BodyS writes:
 
> Fetishizing, it seems to me, is the transformation of the  thing
>into a social entity. (end) 
 
<<The problem is that Marx's view is the exact opposite. For  him,
fetishization is the transformation of a social relation of power into  a
thing -- for instance, the car is assigned the status that comes with  the
power over others expressed by the owner's ability to dispose over  social
value, or money is seen as a source of wealth rather than an  expression of
power over the labour of others embodied in a product of  labour. >>>
 
Cheers,
 
Hugh 
 
 
Comment 
 
Things as relations seem more appropriate to a title of  "Feitshization."
 
I am of the opinion that Marx concept of the fetish that attaches itself to  
commodity production, ("THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES AND THE SECRET THEREOF") 
is  much richer than "status seeking" or the assignment of status over 
product(s) or  raw consumerism or ideas concerning why an individual prefers a 
Cadillac over a  Jeep. One can imaginably develop a fetish (idol worship) or 
lust 
over anything,  but this is not Marx meaning. 
 
Industrial production is by definition social production because of the  
concrete configuration of the instruments, tools, machines and energy source  
driving production. Because of the society division of labor, people must  
cooperate a certain way - even against their will, in order for society  
reproduction 
to take place. Capitalism is an interlocking system of buying and  selling - 
commodities, and selling and buying, with the means of production  owned/run 
or made operational on the basis of capitalist private property  principles. 
 
In a society where all products acquire the form/function, of a commodity;  
social relations between (of) people, appear and is expressed, assert  
themselves, as a material relations between things. 
 
The material act of buying and selling or exchanging everything  
(commodities) is how bourgeois production relations express the unity of  
production. 
 
"The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a commodity,  
or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general and most embryonic  
form of bourgeois production. It therefore makes its appearance at an early 
date  in history, though not in the same predominating and characteristic 
manner 
as  now-a-days. Hence its Fetish character is comparatively easy to be seen 
through.  But when we come to more concrete forms, even this appearance of 
simplicity  vanishes. Whence arose the illusions of the monetary system? To it 
gold and  silver, when serving as money, did not represent a social relation 
between  producers, but were natural objects with strange social properties." 
 
"Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until  
they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s  
labour does not show itself except in the act of exchange. In other words, 
the  labour of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of 
society, 
only  by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes 
directly between  the products, and indirectly, through them, between the 
producers. 
 
SECTION 4 : "THE FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES AND THE SECRET THEREOF" 
_http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4_ 
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4)  
 
A commodity is not merely a product created by labor. When individuals in a  
society creates products for their own immediate consumption, these products 
do  not acquire a commodity form. Products acquire a commodity form when they 
are  produced for their exchange value. A table is a table whether produced in  
antiquity or today. However, the King of antiquity table does not acquire the 
 form of a commodity. It is only at a certain stage in the growth and 
development  of production and exchange that the social relations between 
people 
appear as  and express a real existing material relations between items being 
exchanged -  things. Only through exchange is that one common ingredient to all 
products -  value, expressed, revealed or made manifest. 
 
However, it is not just exchange of values that create the fetish attached  
to commodities. Money hides the social (production) relations of producers. 
 
1). "The characters that stamp products as commodities, 
2). and whose  establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of 
commodities,  
3). have already acquired the stability of natural, self-understood forms of  
social life, before man seeks to decipher, not their historical character, 
for  in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning. 
4). Consequently it was  the analysis of the prices of commodities 
5). that alone led to the  determination of the magnitude of value, and it 
was the common expression of all  commodities in money 
6). that alone led to the establishment of their  characters as values. 
7). It is, however, just this ultimate money form of  the world of 
commodities that actually conceals, 
8). instead of disclosing,  the social character of private labour, and the 
social relations between the  individual producers." 
 
(The above passage is numbered for easy reading.) 
 
Finally, 

1). A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, 
2). simply because  in it the social character of men’s labour 
3). appears to them as an  objective character stamped upon the product of 
that labour; 
4). because the  relation of the producers to the sum total of their own 
labour is presented to  them as a social relation, 
5). existing not between themselves, but between  the products of their 
labour. 
 
(The above passage is numbered for easy reading.) 
 
"This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour,  
so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore 
inseparable  from the production of commodities. 
 
"This Fetishism of commodities has its origin, as the foregoing analysis  has 
already shown, in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces  
them. 
 
"There is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their  
eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things." (end quotes) 
 
"Things vs relations?" 
 
What about "a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their  
eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things."
 
WL. 
 
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 
_http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm_ 
(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De
cemailfooterNO62)

_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to