Marx’s Commodity Fetishism
If I understand the concept correctly wouldn’t custom made products decrease, to some degree, Commodity Fetishism?
By this I mean that the ‘value’ of labour can be recovered through the interaction of the consumer with the producer - obviously this would be optimal if all transactions took places on an individual to individual basis.
Thoughts and corrections welcome.
Thanks
By this I mean that the ‘value’ of labour can be recovered through the interaction of the consumer with the producer - obviously this would be optimal if all transactions took places on an individual to individual basis.
Thoughts and corrections welcome.
Thanks
Comments (83)
I am a commodity, first of all, and a commodity fetishist to boot. I was junked as a laboring commodity when I grew too old. But I am still consuming (thank you, SSA). I belong to the "L" Tribe of men's clothing -- LL Bean, Lands End, and Lee. I eat Quaker Oats (rather than artesian rolled oats produced in a mill powered by falling water or tired mules) and Green Giant rather than the local farmers market (the growing season just isn't long enough here).
I get my hair cut at Great Clips, I buy my shoes from Aesics, I prefer up-market Calvin Klein underwear (always bought at deep discount from Marshalls) to down-market Fruit of the Loom, discounted or not. I shop at Target (certainly not Walmart, God forbid!!!) Amazon or Macys, (except to go slumming at Penney's). K-mart is beneath me. I've never set foot in a Dollar General store and sorry, I don't like Aldi either. I yack on an Apple iPhone, and read on an Apple iPad. Music is still delivered on the go from an aging Apple iPod. I surf and write on an Apple iComp. I ride Lyft when a bus or bike won't do.
I am a disgrace.
There are 7,000,000,000+ people in the world (too damned many) and 320,000,000 people in the United States (also too damned many). I don't see how the bare needs of even the 5 million people living in my state, or the 627,180 people living in Vermont--Go Bernie) could meet their minimal needs through pre-commodified interpersonal production and consumption. I don't know anyone who can make a pair of shoes out of the skin of a dead cow, or out of a dead tree. I don't know anyone who spins wool or linen and weaves it into cloth for leggings and a tunic (the minimum clothing). I do know people who raise apples, carrots and kale (first grown as cattle feed--disgusting stuff), and who can make butter and cheese with the help of a live cow. They could furnish me with some food once in a while, but soon I would have starved to death.
London once had water sellers -- people selling slightly less murky liquid that than what the people could get out of a bad well or the Thames. That was a nice person to person business. I prefer the commodity relationship of centralized water treatment facilities. A little more chlorine, please?
Ale? There is a passage in The Tunning of Elynour Rummyng (1550) describing the wench's ale, which was brewed in a barrel over which her chickens roosted. It's a long raucous poem written by English poet John Skelton and presents disgusting images of rural drinking and drunkenness. I was shocked! Shocked! See, they didn't have a commodity relationship to their alehouse. I prefer sanitary, bottled and branded ale that I can count on to not have chicken shit as a flavoring agent.
Our commodity status and relationships are so essential to our lives (and have been for, oh, maybe 150 years) that we no longer see them, and have forgotten (or never knew) anything about the downside of artesian production -- like starvation in the spring, freezing in the winter, dying from bad water in the summer, or having to gather acorns, walnuts, apples, chestnuts, mushrooms, bits of cereal, berries, and what not at harvest time and somehow keeping the stuff from spoiling or being eaten by vermin. Life for us lumpen proles was tough before commodity relationships came to the rescue. (Not too tough, or we wouldn't be here today; most of us did not descend from well-fed, richly clothed, palace-housed royals.)
The person-to-person non-commodified pre-fetishized economy has been fading away for quite a while in different parts of the world. It hasn't disappeared, but to reinstate it as a more humane, less alienating market relationship would be extraordinarily difficult.
I think we’re really consumed by ‘rarity’ and the conflicting drives to feel/appear ‘uniquely individual’ whilst also craving to be ‘part of the crowd’. I don’t see there being any other major force behind what drive economics that doesn’t fall into one of these two broad categories. The question is then how best to satisfy both in a stable economic system. On an interpersonal basis I would like to put forward the idea of artistic/aesthetic qualities being a force to drive a healthier social interaction between what is made, who is making it and the buyer.
In no way shape or form can I see a way to nullify human temperament, and nor would I want to. The Global Village is very much here now, but we’re still adjusting from less obvious ties - I mean this in the sense that the world has opened up for all ‘classes’ by ready access to immediate communication.
I think it was Chomsky who said the Soviets created propaganda and then the Americans perfected it in the form of ‘advertising’. Resources are more widely available than ever before and I see the economic problem as being misaligned with ‘material’ ideological views of economics rather than seeing economics as ‘resource management’ - as a means of spread opportunity. Every human is a ‘resource’ to the each other. The current problem, as far as I can see, is that we have access to resources yet don’t know how to use these resources effectively or efficiently.
