annex its neighbours to do so. So 'deliberate' and 'useful' (or even 'necessary') aren't necessarily (or usefully?) opposed here.