A Different Opinion, Maybe

Thorstein Veblen’s piece “Conspicuous Consumption” fits quite well with Marx and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto. Both writings are critical of the bourgeoisie and their lives of excess. After reading “Conspicuous Consumption,” I couldn’t help but think of how Marx would cry “Exploitation!” and adamantly argue how the bourgeoisie were able to live a life of lavishness because of the disadvantaged lives of the proletariat. While he has a valid point, I don’t necessarily agree. I know in class we’ve been discussing Communism and the Industrial Revolution in the ways it continued to stratify classes, as well as the hardships and seemingly exploitative class interacting, but I’d like to look at it from a different perspective. I know as an American I’m expected to believe in capitalism and to quote Jennifer, “that Communism is evil, it failed and it is not the American way.” I acknowledge that this is how I was raised, but want to explain myself.

The bourgeoisie is able to live the way it does and consume conspicuously because of the work of the proletariat. I don’t think many would argue with this. But I don’t think the proletariat is being taken advantage of in the way Marx would like me to believe. The bourgeois business owners provide jobs, insurance, and benefits for the proletariat. Also, by buying superfluous goods and spending so much, more jobs are created for the proletariat to manufacture and sell these items. In short, the business owners are providing the means for the working class to make a living and support their families. On top of providing employment, the bourgeoisie also assumes all risk in the market. I know this is simplified, but if a business fails, the working class will experience difficulties between jobs, but will eventually find another job, most likely of equal pay. Now compare this to the business owner’s situation as his way of life is crumbling. He may take out a personal loan or borrow from family members to try and stay afloat. A malpractice suit or disbarment brings not only personal shame but also the negation of years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in education and business investment/startup. I feel like this is easy to overlook, and we are often quick to villainize the big bad business owners without taking into account the deferred gratification, time, and effort these people put in to reach their position of privilege. Of course, there are always exceptions, but I believe my point is valid in most instances.

To wrap things up, I would like to warn against the first choice solution to these problems: the State. It is important to keep in mind that most if not all social reform legislation was brought about because of men like Upton Sinclair or special interest groups. In short, private individuals and organizations. This is still the case today with independent filmmakers and non-profit organizations. I recently read where the US’s progressive tax system is set-up in a way where an individual earning $32,000 a year will not see a net gain until they earn more than $37,000. On a percentage basis, that’s a pretty big gap. So before we jump on the bandwagon of increasing taxes for the rich, let us keep in mind that these rich are the same people who provide us with braces, summer jobs, and teach us in lecture halls and labs. So maybe the first place to look for reform isn’t at the top of the tax bracket, but the bottom. And maybe the group we look to for help first is the one exploiting the proletariat most of all.