There are thus some sound reasons to be skeptical about the notion that the trade-of between work and consumption under industrial capitalism represents the best of all possible worlds—or even that capitalism tends over time to move in the direction of a more ideal state of afairs. To put the point in Marxian terms, under capitalism the connection among production, consumption, and realized use value seems from the point of view of human welfare to stand in need of explanation. The prominent French Regulation theorists Robert Boyer and Yves Saillard (2002, p. 38) define capitalism, in classic Marxist fashion, as a mode of production in which “the form of production and exchange relationship imposes the primacy of exchange value over use value and makes accumulation an imperative of the system.” Political philosopher G. A. Cohen (2000, p. 303) puts the point more directly: “if the goal of production [under industrial capitalism] were use value much less use-value would be sought, produced, and consumed than is in fact sought, produced and consumed.” A similar thing can be said of demand and consumption: that if the goal of consumption under industrial capitalism were actually realized use value, much less use value would be sought and consumed than is in fact sought and consumed. But this then raises a question. If Marxists such as Boyer and Cohen are right, and use value (in this sense meaning that which promotes real human welfare) in capitalism is sacrificed to the ultimately mindless end of the accumulation of exchange value, why should people, as workers and consumers, organize their behavior and priorities in ways that further that goal? How can we account for the role of workers and consumers in facilitating the operation of a system that seems far from having their well-being as its telos?
The Puzzle
21