First Version of Presentation

The Fetishism of Commodities and the secret thereof - Karl Marx

I will be talking about Karl Marx’s text ‘The Fetishism of Commodities and the secret thereof,’ from the book ‘Capital’.

Karl Marx was born in Germany in 1818 and together with Friedrich Engels, established Marxism. Marxism can be summed up in three main points:

A philosophical basis which derives much from Hegel but which neatly inverts the central idea of the Hegelian perspective.

GWF Hegel thought that the only things that are actually real “are ideas”. He believed in an ‘Absolute’ or a perfect cosmic plan, and that history is this plan “unfolding itself” – getting ever nearer to the perfect idea. He claimed that “whatever is rational is real, and whatever is real is rational.” There is a cosmic principle of rationality and whatever happens is part of the cosmic plan and so is justifiable. He is thought to be responsible for originating both Fascism and communism.

Hegel believed that we can only learn from the past - “The owl of Minerva (wisdom) spreads its wings only with the falling of the light.” This Marx disagreed on, he believed that philosophers should not reflect on the world but try to change it.

The main thing that Marx took from Hegel is the idea of ‘the dialectic’, or how ideas “fold out”. Hegel observed that throughout history there were ideas or, thesis, and that there were conflicting ideas, or antithesis. Parts of both the thesis and the antithesis will be combined creating the synthesis, and so ideas progress. Flaws in the sythesis will slowly become apparent, and an antithesis will be constructed, and again a synthesis will arrive combining elements of the thesis and antithesis, and so on and so on.

Hegels ‘dialectic’ was based on the idea that people create their surroundings, that the world was nothing but the ideas of people, Marx completely flips this on its head by saying our ideas do not make the world, but instead the world makes our ideas

A systematic and complex set of economic and political theories which follow from the philosophical position. The most important of these being the Theory of Surplus Value and the Labour Theory of Value.

These theories explore how capitalists, or the owners of the means of production (the factories), attempt to make money:

Everything has a value. Its value consists of the cost of the raw materials, the tools and machines needed to turn the raw materials into a product, and the labour time it takes to make the product. This leaves no room for profit. How can he make money and undercut his competitors when they all have to pay for raw materials, tools and labour?

Raw materials cost a set price, as do tools and machinery. However, if he pays the workers less than their work is worth he can lower the production costs and so make money. And so the working man – the proletariat- is exploited by the factory owners – the bourgeois.

A theory of revolution

Wages of the workers will continue to decrease as business competitors try to sell their products for less and less. Richer companies will be able to afford new technology meaning that work is cheaper and more efficient, and also that fewer workers are needed (and so money is saved on wages). Smaller companies will slowly crumble and their owners will end up members of the proletariat, as larger companies grow.

The proletariat will continue to grow as the bourgeois shrink, as wealth is concentrated on just a small percentage of the population. This will continue to happen, the underclass will grow to such a proportion that revolution is inevitable, and necessary.


The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof.

In the section of Capital, The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof he discusses “the reason why the products of labour become commodities”, or the reason why object have a personality that has “absolutely no connexion with their physical properties.” To give an example from contemporary culture, the reason why, say, a Gucci handbag has the human characteristics of being glamorous and sophisticated, despite the fact that it is just pieces of material stitches together with the purpose of making carrying things easier, and why the exchange value (or the price) reflects this irrational personality, instead of the actual materials and labour time that went into making it.

The original idea of fetish was originally used by Emmanuel Kant to describe the way that people project themselves onto religion. Marx applied this theory to commodity.

Capitalist society is based on the production and trade of goods. Meaning that the relationships that people have with each other are based on the production and trade of goods. “…from the moment that men in anyway work for one another, their labour assumes a social form.” Because people’s social relationships are based on the production of goods, Marx argues that these social relationships are projected onto the goods, turning it into commodities.

Marx says the way that objects appear to have a personality as “the same way that light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye its self.” Although there is a direct relation between the things in front of us and the images we see, Marx says that “the value –relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connexion with their physical properties.”

Because all human interaction revolves around labour, and because objects have a personality, Marx states that the roles of people and objects has been changed- there are “material relations between persons, and social relations between things.” This destruction of natural social relationships between people is what restricts people from feeling truly happy; it alienates people.