I’m certain a better economic solution lies in creating an effective means of showing people what they could do rather than what material items they could have. I cannot see how this doesn’t begin with changes to ‘education’ and a larger focus on ‘pedagogy’ as a means to serve each human as a human, as opposed to ‘humanity’ (a one size fits all mentality) because as similar as we all are the minuscule differences are what give us a sense of direction and value rather than shuffling along in line.
Many people may be pessimistic about this. I cannot help but have an optimistic outlook as no matter how hard I try to envelope my thinking is staunch pessimism my reasoning just doesn’t agree with some future dark view of the world and I see ‘art’ sprouting in humanity - simplistically put the means of ‘propaganda’ and its refinement in ‘advertising’ has created a richer and richer field of play for artistic endeavors. The Fetishism will, and is, evolving. The ‘poor’ will not ‘eat the rich’, they’ll just come to realise what ‘poverty’ really means outside of the scope of monetary wealth - a person living on a few dollars a day understands the meaning, use and value of money far more than I do.
Marx noticed something I think. That is those repressed by ‘powers above’ are happier because they know their direction better than any other and rely on each other for survival. As an example look at what people say who’ve escaped North Korea when asked if people are ‘happier’ in South Korea. The answers seem counter intuitive at first, but with a little thought ‘happiness’ takes on a whole new meaning when you listen.
Economically, there is no other way of stating the (potential) utility of a human being with (respect?) to another.
But, we all know that's this just isn't true, and I hope we can agree! that it just ain't so.
This is actually a really well thought out post, and sorry I can't address it all. The issue that Marx saw it as, was that through perceiving other people as resources, the blatant exploitation of the bourgeoisie would become justified in the mind of the proles. An extreme form of alienation...
And... this is what happens to this very day. People like Ayn Rand took this to something extreme as to produce such fictional entities that are industrialists that bear the weight of the world on their shoulders, whereas anyone with an IQ higher than 100, would know it's the workers that do the work.
Well, yes, what is of value isn't the amount produced, but the worth of a product to one's way of life. And, Marx couldn't have fathomed what Keynes came up with in terms of what you highlight. At the end of Keynes' General Theory, he talks about preferences and tastes dictating the market at some point in time.
Ask any economist, we're at the end of Keynes' proposed economic development at least in most affluent countries. Well, maybe not the very end; but, we're getting there with a saturation of productivity increases.
This is only because, as an American, I view myself as a commodity for other people or corporations. Think like the service-information based economy we are experiencing.
The demands of the economy have shifted, in a reflexive manner towards this info/service-based economy.
And, not many people have realized it, or rather it is left unsaid that my preferences are becoming commodified.
What I mean, is that people aren't inherently worth anything unless self-taught or venture capitalists, etc.
Usually, there's nobody around (not even your parents) to tell you to study XYZ, to become rich. We tend to arrive at these sorts of existential conclusions on our own if we aren't child prodigies.
Elaborate, I feel we're talking about the same thing, just in different terms.
I completely disagree with this. You’ll have to explain better what you mean by ‘worth’.
At the very least can we agree that it's human capital if we are to go down this intrinsic route?
What you’re really talking about here is ‘Branding’, branding of a product. Branding works by targeting an audience susceptible to, or engaged with, a product or its personality. Obviously a product doesn’t have a personality, so one is created.
Quoting I like sushi
These qualities you mention are already being used. ‘Artistic/aesthetic qualities are entirely subjective. Each target audience responds to its own set of ‘artistic/aesthetic qualities”.
]This is only because, as an American, I view myself as a commodity for other people or corporations. Think like the service-information based economy we are experiencing.
The demands of the economy have shifted, in a reflexive manner towards this info/service-based economy.
And, not many people have realized it, or rather it is left unsaid that my preferences are becoming commodified.[/quote]
Yes, absolutely everything has been commodified. Culture has been commodified. Even your position on climate change has been commodified.
I think you might already see that with the organic/health market. But I don’t see it being any different in the long run than any other commodified market; branding and marketing reaching out to those who have an emotional investment in their perception of a product.
But I don't get paid for being a commodity. What's up with that?
A commodity gets passed around, consumed. It has a value determined by its perceived worth.
The Kardasians are a commodity.
If I understand the concept correctly wouldn’t custom made products decrease, to some degree, Commodity Fetishism?[/quote]
I think a Rolls Royce car would mean, no, custom made products won’t decrease product fetishism.
Quoting unforeseen
I’m guessing I like sushi means an obsession with cheap, meaningless, over priced, massed produce products that contribute nothing to society.
