NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Capitalism poses many different problems to the political economist. To Marx and Veblen, class structure is one of the most prominent issues of concern. Economic decisions and organization in society create class distinction, and in turn, the activities of one class affect the others. Marx and Veblen both offer unique analyses of class structure in capitalist society. Their theories differ both in how the class structures are arranged and how they emerged. Furthermore, many of these class distinctions are readily visible in todays society just as Marx and Veblen foresaw them.
In her book, The Overworked American, Schor points out many examples that exemplify these different concepts. The analysis leads to interesting questions of change as well. How do the concepts and examples appear when we step back and look at them in real world context and what must be changed in society to ensure the best possible lives for its people? There are important distinctions to be made between Marx and Veblen on class structure. Marx saw class structure as two opposing forces.
These are dialectic classes. They are based in economics because Marx claimed that class was determined by the ownership of the means of production. To him society was grouped into two classes. The Bourgeoisie was the capitalist class that owned production and the Proletariat class was comprised of the workers. This class structure sets up a conflict of interests that creates growing inequality between the two classes. It is clear to see that in Marx's analysis of capitalism that there are two distinct groups; those who produce and those who own production.
This creates social structure because when one group owns the labor of another, wealth is created. People are aware of these income differences, and class separation is furthered by the division of labor along with inequality in wages. To Marx, capitalism is one of a series of constantly evolving economic institutions. The key to Marx's class structure is private property. Private property has allowed the capitalist to accumulate the surplus value from production. It is because of this that the worker is alienated from what he or she produces.
Estrangement, through the implementation of managers and technology, has increased the separation between the worker and the actual work. This creative destruction has, for most, created dull and unfulfilling work. The more intelligent the work, the duller the worker and the more he becomes a slave of nature (Marx, 3 - 4). Marx is getting at a key point in the emergence of class structure, that is to say that our work begins to control our lives.
Work separates workers from superiors and even from fellow workers. As people become com modified, class is derived from the economic relation of ones work to production. Veblen's class structure takes a different approach to ones work. To Veblen, it was the status of ones work that distinguished class. Over time and in different cultures, work is honorable. Some work is seen as more honorable than others however.
The historic leisure class was the warriors. Warriors collected wealth by force rather than production. They were not required to work in times of peace. In this respect, class structure is evolving. The leisure class has become the class that does not perform day to day labor.
Everyday work is representative of lower class and importance. Veblen also points out that it is in human nature to emulate others. Furthermore, because of pecuniary gain, humans have developed materialistic standards for success. As we compare ourselves to others and emulate those better off than us, class structure becomes the exclusiveness that comes from different abilities to consume. Work then becomes a means of emulation rather than production, and those who can afford to produce less are considered higher class.
The difference here between Marx and Veblen, is that in Veblen's analysis, ones class is not determined by their relation to production, but rather by the perceived lifestyle ones job portrays to others. The basic job tenet being that ones work is either industrious or exploitive. Industry is work that goes to create a new thing, while exploit, is the conversions of his own ends of energies previously directed to some other end by some other agent (Veblen, 8). Work is pecuniary or industrial. Today, one makes money or goods. Work allows one to spend, and those who consume more are seen as having higher-status.
The upper class has a greater ability to consume goods than those making the goods. Capitalist societies are highly materialistic in the sense that class is marked by visible success. Higher amounts of conspicuous consumption indicate higher class. Unnecessary conspicuous consumption is very clearly exemplified in Schor's book. An example relevant to Veblen's analysis is the new craze of shopping. People spend more of their leisure time going to malls and use spending as a form of entertainment more than ever before.
To Veblen, not only would he see this as a clear cut example of wasteful spending, but also as examples of unproductive behavior and pecuniary emulation. Shopping wastes time as well as funds an already unproductive industry. Most of the consumption Schor mentions relates to accessories that are, in no way, necessities. The stationary exercise bike is, perhaps, one of the most pecuniary and utterly wasteful items Schor cites.
