COP 3: Marxism Applied

Marxism Applied to Consumption 

Marxs did not make any actual theories based around consumption but he did make a few general propositions. 

This is in part by design though. For Marx, discussion of consumption, distribution, and exchange always "presupposes" production in the sense that production conditions all of those other processes and structures the relationships between those other processes. Marx repeatedly states that people's desires in terms of what they want to consume is structured by production. I don't remember exactly where, but Marx comments in one of his works that exposure to art creates the desire for art. In the Grundrisse, Marx states that the regime of production creates specific needs which production then satisfies (e.g., production creates the specific need for eating with a knife and fork, as opposed to other methods).

So for these reasons, Marx holds that before one can systematically talk about consumption, one needs to thoroughly unpack the process of production first. This is why production is what principally occupies the first volume of Capital, and why the next two volumes, which do focus more on distribution and exchange, still ground the discussion of those processes within a system of production.

Another reason Marx focuses so much on production is that he considers it to be "law-like." There are some definite things we can say about a mode of production that transcend local differences in distribution or consumption patterns. So as David Harvey has put it, whether we're talking about Sweden today or Pinochet's Chile, there are some things we can say pertaining to the capitalist mode of production that are true of both. In contrast, Marx considers consumption, and why people choose to consume this or that, to be a largely "historical" phenomenon.

He says:

consumption, which is conceived not only as a terminal point but also as an end-in-itself, actually belongs outside economics except in so far as it reacts in turn upon the point of departure and initiates the whole process anew.

Hence, Marx does not give it much space in his economic texts. It's not to say that there's nothing to be said about consumption, but it would have to be left to another theory and, at least according to Marx, a theory "outside economics."

I have to say i mostly agree with Marx and i do not believe it to be necessary to try to "counter" neoclassical economics with a Marxist theory of consumption, because the neoclassical focus on consumption and distribution (at the expense of production) is precisely the sort of thing that Marxists reject. Marxists adopt an entirely different problematic than neoclassical theorists. We are not so much concerned with how "individuals make decisions" because, as Marx put it, "Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."

If one were to create a Marxist theory of consumption it would be more of a social and historical theory and it would focus on the social structures which produce certain buying behaviors. But this would really be a theory of ideology and in my opinion the question of how ideology gets people to buy this or that is a much less interesting question than how ideology produces acceptance of the status quo more generally.

Commodity Fetishism 

In Karl Marx's critique of political fetishism is the perception of the social relationships among people, but as economic relationships among the money and commodities exchanged in market trade. As such, commodity fetishism transforms the subjective, abstract aspects of economic value into objective, real things that people believe have intrinsic value. 

My view

What I took away from this was that marxism view of consumption is that it can be capitalist behaviour but it depends on the product you are purchasing. So in the modern day you are buying things like meat and dairy products that are not only harming the animals but the planet in many ways  and being over produced and well over consumed. You are making this decision as an individual not as a society, so in the modern day it is rampant capitalism. Whereas a marxist equivalent would be purchasing something that has been ethically thought out and is sustainable and befits the society as a whole. Then where the brands come into it to link to my question is that they fuel the commodity fetishism by making the commodities and the packaging and whole story behind it, alluring and enticing. Certain brands target the masses for the gain of the individual, with the promise of satisfaction that is short lived. 

However my argument is that brands can do good and make money

Supported by David Baldwin, The Drum 
3rd January 2018
Karl Marx was a Schmuck

The concept of capitalism and social good are not mutually exclusive, no matter what Karl Marx wrote. The 19th century philosopher and economist was a bit of a schmuck because he saw capitalism purely as a system in which business owners exploited workers. People are even beginning to call for an end to capitalism and move to something else, something better and not so pathologically focused on growth for the sake of growth.

The future of capitalism is a worthy discussion. But the Belief Economy we live in, driven largely by the combined economic buying power and influence of the Millennial and iGen generations, is one in which capitalism can and should be a force for good.

“Connected capitalism,” sometimes called “conscious capitalism,” signifies the notion that everything in life is connected, and individuals, in partnership with companies and brands, can have a positive impact on the world. By embracing the idea of connected capitalism, brands create business models built around making money and making things better.