By the way, how do I copy a profile name?
Thanks, but apparently that's not it.
According to wikipedia:
"In Karl Marx's critique of political economy, commodity fetishism is the perception of the social relationships involved in production not as relationships among people, but as economic relationships among the money and commodities exchanged in market trade. As such, commodity fetishism transforms the subjective, abstract aspects of economic value into objective, real things that people believe have intrinsic value."
Another website:
"Commodity fetishism is the collective belief that it is natural and inevitable to measure the value of useful things with money."
And I tend to agree. It is a convenient way for economic analysis and so on. Although it probably isn't much useful in real life. One cannot compare a luxuxy car to a certain quantity of vital commodities like food and medicine in real life. But it is helpful in economic analysis.
But I think the OP also made the same mistake, and as did I in guessing what it meant at first, the concept of commodity feitishism.
"decrease, to some degree, Commodity Fetishism?"
It is a perception or a concept, one cannot increase or decrease it. It is au seful tool for economists.
Perhaps the term you're looking for is "mass production"?
I think a simple example would be wearing a T-shirt of Nike, and going around promoting their product with no real monetary compensation.
Quoting unforeseen
Thanks for that. Commodity Fetishism is a perception. Perception is the transformative agent. Branding is about perceptions. Who creates the perceptions and what are those perceptions based on? There needs to be an audience for this. Where does the desire for products that are so removed from what I like sushi was referring to, come from?
Edit: you can’t sell refrigerators to Eskimos.
If someone wants company all humans have ‘worth’ in that respect. Social interaction is a ‘resource’ that we cannot put monetary value on though - at least not in a manner that seems either accurate or fair. We’re quite happy to say we value our friends (see them as a source of emotional value) without putting an actual price tag on them.
Sorry for the confusion.
So why is it so easy to convince people that a pair of jeans with the knees torn out are more valuable than those without the knee torn out?
What I’m trying to say is that there is something transactional in human nature that contributes to the Commodity Fetishism. Otherwise why do it?
Yes,I understand that. My feeling is that there is something about human nature that wants this fetishism and contributes towards it.
I can't really be sure, just like most other things I suppose. I myself never bought into that whole torn jeans charade myself, and the torn jeans I wore once was from being worn out. But I think it has a lot to do with television, shopping malls, and our great fascination with rebellion.
Quoting unforeseen
Yes, and a corporation didn’t create that, they just tapped into it.
Quoting I like sushi
I’m only playing devil’s advocate here. How could the ‘rarity’ remain the norm. When it became the ‘norm’ more would want it. So then it’s no longer a ‘rarity’. The only way to maintain it as a rarity is to make the price prohibitive to most.
Maybe I’m not getting it, maybe you mean a unique experience or relationship with a product.
Yep. I mean, we're no Gods. We know very little, and most of that comes from without rather than within. When we see lots of people doing something, we say that must be good, right? And it's useful sometimes, to learn and copy. Lets you be cool without getting you into trouble. It's okay to wear torn jeans, it is not okay to wear a hat torn into tatters. People will think you're crazy or something, and treat you likewise. But at least you get to wear torn jeans, I mean, the rockstars and other cool people you like all do it and it is socially acceptable.
So you’re still looking outside the individual for an explanation. Where does responsibility lie?
1. The desire to be rich
2. The desire to be cool
But that's not really human nature. Human nature is flexible. It depends on your particular circumstances and socio-cultural condition.
I do wonder about how this could possibly lead to ‘monetary worth’ shifting more into alignment with artistic sensibility rather than as a ‘symbol of status’ - fashion as a true force for concerns with artistic appreciation in terms of how art can benefit people as opposed to mere ‘peacocking’.
Quoting I like sushi
It’s not so weird. I know people who will go out of their way to buy organic milk and meat. They’re prepared to pay more for it because it’s no longer a commodity, because the transaction also contains ideas about health, the environment, support of small, individual producers, and rebellion against corporate culture.
[quote="unforeseen;353348"
]1. The desire to be rich
2. The desire to be cool
But that's not really human nature. Human nature is flexible. It depends on your particular circumstances and socio-cultural condition.[/quote]
Well it ain’t animal nature. What’s left?
Individualism.
I'd say something but then I remember the world wars. Who is responsible? Or what is responsible? Depends on how you look at it I suppose.
You mean virtue signalling? Conservatives probably hate that concept more than 'entitlement' as of lately.
I read that at first as 'enlightenment' and it still made sense hahahahaha
:grin:
They need that too. But, then again they are die-hard enlightened self-interest blokes.
If there is one thing I know about all this, it is that the main question for every sensible person is that of freedom. Freedom from an apathetic nature, freedom from an oppressive society, and freedom from an adulterated self. Everything else is just chit-chat haha
Profundity lays here!!
