An Uncouth Note

"Those who esteem this world will not enjoy this essay. Perhaps they should return it to the shelf unread. For there are negative thoughts here, and they cannot but strike an uncouth note in a world of positive thinking." (4)

This book may not espouse what I would label as "positive thinking," given that it critiques the very foundation of our economy, but there is no doubt that Galbraith's Affluent Society breaks with traditional thinking. In fact, Galbraith finds himself defending Marx's materialistic view of history in Chapter 6, a view which he insists is not a "massive eruption to the left," but instead a part of the "central tradition" (55). Moreover, he insists that many Americans actually abide by Marxian principles. "Marx profoundly affected those who did not accept his system," he writes on p.59. However the supporting evidence he uses includes the fact that a) classes and something that looked like class conflict existed; b) people were being too hard on Marx - they weren't so hard on Adam Smith! c) if Marx was wrong, he wouldn't have been so influential, and (my favorite) d) those who don't believe in Marxian principles perhaps are just not smart enough to understand them... Afer all, "Marx is not easy to understand" (p62). Trying to look past Galbraith's often patronizing writing-style, it is clear that Marx's basic tenets can be found both in radical and nonradical thought today. Take a look at the blog entitled "Socialists/Marxists/Communists for Obama" on Obama's official campaign site:

This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Party of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!

Clearly Communism (Marxism to a lesser extent) has a much smaller presence in the US than in, say, India. But Galbraith asserts that much of left-wing thinking in the US has Marxist underpinnings.

Moving beyond Galbraith's emphasis on production and the means of production, I found his arguement for relative needs rather interesting and reminiscent of our discussion of Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin on Inequality." Rousseau explains how society can be the source of both productivity and scarcity. Specialization creates dependency and increases social complexity. Thus, society turns wants and luxuries into needs, which creates more needs and thereby creates scarcity. So even if you "win" the game, you essentially loose becasue you only win at being the best according to comarpative relative advantage. Anyone remember Hurley's brilliant example? Britney Spears! Something about how she won at being famous but "she is still one of the most pathetic people of our society." Perhaps the Britney Spearses of the world should pick up a copy of Galbraith....