|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Lancelot Brown
Political Economy Commodity Fetishism: The devilish puppet controlling its masters.
Commodity fetishism is a topic that is discussed by many Marxist ecomonists when it comes to concerns about capitalism. It is labeled as a problem inherent within capitalism and formed partially due to the very nature of capitalism in which the worker is undervalued and products and capital over valued. The commodity fetishism itself is based around the relationships between items replacing the relationships between people at its simplest form. The value is not placed on the people who provide the bread, its placed on the money you have to pay for the bread, the bread, and for them the money they receive for the bread. The social relationship between the two is largely ignored, in essence sacrificing people for things.
Georg Lukacs calls it a “phantom objectivity. That is “an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people.” In essence the problem is the fact that it is not something seen as a problem. The issue Lukacs has is when the commodities exchange begin to decompose communities because they are given higher value than the relationships between people. According to Lukacs this did not take place until the advent of modern capitalism. Over time however the issue is that the exchange no longer becomes something arbitrary according to Marx in Lukacs article, instead it becomes mandated by society. The issue to Lukacs is that the importance placed on commodities holds power over the worker. His activities and labor become “objective and independent of him” according to Lukacs. The world becomes one of objects interacting around him rather than through him. The man is alienated not only from what he creates but from how those objects interact assuming they have their own power without him. In essence reification and commodity fetishism make the average worker take himself out of the equation and instead lets it control himself and his life. The other issue is that reification is take out of economics and seen as something that is naturally occurring it is not just that the system of commodity fetishism has its own power now it is that the average man cannot tell that it is something that is created, it is assumed in society that it is naturally occurring. The system runs within itself creating rules and changing as to meet its needs rather than serve those of the people, this is the inherent problem.
Micheal Taussig on the other hand uses cultural practices to illustrate the system created by commodity fetishism. The use value is more understood than exchange value by the people of South America specifically Columbia. The people of Columbia illustrated the commodity fetishism’s alienation of the worker from the system in their beliefs. Attaching a metaphysical concepts such as the Devil to capitalism made the peasantry resistant to capitalism’s promises. Many were not enticed to work by higher wages and various other incentives due to the clash of use value and exchange value ideals. The exchange value ideal in commodity fetishism was associated with evil and greed due to the perception of the natives and rightfully so. It was in essence a system that tries to force them to believe it controlled them, rather than they it. The belief that baptizing a baby but switching it for money would make the money grow while cursing the child’s soul in the process is something that would obviously turn people against the idea of capital. The people have in essence stopped capitalism and especially the commodity fetish by placing negative aspects of their religious beliefs into the understanding of the structure. An example of this is in order to grow more crops one must enter into a bargain with the devil, however no one has ever used this while working their own land or employers. The fact that they are content with use value, in that what they grow is what can be used and no more is the first stop to commodity fetishism in not allowing the commodity to grow. The attachment of evil practices with attaining those commodities however is what cripples it. Why does this work? Commodity fetishism itself works best by putting the common man outside the system once given enough power, however the people of Columbia were outside the system to begin with. The clandestine nature of commodity fetishism and the way it replaces people with objects led the people to assume about the mechanisms behind it rather than assume themselves to be naturally affiliated with it. The people of Columbia in essence protected themselves against commodity fetishism by demonizing it due to its unfamiliar and in opposing nature to their culture. A system that promotes greed and excess rather than satisfaction and usefulness was something too foreign to them to be readily accepted. The workers overall simply resist the work, whether it be simply laying down on the job or actively destroying things, over time it became accepted with generation after generation becoming more and more accepting. But initially the people fought and fought hard against their devil whish was embodied in capitalism due to commodity fetishism.
Commodity fetishism is a big critique of capitalism due to the inherent nature of it being somewhat destructive or at least negative. Lukacs claims it places the man outside the system, and Taussig illustrates that is encourages greed and excess while being openly seen as evil by many native people when introduced. The system takes away value from the proletariat along with a sense of power due to its very organization. Its not you that is making the product, it is the money behind it, it is not you that is buying the product it is the money you pay for it. Commodity fetishism, like the capitalism that creates it works best by creating a system where people assume they not only have no power but that they need the system they cannot change. In essence it’s a sort of slavery, you have to put into the system, but it gives the appearance of not needing you, or at least tricks you into thinking as such. At its best commodity fetishism makes those that are the most important in the system, those that keep it running as the ones who don’t see their obvious power over it. It thrives on being something that is confusing and alien while appearing to make its own rules and change itself in ways that cannot be controlled. This is not something that would seem positive to have in any economic system, so why should capitalism be the exception?
| | |
| Commodity fetishism is a topic that is discussed by many Marxist ecomonists when it comes to concerns about capitalism. It is labeled as a problem inherent within capitalism and formed partially due to the very nature of capitalism in which the worker is undervalued and products and capital over valued. The commodity fetishism itself is based around the relationships between items replacing the relationships between people at its simplest form. The value is not placed on the people who provide the bread, its placed on the money you have to pay for the bread, the bread, and for them the money they receive for the bread. The social relationship between the two is largely ignored, in essence sacrificing people for things.
Georg Lukacs calls it a “phantom objectivity. That is “an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people.” In essence the problem is the fact that it is not something seen as a problem. The issue Lukacs has is when the commodities exchange begin to decompose communities because they are given higher value than the relationships between people. According to Lukacs this did not take place until the advent of modern capitalism. Over time however the issue is that the exchange no longer becomes something arbitrary according to Marx in Lukacs article, instead it becomes mandated by society. The issue to Lukacs is that the importance placed on commodities holds power over the worker. His activities and labor become “objective and independent of him” according to Lukacs. The world becomes one of objects interacting around him rather than through him. The man is alienated not only from what he creates but from how those objects interact assuming they have their own power without him. In essence reification and commodity fetishism make the average worker take himself out of the equation and instead lets it control himself and his life. The other issue is that reification is take out of economics and seen as something that is naturally occurring it is not just that the system of commodity fetishism has its own power now it is that the average man cannot tell that it is something that is created, it is assumed in society that it is naturally occurring. The system runs within itself creating rules and changing as to meet its needs rather than serve those of the people, this is the inherent problem.
Micheal Taussig on the other hand uses cultural practices to illustrate the system created by commodity fetishism. The use value is more understood than exchange value by the people of South America specifically Columbia. The people of Columbia illustrated the commodity fetishism’s alienation of the worker from the system in their beliefs. Attaching a metaphysical concepts such as the Devil to capitalism made the peasantry resistant to capitalism’s promises. Many were not enticed to work by higher wages and various other incentives due to the clash of use value and exchange value ideals. The exchange value ideal in commodity fetishism was associated with evil and greed due to the perception of the natives and rightfully so. It was in essence a system that tries to force them to believe it controlled them, rather than they it. The belief that baptizing a baby but switching it for money would make the money grow while cursing the childs soul in the process is something that would obviously turn people against the idea of capital.
| | |
| A poem for Rosie
She's so very scented but thats not what I smell
She's so very sexy but thats not what I want to touch
She's so very pretty, but thats not what I see.
She's so very funny, but thats not what I hear.
She's so very lovely, but thats not what I desire.
I smell the determination that seems to come from her every pore
I want to touch the hand that seems to hold hope itself in its grasp
I see a soul that burns magnificently and casts its warmth
I hear a voice filled with a soft strength
I desire to simply sit by her side and bask in her wonder.
| | |
| Professor, if you do see this site, I was a jerk...sorry | | |
| Looking for banana stickers...
| | |
|