:halo:
later!
I’m not massively familiar with this area so you’ll have to excuse as I claw around for the best terms. There does appear to be something conflicting in what I’ve read of Marx concerning what is and isn’t delineated as a ‘resource’ or ‘commodity’, and how they relate.
Quoting unforeseen
That’s what the advertising would have you believe, but really it’s narcissism, don’t you think? Playing up to the idea that your special, not like the others, not a sheep but an ‘individual’.
And if not narcissism then self esteem.
Quoting I like sushi
Forgive me if I’m teaching you to suck eggs or even wrong here.
Resources would be iron ore, for instance, and the labour removing it from the ground. Both have no value in themselves.
The iron ore is sold on to be turned into steel. Once again neither the steel nor the labour have any value in themselves. Then the steel is bought by a company that turns the steel into washing machines, or driers, or fridges. The labour still has no value in itself, but the fridge, the commodity, most certainly does.
The selling price of the fridge determines the profit factor, the difference between what was paid in labour and resources and what it’s sold for. The iron ore is worthless without the end result; the fridge, the commodity. The wages for the labour is determined by the profit in each fridge. If wage demands get too high then there’s not enough profit in fridges to bother. So, no fridges produced, no steel purchased, no ore removed from the ground.
Some fridges can be sold at very high prices because of their perceived value. None of that changes the level of wages or the price of iron ore or steel. A shortage of iron ore might change the price, among other things.
In some products, promoted well, they can get away with charging far more than went into production. I imagine iPhones being one such product, or jeans with the knee ripped out.
Then the commodity is sold back to the worker who’s been convinced that he/she must have the product, and in my opinion, within certain limits, enables the whole game.
The ‘labour’ is of value to the individual in the sense that it is understood to be of import both in terms of social status (personal aptitude) and/or an individual’s personal attitude to the task at hand.
I don’t see ‘economics’ as some body orbiting ‘monetary value’. That is - just to repeat for emphasis - not to say I find ‘monetary value’ redundant.
The criteria with which I am approaching ‘economics’ is in a broad sense with emphasis toward more ‘personal’/‘subjective’/‘abstract’ understandings, especially in relation to ‘taste’, ‘aesthetic appreciation’, ‘communication/education’, and such other items that are not often the focus of attention in terms of ‘resources’ because they are not readily measurable in a monetary sense - and maybe they shouldn’t be thought of as being items to which to attach ‘price tags’.
I most certainly think it is a flawed approach to view ‘economics’ as primarily a system of valuing everything/anything only in terms of monetary valuation - and to repeat again (to avoid being misquoted) I certainly don’t see monetary valuation as redundant.
Just to make what I am referring to explicit I’ll use a personal example. I have won money playing poker, yet the best game of poker I ever had didn’t involve me winning any money. The personal experience gained far outweighed the loss of money. In this sense the ‘monetary value’ is relative in many different circumstances and this is the use of money as a fungible ‘go-between’ of subjective judgement. Even if I’m paid in ‘food’ or ‘clothes’ the judgement is never static in the now - the difficulty is how some people are more willing to commit to some given personal project where others are not (or simply never come to grapple with anything in life with considered direction). In this sense the ‘willingness’ of effort varies drastically from one individual to another in terms of projecting themselves into the future as a possibility at odds with their current situation/circumstances.
Like I said, maybe this does sound quite strange - more strange than it should - because I’ve only relatively recently turned my thoughts to this matter in ‘economic’ terms.
Thanks for the feedback/bounce-back :)
Quoting I like sushi
I absolutely understand what you’re saying here, I hope. And I want to go back to your first post about custom made products in terms of your poker analogy.
Quoting I like sushi
The ‘value’ of labour your talking about is not monetary. That value x can be recovered in other ways through direct contact between producer and consumer.
Let’s say you were a potter. You made ceramic pots, you applied all the knowledge you had acquired yo each pot, and you also pushed yourself beyond what you knew and entered new territory in your work that took things to another level. The pleasure/value you received was in the act, which, let’s say was almost transcendental: pleasure, sureness of skills and knowledge, the opening out of new possibilities.
The next step is the transaction between producer and consumer. Someone loves the pot, they’re ecstatic, their response adds further to this value. What shall you sell this pot for? If it’s not your only source of income, then fine, except you still have to pay for your physical resources. But if not then you need to make a living. What is the worth of this pot in monetary terms? How do you avoid this trap of monetary value?
You could give it away. But ironically a payment makes people consider how much they really want something. If it’s free people will take with very little thought to what went into it. It’s almost like in the real world, outside of our lives, a monetary value has to be attached otherwise it has no value at all, including the personal value you imbedded in it.
