Karl Marx

I accidentally started reading the Viking Portable edition of Works of Karl Marx.  Here in the United States, Marx gets short shrift for various reasons, but in other places in the world he enjoys a somewhat higher repute, as one of the founding philosophic originators of Communism/Socialism/Marxism.

So far I've read the introduction by Eugene Kamenka (Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra), from which I feel I learned quite a bit about Marx and the times and people around him.

In the introduction, a quote from Saint-Simonian Amand Bazard reads in part:

"...by giving to a certain class of men the chance to live on the labour of others and in complete idleness, it preserves the exploitation of one part of the population, the most useful one, that which works and produces, in favor of those who only destroy."

That passage leaped off the page for me, as sounding very similar to Veblen's notion of the Leisure Class in the quasi-peaceful stage, and was written sometime around 1828, long before Veblen.

What Bazard is espousing is the abolishment of private property (meaning private control of the means of production) in favor of social ownership of the means of production.  Veblen also discusses the creation of and maintenance of private property, as being a necessary precursor to establishing a leisure class, a leisure class which is supported by labor of others, and which itself does not produce but consumes.  If we substitute "conspicuously consume" for "destroy" in the quote above, we come very very close to Veblen, at least in that one (admittedly out of context) passage.  With this insight, I'll be more aware of any tendencies toward socialism in Veblen,  though I have not recognized anything overtly socialist in the first several chapters.

In Das Kapital and other writings, Marx lays out his thinking on scientific socialism, in a framework he intended to be devoid of moral and ethical adornments.  His scientific socialism model was not supposed to describe what the proletariat should do, but rather what the proletariat would be forced to do as the natural consequence of advancement in the science and technology of production.  Marx did read Darwin, and commented in correspondence with Engels about applications of "evolution" to his theories of economic, political and social order.

I had never considered what lifestyle Marx must have led.  Evidently he lived in poverty and relied on financial assistance from Engels and others for much of his adult life.  He had varying levels of contact and exchange with numerous now famous intellectuals of the time from different spheres, which I thought was really interesting.  I found it quite interesting that he studied languages, mathematics, economics, plant and human physiology (physiology??) and presumably a host of other subjects after he left the university, to support his continued thinking and philosophical writing.

He studied Russian (the language) in order to read N. Flerovski (pseudonym of sociologist and economist Vasilii Vasil’evich Bervi) "Position of the Working Class in Russia". I try to imagine self-studying a foreign language, and achieving sufficient mastery, so I could read and understand a treatise written in that language.  The mind boggles, though apparently Marx did have Latin, Greek, German, French and English under his belt by then, so maybe the task was more approachable for a multi-lingual european than it would be for me.

For what it's worth, it took me quite a while on Google to find an english search result on Bervi or his book(s).  Google Books had the first english reference to Bervi I came across, a reference in "A History of Russian Thought" by William J. Leatherbarrow and Derek Offord.

I gather from some of Marx's letters in the Portable Marx, that he was unpleasant and antagonistic to those who did not agree with him, and generally may not have been a very happy or pleasant person.  When I was younger I didn't think being happy amounted to much. Now I'm less sure of myself in nearly all respects, and certainly in respect to the merits of happiness.

Comments are welcome, though moderated.

Thorstein Veblen

Nominally in the vein of self improvement, I sometimes make reading selections from the "Lifetime Reading Plan" by Clifton Fadiman/John Majors, or from the Peter Boxall "1001 Books you Must Read Before You Die" list.

There is an app available for iTouch/iPad that assists in tracking one's reading history for the 1001 Books list, which is neat.  LibraryThing, at which I am a lifetime member, has several groups that read and discuss various lists of books including both of these lists.

Recently, though, I started reading Thorstein Veblen's "The Theory of the Leisure Class" which is not on either of these lists.  Published in 1899, it is well out of copyright and is available free in eBook format from Amazon for those of us who read on Kindles or Kindle apps, or from Project Gutenberg for pretty much everyone else. (I'm pretty certain the Kindle eBook is derived from the Gutenberg eBook anyway).

I've been encouraging everyone to read it. I think it is quite interesting and has some relevance to today's economic times, but mostly it encourages me to introspect on what I should do with and about all my crap.  A couple chapters in, I was feeling guilty about "conspicuous consumption". That term as Veblen meant it had the connotation of useless waste about it.  I don't feel my crap falls into the useless waste category (yet, who does?), and it certainly is not for show or to impress anyone.  I'm pretty sure there's nearly no one that has any interest in, or is impressed by, the contents of some of the piles around here.

Let me be clear:  These are not piles under which one day I will be found dead, pinned under a pile of something that fell over on me.  Some people, who watch too much reality TV, think I'm a hoarder in the sense portrayed on television:  dangerous to themselves and others, 500 poorly cared for cats, disgusting filthy piles of mess everywhere.  That's not me. For one thing, I only have one cat.

Veblen's discussion of leisure class though, does leave me feeling guilty about a couple things, and questioning why exactly I have so much crap. There is no possibility in my remaining lifetime, that I could read all the books I have, yet I am compelled to continue buying them because, well, I love books.  I have several hobbies, and the piles of crap that go with each hobby, yet I'm interested in each hobby, and pursue them all, with differing degrees of diligence perhaps, but pursue them nonetheless.  These are not "luxury" hobbies either, though they probably satisfy Veblen's notion of leisure class pursuits as they require special training and time commitments and don't really result in anything useful being created.  For the most part, they are solitary pursuits, not the kinds of things one needs a club, associates, or an audience to participate in.

I was explaining to someone close to me that most of the piles around here are books, and that I just need a good way to store them, as the bookcases are all full.  They evidently don't believe me, but it is fundamentally true.  There is disorganization and clutter that is not book related, but those non-book items, hobby gear, etc. don't actually occupy that much space.

Reading Veblen is making me speculate on motivation, though. How much of what I do is actually about influencing what someone else thinks, not about what I myself actually want to do?  Veblen talks about manners and other social mores as behaviors whose utility is essentially distinguishing a leisure lifestyle from a menial lifestyle, and I can see that argument as valid, but I also think we in society owe each other a certain cultural civility, don't we?

I'm somewhere near the end of chapter 4, and around 20% through the book (thanks, Kindle!) as I write this, so maybe an epiphany is soon forthcoming.

Anyway, read Veblen.  Comments are welcome, though moderated.