Marx and Consumption
Marx focuses on production in his economic analyses, which, from an economic standpoint appears one-sided. But in his Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy the reasons for this become clear:
Marx sees the two related together dialectically as part of the same process, so by focusing on production, he is also directly dealing with consumption. On a semi-related note, Marx also viewed production as a truly emancipatory human action (assuming it is not alienated production, an assumption some primitivists would challenge as an oxymoron.) I would agree with him on this one; too many radicals use the terms production and consumption as pejoratives, when in fact it should be recognized that production and consumption are both materially necessary and can be personally fulfilling. One needs to make a distinction between capitalist and communist production/consumption.
Production is at the same time also consumption...The individual who develops his faculties in production is also expending them, consuming them in the act of production...Consumption is directly also production, just as in nature the consumption of the elements and of chemical matter constitutes production of plants. (7)
Marx sees the two related together dialectically as part of the same process, so by focusing on production, he is also directly dealing with consumption. On a semi-related note, Marx also viewed production as a truly emancipatory human action (assuming it is not alienated production, an assumption some primitivists would challenge as an oxymoron.) I would agree with him on this one; too many radicals use the terms production and consumption as pejoratives, when in fact it should be recognized that production and consumption are both materially necessary and can be personally fulfilling. One needs to make a distinction between capitalist and communist production/consumption.
posted by Sam at
11:35 PM
5 Comments:
Yes, I've always been annoyed by those who ridicule 'consumerism' as such. Production and consumption cannot be separated from each other.
I think a terrible facet of the left in general is the presence of a productivist morality, i.e. the idea that production and growth of productivity is the purpose of human existence and that those who are seen as direct producers are ethically superior to those who aren't. This should be criticized very harshly.
On the other hand, those who do criticize productivism (like the Situationists) have historically exhibited a tendency to fall into the converse, an anti-productivism and criticism of production per se, which I think ought to be avoided equally as productivism.
By
Jake R., at 12:40 AM
Word. Except I can also make the argument that maybe we all should be productive because it is enjoyable and satisfying, but it needn't be useful production. Anything creative can be considered productive, and we don't need to make distinctions or comparisons between different people's productivity. But of course, if someone decides to be completely inactive, whatever. Its just that I don't see how that could be desirable (or even possible. Humans are always creating.)
By
Sam, at 6:16 PM
As you know, I recently read Doug Dowd's Capitalism and its Economics. In it, he distinguishes "consumerism," which is perhaps not worthy of ridicule but certainly a negative social tendency, and consumption, which is surely a natural phenomenon.
And I don't really agree that the left has generally had a "productivist morality," of course depending on what you mean by "left."
By
Unknown, at 11:58 PM
Well, the point that I was getting at was that, while what would be labelled as consumerism by its critics is something that I certainly oppose, the utilization of that term is not something I would do, because consumption as such is not necessarily a bad thing, it is in fact a necessary and natural activity. Instead of speaking of consumerism, I would prefer to speak of capitalism, but these nuances probably don't make too much difference either way.
Once again, it all goes back to definitions. If it is not clear what is being criticized, then understanding is impossible. Anyhow, I do think my characterization was accurate, witness the glorification of work in many anarchist as well as non-anarchist leftist writing, just to give an example.
By
Jake R., at 3:54 AM
Here's something Gorz said on this very topic "What can and should be extensively eliminated is not productive work but heteronomous and waged work. Self-determined activities can be productive too, even if not in the capitalist sense of 'creating surplus value': they will create aesthetic and use values, rather than economic values. That's the whole point. The preeminence of the economic is only two hundred years old and is responsible for creating a kind of general schizophrenia, for, in day-to-day life, there is a general feeling that economic values are morally and aesthetically worthless and vice versa: affection, love, tenderness, children, pets, the countryside have no economic value at all and are sacrificed to the economic demands of industry. When they come home from work, though - at work they are not at home - everybody wants to have an artificial niche, where these non-economic values prevail..." (Gorz, Afterword to "The Traitor", p. 299)
By
Jake R., at 10:57 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home