This is simply not true. I know an artist that doesn't sell any of her original work, only prints; she simply doesn't put a price on the originals; she does so because she values the originals.
Likewise, hand-made scarf given as a gift may have a lot of value to both the producer and the receiver, but there is no monetary value attached.
If the pot in your example was given away, it may hold more value than if it was sold, as the sales price may indicate that it can be replaced for the same price; so, if it's not expensive, the owner may not care much about it. Whereas, as a gift, it may symbolize the entire relationship.
The difference of course is that original artwork, scarves, and pots that are not placed on the market are not commodities.
Quoting boethius
Well you’ve focused on only four lines of my post, so it’s a bit out of context. However your friend may make a lot more money selling the same thing repeatedly than if she sold the original.
Please, show how the context changes the meaning of the four lines I am debating against. I agree with your previous statements setting up the problem of assigning a price; that you may need to do so to recover costs or to make a living; and that price may not reflect your personal sentiment about your work nor transmit transcendental value you may have encountered in the production process.
I have issue with your next claim you make that without a price we wouldn't value something. I don't see how your previous statements support such a claim, and I see lot's of counter-examples of which I provide 3.
But please, explain how the context supports the claim I am focused on.
Quoting boethius
But not everything produced can be given away. I think I like sushi is still talking about co-existing in a world of economic transactions.
Where do I say that?
You say:
Quoting Brett
As mentioned in my first response, I don't see how this claim is supported by some context, but please explain how it is if I am missing something.
Quoting boethius
Okay. I’m not saying that we can’t value something if it doesn’t have a price. I think, or hope, I made that clear. It’s my opinion that a price on a product is inclined to make people consider how much they really want something. How much (not in terms of money) but how important is this product to me, and how much do I really want it? Or is it just a whim? Having something given to you is not the same as having a number of items on the shelf for free that you can chose from.
This is a good question. It does, however, get entangled with the general conditions that Marx saw the formation of individual aesthetics. The problem as drafted by Marx was not that individual desires were substituted for something not-individual but that what an individual wants is shaped by systems of exchange.
So, the bourgeoisie are both the exemplars for getting just what they fancy and people cut off from their true natures who are not listening to what they actually want.
As the idea has played out over the decades since it kicked off, how these factors play a part with each other gets more complicated. Are people able to become less alienated despite all the elements that would encourage them to stay within the lines? Do market conditions ever permit degrees of freedom to create others?
When one gets beyond asking for an easy answer, there are a lot of thorny problems.
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. I haven’t stated that we should avoid monetary value. I have stated that economics isn’t only about monetary value and had a look at what other valuations matter societally from individuals that have a greater impact than we may we aware of.
I’d also say the above example if an artist doesn’t relate to my point at all because of this. My point could be attached to it by stating today artists have greater exposure and people’s tastes therefore have a wider variety of experiences to develop from. The ‘one size fits all’ state of mass production appears to have been in decline - with the exceptions of hardware. My point is then that people would attach status to possession of more ‘original’ products and thus seek out more original products and - key point - this would eventually become more about refine aesthetic/artistic tastes than about owning items as a status symbol.
I am not viewing monetary valuing as a ‘trap’. My point is about equating the use and limits of a fungible go between. I haven’t found substantial literature on this topic except the occasional anthropological snippet looking at how humans have made ‘tools’ and then used these ‘tools’ to create abstract systems.
Personally I see this as no more than a conflict between wanting to be part of a group and wanting to be different/unique. As we act more or less as ‘groups’ of political bodies then we are socially encouraged to seek status. I think if Marx said that he’d got it backwards. The systems of exchange stem from the growth of communities (something looked at in the anthropological question of ‘the birth of inequality’ - although that title is a little misleading imo).
Please reframe these questions. I don’t quite understand what they’re referring.
Thanks
I thought we were at least on the same page. Maybe not. Anyway let me address this:
Quoting I like sushi
“more ‘original’ products “. By this I think you mean products that have been created by the resources of human endeavour that include, for example, a love of the materials, respect for technique, satisfaction of making a ‘human’ product, satisfaction in the moment, and communicating and interacting with the potential ‘consumer’ on such a level, and passing on the experience encapsulated in the product, that is, not being part of the current commodifying of products.
As a consequence people “thus seek out more original products”.
Presumably because of the satisfaction both parties received in the transaction.
“this would eventually become more about refine aesthetic/artistic tastes than about owning items as a status symbol”.
What is their to stop the ownership of this “original” product from becoming a status symbol? You would have to alter the consumer attitudes of people, which you may have mentioned earlier in a comment about education. Perhaps this has already been attempted with socialism, and the attempted communes of the sixties. But in a way you create the possibility of another form of elitism or at best a separate self sustaining community. Maybe the Amish might be considered an example of what you imagine, but from what I understand that’s only a perception we have of them.
