Krypto-Communist
30th October 2006, 02:14
Hey everybody,
I just got done reading the first few chapters of the book, The Theory of the Leisure Class by an economist Thorstein Veblen, 1899. I majored in Sociology in college and I was surprised that I wasn't even assigned to read this book but luckily somebody online told me about it.
It's a book that was one of the first analyses and critiques of a consumeristic society thus it was groundbreaking for its time. And it also explains the emergence of the first types of "leisure classes" among tribal societies and how they managed to stay in power through direct and indirect coericion. Leisure classes meaning clergy, shamen, fortune tellers, battle commanders, etc...
(He argued that priests were considered the first members of the leisure class).
It appears so far that he regards people as being irrational who only desire social status and prestige in the eyes of others; regardless of their mental well-being.
The author also concluded that capitalists, businessmen and salespeople were simply the latest manifestation of the leisure class. He noted that businessmen do not produce goods and services, but simply shift them around whilst taking a profit.
He thus argued that the modern businessman is no different from a barbarian, in that he uses prowess and competitive skills to make money from others, and then lives off the spoils of conquests rather than producing things himself.
But the thing that caught my attention was his simlarity to Marx's writing and theorization about ownership and who really wields power in the economy and in society.
He argues that true power is NOT in the hands of those who have ownership of the means of production (as Marx argued). Instead, it is the ownership of the means of consumption that matters.
I mean, the workers produce the goods that the upper classes consume and as well as what the workers would otherwise consume. Doesn't it really work both ways here?
If you own the "means of production" then odds are that you are quite wealthy yourself and can choose pretty much anything in the marketplace as opposed to a wage worker who must spend all of his money just to survive. First, you have to own the means of production first before you can "own the means of consumption". So how is that consumption is more important than production? They're not mutually exclusive and I believe that both are important.
What does everyone else think?
Is there even such thing as the "ownership of the means of consumption"?
Honestly, the phrase never occured to me until I read this book.
I just got done reading the first few chapters of the book, The Theory of the Leisure Class by an economist Thorstein Veblen, 1899. I majored in Sociology in college and I was surprised that I wasn't even assigned to read this book but luckily somebody online told me about it.
It's a book that was one of the first analyses and critiques of a consumeristic society thus it was groundbreaking for its time. And it also explains the emergence of the first types of "leisure classes" among tribal societies and how they managed to stay in power through direct and indirect coericion. Leisure classes meaning clergy, shamen, fortune tellers, battle commanders, etc...
(He argued that priests were considered the first members of the leisure class).
It appears so far that he regards people as being irrational who only desire social status and prestige in the eyes of others; regardless of their mental well-being.
The author also concluded that capitalists, businessmen and salespeople were simply the latest manifestation of the leisure class. He noted that businessmen do not produce goods and services, but simply shift them around whilst taking a profit.
He thus argued that the modern businessman is no different from a barbarian, in that he uses prowess and competitive skills to make money from others, and then lives off the spoils of conquests rather than producing things himself.
But the thing that caught my attention was his simlarity to Marx's writing and theorization about ownership and who really wields power in the economy and in society.
He argues that true power is NOT in the hands of those who have ownership of the means of production (as Marx argued). Instead, it is the ownership of the means of consumption that matters.
I mean, the workers produce the goods that the upper classes consume and as well as what the workers would otherwise consume. Doesn't it really work both ways here?
If you own the "means of production" then odds are that you are quite wealthy yourself and can choose pretty much anything in the marketplace as opposed to a wage worker who must spend all of his money just to survive. First, you have to own the means of production first before you can "own the means of consumption". So how is that consumption is more important than production? They're not mutually exclusive and I believe that both are important.
What does everyone else think?
Is there even such thing as the "ownership of the means of consumption"?
Honestly, the phrase never occured to me until I read this book.