Stationary bikes are an expensive way to get a form of natural exercise. Furthermore, the extent to which the stationary bike is conspicuous is displayed by the fact that bicycles are a form of transportation; making a bike stationary defeats its purpose all together. This is conspicuous consumption at its best. It also shows pecuniary emulation on the levels that one is able to buy expensive equipment, as well as the fact that they are, most likely, exercising to appear healthier. Another key Veblenian point that Schor makes is on housing.
Since World War II, she points out that the average home has increased from 750 square feet to 2, 000 square feet by 1989. The amenities in housing have also seen dramatic increases. This highlights the growing trend of overspending and wasteful spending. People have previously been fine living in smaller houses, but over the years, large and more decorated homes have become a standard. This example also highlights emulation. People take on the highest mortgages they can to buy the largest house or live in the nicest neighborhood that they can afford, often putting themselves into debt.
What is also important to note here, as Schor points out, is that with all the increased materialism in society today, we are not relatively happier than we were before all this spending. This over-consumption trend truly is wasteful if we are not even happier in the long run. Schor also points out some examples that fall in place with Marx analysis of the inherent class struggle in capitalism. As pointed out by Marx and portrayed through Schor's data, capitalism has increased the amount of time we spend working. The hours worked each day have consistently increased over the years with no substantial change to the amount of time off.
Schor points out that the average hours worked per week has increased from 39. 8 (including both men and women) in 1969 to 40. 7 in 1987 and has since increased to the fifties. The initial twenty year increase is not that significant, however, when translated into weeks worked per year, the figures jump from 43. 9 weeks in 1969 to 47. 1 weeks (Schor, 30). Marx's prediction was very accurate in this sense. Businesses can cut benefit costs by having fewer employees working more hours. This is a perfect example of the different interests between the capitalists and the working class. It is also important to note that in consequence to the increased working hours of the masses, those who choose to work less will fall behind to those who put in the extra hours.
Marx also argued that increased work hours did not mean increased production. In fact, as Schor points out, productivity has decreased. Long, strenuous work hours create fatigued workers, stress and health related problems. Other examples from Schor's work that highlight the problems that Marx foresaw include weakened family relations and creative destruction from technology that has led to prolonged work hours.
Schor suggests that the work-and-spend cycle of consumerism must be subsided for any changes in society to occur. We consume wastefully and irrationally. We also consume large amounts of stuff that we do not actually need. To end consumerism, she says, we must change our expectations and values. Through pecuniary emulation, ownership is no longer a representation of success, but rather a symbol of having something that others do not.
Veblen would agree with Schor and say that too much of our time and money are devoted to institutions that do not benefit any greater good for society. Schor also suggests that people must reclaim the value of their leisure time. She cites the examples of devoting more time to church or childrens schools as ways to give back to the community during leisure time. Veblen would be skeptical of this as a benefit to society.
He felt that anything that did not benefit the greater interest of society was unproductive and wasteful. Giving back to schools would be seen as productive, whereas religion is a much more conspicuous and unproductive institution. Marx viewed consumerism as a way by which the working class produced for the rich to consume. As class inequalities, like income distribution, and over-consumerism continue to grow, more and more will be produced for fewer and fewer who can afford it. There becomes a point at which too much is produced to be consumed. This misallocation of scarce resources brings into question how production is controlled?
Capitalist systems such as our own do not operate in order to provide employment. Their guiding principle is the pursuit of profitability (Schor, 40). Consumerism illustrates the different interests among classes in capitalism. To Marx, consumerism is only part of the problem, and the alienating forces of capitalism are the real institutions that must be changed. Capitalism creates a competitive work place where each individual must act in self-interest. The best Marxist potential for change is stronger labor unions so that the workers may take back their power and act as a group with common interests.
Free research essays on topics related to: leisure class, amount of time, class structure, square feet, important to note
Research essay sample on Capitalism And Class Inequality In Society