But anyway, your OP was about the possibility of custom made products creating a decrease in Commodity Fetishism. I guess my thoughts now are, no they can’t.
Quoting Valentinus
Yes. I think that’s where Sushi and I part ways.
That is hardly an argument. Plus, it makes no sense whatsoever, as the leading proposal - from what I’ve read - of Commodity Fetishism is that the human emotional exchange is removed. It seems commonsense enough to me to suggest that greater levels of intimacy and interaction between the creator of a product with the customer becomes a human exchange and a human collaboration - the refining of aesthetics lays on top of this.
As for ‘elitism’? I’m not entirely against ‘elitism’ if the cost against it is possessing no value judgement whatsoever - that sounds like ideological insanity. People who are ‘better’ at something than others are more likely to help others learn than not - by way of competition, collaboration and/or innovation. Removing interpersonal engagement would have the effect of instilling Commodity Fetishism not guarding against it.
The point being ‘custom made’ items in this way are not entirely about the exchange of money and services. There is a human interaction in the form of collaborative investigation. Being treated like a ‘human’ rather than taking part in an activity viewed only as purchasing goods and services.
I agree with everything you say.
Quoting I like sushi
But what’s next in terms of creating a reduction in Commodity Fetishism, what’s the next step in terms of reducing the fetishism?
Consider this, using your scenario of buying a chair from the person you met and spoke to in buying a chair. Assume they become very popular because of this attitude and their business expands rapidly and they sell many, many chairs. The rarity that could be managed at a leisurely pace, face to face, perhaps a discussion on unrelated matters, interaction is now in high demand. It would have to be to reduce or replace the Commodity Fetishism. How will they serve their many, many customers on that personal level, source the chairs, transport them, manage the accounts, and so on? Do you see what I mean? It’s very success strangles it’s original aspirations.
I’m not trying to defeat you but point out what I regard as the obstacle that’s in the way. How do we get around this? Do we reduce consumption before prodding people in the direction of more meaningful transaction? How do we persuade people that we don’t need more chairs, that the relationship is more important?
Before this new relationship begins to germinate I think people have to be persuaded that they need less, that what’s important is what they need, not what they want. Isn’t this the very crux of Commodity Fetishism, isn’t that what’s necessary to break the grip of economic relationships?
But one of the problems I have is that the desire for more is a real human trait. Inexplicable but real.
People will convince themselves through a combination of a desire for ‘self expression’, a desire to ‘stick out’, a desire to ‘be part of a group’ and by refining their aesthetic sense by being naturally involved in the growing complexity of interactions.
As an example maybe I want the respect you have and so I make the false judgement that people only respect you because of what you have, so I try and attain the possessions you have. By doing so I am exposing myself to exploring what I find ‘good’/‘bad’/‘beautiful’ etc.,. In a marketplace shifting more and more to ‘product placement’ and ‘custom items’ I would inevitably fall into collaboration with someone looking to give me what I didn’t know I wanted.
Note: I am looking at this long term and in a very broad sense. The basis is that through the pursuit of self expression and/or adherence to a group, the ‘custom products’ made to fit the individual in a person to person basis will bring personal taste into focus - on the part of me copying you to gain more respect and/or on the part of me wanting to express myself better.
Keep in mind here we’re talking about Commodity Fetishism which is about the monetary value attached to ‘material resources’ rather than the use (both practical, as in as tools, and as non-practical, as in ‘artistically creative’ - the effect of status and aesthetic valuation is the primary conflict I am trying to delve into here.
Thanks for stick with this btw. As I said, I am displaying this thought in its infancy so I’m grappling with what I mean and what I’m saying. I think I’ve been pretty consistent though. My intention is not to paint everything with one brush, but the thought is more or less looking past the ‘monetary’ valuation of items/people and into the ‘human value’ and the direction I see things slightly tipping toward given technological advances in communication over only the past couple of decades (a huge event we’re only just beginning to open our eyes to let alone beginning to understand in any constructive manner).
The fetish is not the result of a monetary value being attached to material resources. Perhaps it is time in this discussion to refer directly to what Marx says. In Capital 1, Section 4 the element of the fetish is presented as a social relationship being masked by a material one. The most succinct summation being:
"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."
Now, Capital is an ambitious argument, tying the different ways that exchange value relates directly to other kinds. But the "materialism" being argued for here is not a substitution for what gets hidden by "individuals" being defined by what they want to buy. Individuals wanting things for themselves is a key element in the "peculiarity" being considered.
And:
Please point out where and how you think my points don’t attend to the idea of Commodity Fetishism. Thanks
You had said that the fetish element was a result of commodities being assigned an exchange value or a price. I don't understand how to see that remark as a relationship in the text of Marx.
