Reading Capital, continued (thread #4) Fetishism...
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:46 pm
anaxarchos
01-12-2010, 11:44 PM
Capital Volume One
Part I: Commodities and Money
Chapter One: Commodities
Section 4.The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... h01.htm#S4
We conclude our reading of Chapter One with Fetishism. The section is significant for many reasons, not least of which is that Marx himself reworked it several times in later editions of Capital. The section is meant to be a summary of what came before in the chapter, but also, it is intended to use what we have derived to address the mystery and confusion surrounding the commodity and its circulation. As this form is the very foundation of the society which we take for granted, there is little that this discussion does not touch... at least in its potential.
Instead of a "line-by-line" reading, we can start "paragraph-by-paragraph", beginning with the first two:
A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than “table-turning” ever was. [26a]
The mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use value. Just as little does it proceed from the nature of the determining factors of value. For, in the first place, however varied the useful kinds of labour, or productive activities, may be, it is a physiological fact, that they are functions of the human organism, and that each such function, whatever may be its nature or form, is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, &c. Secondly, with regard to that which forms the ground-work for the quantitative determination of value, namely, the duration of that expenditure, or the quantity of labour, it is quite clear that there is a palpable difference between its quantity and quality. In all states of society, the labour time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence, must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development.[27] And lastly, from the moment that men in any way work for one another, their labour assumes a social form.
The notes to the two paragraphs, which are quite important in this section, are here:
26a. In the German edition, there is the following footnote here: “One may recall that China and the tables began to dance when the rest of the world appeared to be standing still – pour encourager les autres [to encourage the others].” The deafeat of the 1848-49 revolutions was followed by a period of dismal political reaction in Europe. At that time, spiritualism, especially table-turning, became the rage among the European aristocracy. In 1850-64, China was swept by an anti-feudal liberation movement in the form of a large-scale peasant war, the Taiping Revolt. – Note by editors of MECW.
27. Among the ancient Germans the unit for measuring land was what could be harvested in a day, and was called Tagwerk, Tagwanne (jurnale, or terra jurnalis, or diornalis), Mannsmaad, &c. (See G. L. von Maurer, “Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark, &c. Verfassung,” Munchen, 1854, p. 129 sq.)
Marx begins with a variation on the summary he has repeated many times throughout the Chapter: Products of labor are common to all epochs of human history and undergo no strange metamorphosis as such. So soon as they become commodities, however... so soon as they are explicitly produced for exchange, "so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than “table-turning” ever was. [26a]"
What "grotesque ideas" are these? That the commodity "has" Value and that it "engages" (or "exchanges") with other commodities... no, the world of commodities... wherein each commodity shares that very same notion. It is not just that commodities become stamped with the social relationships of their producers but that those relationships appear to be aspects of the bodily form of commodities themselves.
Not only is Marx playfully repeating what we have already acknowledged, but he goes a step further: "In all states of society, the labour time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence, must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development.[27] And lastly, from the moment that men in any way work for one another, their labour assumes a social form."
Obviously, something even greater than either the natural interest in the labor time it takes to produce the various products of labor, or the social form of that labor is at work.
Consider this for a second... All of the traits of commodity production exist previously, without ever producing "grotesque ideas" from the "wooden brains" of inanimate objects. This fetishism is something unique to commodity production.
Where does it come from?
Why do we call it fetishism?
01-12-2010, 11:44 PM
Capital Volume One
Part I: Commodities and Money
Chapter One: Commodities
Section 4.The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... h01.htm#S4
We conclude our reading of Chapter One with Fetishism. The section is significant for many reasons, not least of which is that Marx himself reworked it several times in later editions of Capital. The section is meant to be a summary of what came before in the chapter, but also, it is intended to use what we have derived to address the mystery and confusion surrounding the commodity and its circulation. As this form is the very foundation of the society which we take for granted, there is little that this discussion does not touch... at least in its potential.
Instead of a "line-by-line" reading, we can start "paragraph-by-paragraph", beginning with the first two:
A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out of it. Yet, for all that, the table continues to be that common, every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than “table-turning” ever was. [26a]
The mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use value. Just as little does it proceed from the nature of the determining factors of value. For, in the first place, however varied the useful kinds of labour, or productive activities, may be, it is a physiological fact, that they are functions of the human organism, and that each such function, whatever may be its nature or form, is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, &c. Secondly, with regard to that which forms the ground-work for the quantitative determination of value, namely, the duration of that expenditure, or the quantity of labour, it is quite clear that there is a palpable difference between its quantity and quality. In all states of society, the labour time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence, must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development.[27] And lastly, from the moment that men in any way work for one another, their labour assumes a social form.
The notes to the two paragraphs, which are quite important in this section, are here:
26a. In the German edition, there is the following footnote here: “One may recall that China and the tables began to dance when the rest of the world appeared to be standing still – pour encourager les autres [to encourage the others].” The deafeat of the 1848-49 revolutions was followed by a period of dismal political reaction in Europe. At that time, spiritualism, especially table-turning, became the rage among the European aristocracy. In 1850-64, China was swept by an anti-feudal liberation movement in the form of a large-scale peasant war, the Taiping Revolt. – Note by editors of MECW.
27. Among the ancient Germans the unit for measuring land was what could be harvested in a day, and was called Tagwerk, Tagwanne (jurnale, or terra jurnalis, or diornalis), Mannsmaad, &c. (See G. L. von Maurer, “Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark, &c. Verfassung,” Munchen, 1854, p. 129 sq.)
Marx begins with a variation on the summary he has repeated many times throughout the Chapter: Products of labor are common to all epochs of human history and undergo no strange metamorphosis as such. So soon as they become commodities, however... so soon as they are explicitly produced for exchange, "so soon as it steps forth as a commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than “table-turning” ever was. [26a]"
What "grotesque ideas" are these? That the commodity "has" Value and that it "engages" (or "exchanges") with other commodities... no, the world of commodities... wherein each commodity shares that very same notion. It is not just that commodities become stamped with the social relationships of their producers but that those relationships appear to be aspects of the bodily form of commodities themselves.
Not only is Marx playfully repeating what we have already acknowledged, but he goes a step further: "In all states of society, the labour time that it costs to produce the means of subsistence, must necessarily be an object of interest to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages of development.[27] And lastly, from the moment that men in any way work for one another, their labour assumes a social form."
Obviously, something even greater than either the natural interest in the labor time it takes to produce the various products of labor, or the social form of that labor is at work.
Consider this for a second... All of the traits of commodity production exist previously, without ever producing "grotesque ideas" from the "wooden brains" of inanimate objects. This fetishism is something unique to commodity production.
Where does it come from?
Why do we call it fetishism?