From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Mon Feb 21 2005 - 14:38:12 EST
Re Jurriaan's latest message: > I suggest Marx's political economy is incomplete, insofar as it lacks an > analysis of the mode of regulation of consumption and consumer behaviour. > The idea here is that consumer behaviour is not simply a matter of > subjective utility preferences, an idea already implicit in Marx's concept > of use-value as the tangible characteristic of a good which can satisfy a > need, and his view of human needs as possessing a definite structure, due > to their anthropological nature. I agree that there is something incomplete in Marx regarding his explanation of consumer behavior. How could his explanation in _Capital_, after all, be complete at a level of abstraction where "the principal agents of this mode of production itself, the capitalist and the wage-labourer, are as such simply embodiments and personifications of capital and wage-labour" (Volume 3, Penguin ed., pp. 1019-1020)? At this abstract level of presentation -- i.e. the level of abstraction associated with _Capital_ -- wage-workers and capitalists are wearing "character masks." These character masks, though, must be stripped off these classes to further explain consumer behavior. Within the context of late capitalism, there are a couple of major dynamics that shape consumer behavior which have to be grasped: 1) competition and the creation of consumer wants As the process of the concentration and centralization of capital continues, markets come to be increasingly dominated by oligopolies. Within oligopolistic markets, capitalist rivalry typically takes the form of product differentiation. The competitive strategy of product differentiation typically requires large expenditures on promotion and advertising. Through advertising, firms shape and re-shape consumer wants, preferences, and needs. The point of advertising is not, contrary to the claims of the doctrine of consumer sovereignty, to provide information to consumers that can assist them in their consumer choices. Indeed, the 'information content' of advertising is typically very poor. Rather, the whole point of advertising is -- through the manipulation of language, graphics, and sounds -- to help sell the commodity. While the marginal utility theory of consumer choice assumes that consumers will behave rationally, much of the _practice_ of corporate advertising is counting on the fact that consumers will behave irrationally. In this sense, consumers are manipulated in many ways that they don't generally comprehend into having a want for a particular brand. How does this process affect working-class consumers? Well, it depends on a number of factors -- for instance, how you view advertising labor. I seem to recall that you viewed advertising labor as productive of surplus value (please correct me if I have mis-stated your position). If that is the case, then the cost of advertising could be included in the price of the commodity and one could maintain that commodities sold by these oligopolies which spend enormous quantities of money on advertising are exchanged _at or near their value_. If one takes the position that advertising labor is unproductive labor then one would have to recognize an enormous increase in unproductive expenditures by these business firms. If that is the case, then one might expect a wider gap between value and market price. Then the question becomes: what will the effect be on the two major classes? Will the net effect of advertising simply be a redistribution of surplus value among capitalists with some gaining and others losing to an equal extent? Or, to the extent that the commodities are sold to consumers who are part of the working class, will the increase in unproductive expenditures caused by advertising result in working-class consumers paying prices that are _systematically higher than values_? If the latter is the case, then one might view this as a redistribution of value that takes place in the market where the real wage of workers is effectively lowered? In considering these two possibilities, one has to ask the question whether workers _or_ non-competitive capitalists are hurt to the greater extent by the process of oligopolistic pricing practices. 2) auto-valorization A term attributed to Antonio Negri. In this context, I am using it to refer to the ways in which workers themselves expand and change their wants and needs. To give an example: the growth of organic farming was not primarily a result of the "logic of capital". Rather, consumers -- influenced by the environmental movement -- began to increasingly indicate their preferences for food grown without the use of pesticides, etc. As the demand for new products emerged, a segment of capital rushed into production to meet the changed demand (and the flip side of this is that there was disinvestment in some other types of food for which tastes had changed such that there was a lesser demand for these commodities). This is the kernel of truth behind the doctrine of consumer sovereignty: i.e. that *in some cases* firms are forced into changing what they produce and what the asking price will be for their commodities. But, while consumers can change what happens in the marketplace, the belief by the doctrine of consumer sovereignty that consumers _control_ the marketplace is fundamentally mistaken. While it is true that firms can use advertising to get consumers to unwittingly act against their self-interest, it is also true that what is rational from the standpoint of capital is not necessarily rational from the standpoint of working-class consumers. A boycott of non-Union iceberg lettuce by consumers in the 1970's was hardly a rational practice from the standpoint of capital or the doctrine of consumer sovereignty. Yet, it was a rational practice from the perspective of working-class consumers. If and when workers' struggles as consumers become successful, it encourages further struggles and the self-confidence that arises from successfully attaining a goal. This then leads to more and expanded struggles. Auto-valorization. What would happen if working-class tenants -- as some radical housing advocates suggest -- went on a general rent strike? Clearly, that would shake things up a bit! In any event, what has to be recognized is that class struggle takes place in the marketplace as well as the "site of production" and in the general market rather than just the market for labour-power. And, these struggles in the marketplace, just like struggles elsewhere can be either "defensive" or "offensive" in character. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 22 2005 - 00:00:02 EST