I think the ‘exchange value’ is seen only in terms of ‘money’ - in terms of what is meant by ‘Commodity Fetishism’ as it creates a boundary between the ‘commodity’ (good or service) and the one producing/giving said ‘Commodity’. My position is an exploration of what happens when through a natural human inclination toward ‘novelty’ we find ourselves in a marketplace where custom products natural produce more chance of human interaction rather than supplanting this interaction with the barrier of monetary valuation - the true worth to the individuals involved becomes exposed.
Please keep in mind this is an idea I had recently. It is very much in its infancy and here I’m thrashing out as best I can. There are multiple layers of application this thought that I’ve only just started to uncover.
Note: if you read the previous section it is clear enough the section you mentioned follows from it. How can it not be referring to monetary value? What else is there that is spoken of in a market where exchanges are made? A system of barter is merely a less refined example of applying a fungible proposition.
I recognize that you are working toward some idea of creativity that provides things and services people want because people understand they are good things and services.
My understanding of what Marx is calling the mysterious quality of what is produced does not come from stuff being put on a market but from producers of things being commodities in their own right. The social relationships being referred to in the text of Marx is fashioned to put personal property in the context of who gets to own what. If many people agree to sell the ownership of their products to others on the basis of their effort in time and no other criteria, then the connection between maker and product becomes something different than how we talk about who owns this piece of land or that share of bacon.
I’m concerned about the ‘qualitative’ aspect of these economic interactions, and furthermore the qualitative value embedded within the commodities that cannot be given monetary value in such a way that it is a fungible item.
The clash not mentioned yet is the mass production combined with individual wants and needs (practically and as status symbols - fashions and trends), and the sense of individual identity and ‘worth’.
Note the bold above. Here we have a simplistic reduction that points out ‘labour’ as representing the ‘value’ - the time spent as the intrinsic ‘value’. The ‘proportions’ mentioned are essentially the means of a fungible function which is founded in a universal system (money). The problem, as I see it, is that the ‘worth’ associated with commodities and labour is merely brought about by measuring only what we can measure with reasonable universal agreement dictated by market demands and the distribution of resources. The ‘Commodity Fetishism’, as far as I can see, is that ALL sense of ‘value’ is put into this idea of ‘resource’ (material only) and its extraction (’simple labour’ only), with no serious regard put to finding a way of tackling the extremely difficult problem of less measurable items of human interaction, such as basic appreciation, security, artistic expression, experience (skill and talent), and human attitudes and beliefs.
The way I see it ‘money’ is certainly a useful and highly applicable means of distributing resources based on wants and needs, but it clearly isn’t a universally fungible function - I cannot literally ‘buy’ anything I wish for or need with money alone. The issue with economics, since its modern inception, is the adherence to ‘resources’ as ‘monetary’ and nothing more than that. There is no workable system of measuring human emotions that integrate with current economic systems because there is historical a system of mass production, franchising, and interest in material gain above and beyond personal development - even the educational institutions are set up in this manner; historically speaking.
My point is that for pretty much the first time inhuman history citizens of Earth can communicate over vast distances almost instantaneously and that these vast webs of human interactions are able to individualise the ‘market place’. It doesn’t take a genius to see that there are individuals around the globe that used to think they were alone and now they find themselves able to interact with hundreds or thousands of like-minded people that they never knew existed before. An example is this site and others that delve into all manner of personal interests and hobbies. The days of the internet being open only to a select few are pretty much over too.
This means that, in accord with the original post, that ‘Commodity Fetishism’ will lessen because what becomes important to people in their exchanges is the personal element. There is also a constant demand for ‘new’/‘original’/‘novel’ items, driven by a combination of aesthetic taste and ‘trends’/‘fashions’ related to “Status Fetishism“ - meaning the drive to fit in conflicting with the drive to stand apart from - which, no matter how it pans out, will drive creativity and choice destroying ‘mass production’ in favour of ‘personalised production’. Such an increase will turn people away from ‘having’/‘owning’ what someone else has and become more about personal expression overall. This is the essence of why I am saying ‘Commodity Fetishism’ will reduce and arguably already is reducing, because people are being exposed to each other and the inherent value of living among people on an economic front that is essentially encouraging intrapersonal collaboration and emotional interactions. Today it is not simply the super-rich that can affordably interact with someone to produce a custom made item.
Couple the above argument up with technological advances and we’re firmly in unknown territory even more so than what we are right now with what little we do know and can vaguely appreciate about he dynamic changes to global society.
People are not machines for labour nor or they consumers of items. The whole modern perspective on economics is so completely delusional that I’m surprised this hasn’t been mentioned more prominently before. I’m not saying it hasn’t been mentioned, but I guess the difficulty inherent is that there is no means of ‘measuring’ the important aspects of being human and that ‘Commodity Fetishism’ is an example of this disjoint where ‘value’ is only associated economically to what can be measured in a ‘monetary’ sense.
I’m not offering this as a ‘solution’. It is a critique of economics at large I guess.
Whatever there is that can create a better economic environment for every one I strongly feel that it will take the form of enhanced opportunities to experience and an educational framework within which people are actively supported and encourage to explore possible opportunities and take part in experiences outside of their usual social spaces.
I stick to the proposal that current ‘marketing’/‘advertising’ techniques are being consumed by personal online exchanges and that, with some irony, the large corporations are breaking themselves apart by funding independent ventures based on ‘personal exchanges’ rather than on scheme for ‘mass production’ and flooding the market. The internet has certainly made artists of all sorts able to make a respectable living where in the past they’d have had to give up their passions in favour of eating To having a roof over their heads.
Really this thought all stems from aesthetic appreciation and how those that wish to ‘own’ an item to present some kind of ‘status symbol’ will inevitably fall under the spell of aesthetic valuation above and beyond the initial (and perhaps subconscious) ‘status’ function of popular items. You may call this ‘branding’ but if there is no ‘brand’ we’re no longer presenting ‘brands’ only something of intrinsic aesthetic value to those who look on.
Articles such as this
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ch/Documents/consumer-business/ch-en-consumer-business-made-to-order-consumer-review.pdf
Show there has been a push in marketing to ‘entice consumers’. My belief is that this drive for personalised items will increase further and further to the point that ‘brands’/‘labels’ will become hidden and then eventually disappear. In the above article 46% said they would prefer choice within a ‘brand’, but I don’t see this holding up for long as the item made by a known person/s holds more weight of trust than one made on a production line (both in terms of quality and customisation). The only obvious point here, that I’m not avoiding, is the cost of products. This will mean that some items will remain more or less the realm of mass production to some degree as functional items are not generally ‘custom made’ for obvious reasons. I’m not suggesting that ‘mass production’ is necessarily a bad thing only that today there is an inevitable shift away from generic goods that are attached to aesthetic quality more than say a metal screw or a hammer.
How far will the aesthetic need reach into the ‘consumer world’? I don’t know. Maybe it won’t go much further than what it already has? Given a world where 3D printers for all manner of goods may as ordinary as sending an email or text I’m not really sure what the limitations of this could be.
Anyway, thanks for the comments. Please expand your thoughts further if you wish. As yoi can see from the body of text this has numerous areas and applications to a whole array of ideas and questions about global economics and resource management - I’ve only briefly managed to touch on the potential power behind an increased public interest in aesthetic quality (by way of pursuing status symbols) and what potential positive/negative repercussions this could have on society at large - locally, globally, in terms of communications, and politically in terms of laws and national rule.
Tbh I probably should have done more reading up on this subject for a few months and pondered its possible applications more thoroughly. The idea gripped me quite strongly though and had to try and express it as best I could.
I’ve been reading this more closely and comparing translations. I think this is wrong - in the opening at least - as he appears to be talking about objects of production holding ‘commodity value’ due to the labour embodied in them (obscure as in the more thorough trans. I’ve looked at ‘embodied’ isn’t used and he instead says ‘crystalised’ but we can take it to mean roughly the same (?). Seems needlessly obscure though if this is the case).
I don’t see anything that points directly to ‘producers’ as ‘commodities’. In fact he appears to be more concerned with stating that ‘stuff put on the market’ makes something a ‘commodity’ yet this is a little contrary due to other delineations he has set out previously - ‘use value’ and ‘labour value’.
I don’t really like the translation. Also, it may be worth noting that “commodity” is a poor translation imo. The German is ‘ware’ which is equivalent to Enlgish ‘ware’ (as in goods/wares). ‘Commodity’ is a French rooted perversion of the term that puts greater emphasis on ‘use’ so ironically ‘use value’ would be more fitting for ‘commodity’ and ‘ware value’ more fitting for ‘commodity value’.
It’s clear enough for me now to tread extremely cautiously as this is a text that has been purposefully/mistakenly mistranslated and sprouted several different political functions to suit the politics of the reader.
In short, it’s a bloody mess!
I am not sure about what you are pointing to in regards to the politics of the reader.
The observation I made does draw from other Marx writings than Capital. I will try to pull together statements that present that.
I am a working person who will do that when I can.
There is something curious about your approach that I won't give up on.
In terms of politics I was just referring to its historical use for this or that cause in this or that country. The main thrust of my perspective is about the raising of aesthetic sensibilities through marketing aimed at groups and eventually filtering into marketing based on individuals.