Marx says that it is the exchange values of things rather than the value of manufacturing it (or even the use value) “that converts every product into a social hieroglyphs.” Different products stand for different things, and say different things about their owner. This character that is added when a product becomes a commodity “obtains fixity only by reason of their acting and reacting upon each other as quantities of value”. Marx blames the way that the fruit of people’s labour are traded in capitalism, i.e. with money, for the commoditisation of products – “It was the expression of all commodities in money,” he says, “that led to the establishment of their characters as values.”

He then goes on to talk about Robinson Crusoe, as well as primitive cultures, saying that if we were more like them, the fetish of commodities wouldn’t exist. All labour would be for the labourers benefit, and items would be judged only on their use-value.

In conclusion Marx writes “ The life process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan.”

Marxism in the modern world.

Times have changed a great deal since Marx. There wasn’t the revolution that Marx expected. According to Herbert Marcuse, in ‘1 dimensional man’, this is because “advanced industrial society” creates false needs, integrating people into the system of production and consumption. Because of the mass media and advertising, people believe that they must own lots of pointless possessions. This false consciousness blinds people to the fact threat they are being exploited. Because people are working hard (to make other people rich) they can afford all of these wonderful possessions. By working and buying possessions people believe they are bettering themselves and are so happy being exploited.

Although the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer, there is more of a sliding scale. There is no longer the proletariat and bourgeoisies as two separate classes, workers get paid better, have the chance of promotion, and can own shares to receive portions of companies profit. The working class have been successfully integrated into capitalist society. There is no longer a need for revolution in the west.

Marxist and socialist thought is still alive, however the goal tends to be integrating Marxist thought into capitalism, to try and improve the current society instead of overthrowing it.

However, what Marx says about the fetish of commodities is still as valid, if not more valid, in the 21st century. Georg Lukacs expands on Marx’s ideas when he talks about ‘reification’. Reification is essentially the same as fetish but with subtle differences.

Reification

The consideration of an abstraction or an object as if it had human or living existence and abilities

Separating something from it’s original context and placing it in another context – giving it powers and attributes that in truth it doesn’t have.
Marx believed that this happened due to the social form of the labour that went into making the product. However, I believe that Lukacs is saying that the personality of the commodity is something that is purposefully added via advertising and marketing.

Jean Boudrillard says something similar, that consumption is more important than production. The artificial need for a product has to be established, and then good must be produced to fill those needs.

Objects are turned into subject and subjects are turned into objects.
People are just blank canvasses, and possessions paint our characteristics. With out possessions we are nobody.

People are judged by what labels they wear, what car they drive and what shops they shop in. People can also change they’re image, and therefore their personality, on a daily basis. A man they could walk into high street clothing store and decide that they want to be ‘punk.’ They would buy a t-shirt made from distressed fabric with messy homemade style graphics, a pair of tight jeans and a studded belt. Styles often originate for a reason. Punk was a reaction to society at the time. It was the working class showing their anger towards the upper class. The homemade, scruffy clothing reflected this, it was the opposite of the smart suits of the upper and middle classes. Today clothing shops will sell both suits and aesthetically ‘punk’ clothing, yet it means nothing. According to Guy Debord, “In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.” He then goes on to say, “The images detached from every aspect of life merge into a common stream in which the unity of that life can no longer be recovered. Fragmented views of reality regroup themselves into a new unity as a separate pseudo world that can only be looked at. The specialization of images of the world evolves into a world evolves into a world of autonomized images where even the deceivers are deceived.”

A good example to look at when discussing commodity fetish, or reification is Nike. Nike have got practically all areas covered when it comes to the footwear and clothing markets (as well as toiletries, electricals, etc). Nike is an extremely successful brand because of its image. Nike is more an idea than a pair of shoes. Its this reason why you can put a ‘Nike Tick’ on anything and people will buy it because they recognize it as Nike, and the connotations that are associated by the Nike brand are added to, say, cheap mass produced watch. One of the most interesting things about Nike is that they have different images in different markets. Different Nike products connote different characteristics. It is this reason why Nike sell t-shirts with a picture of a trainer on it. Looking at it objectively it is completely absurd, but to the person that is buying the t-shirt doesn’t see it as just a shoe, they see the idea that the shoe has come to represent.

Brands and names are used to categorise people into target markets, most decisions we make have been reduced to consumer decisions, and because of globalisation, are completely pointless. Whatever you believe in, whatever your tastes are or whatever moral code you live by, you are just a member of a target market, even if you are anti-capitalist, the capitalists have an option for you. This is because these are purely aesthetic options. For example, you decide that you’re opposed to the increasingly intensive production systems of a capitalist culture. You decide to buy your toiletries from The Body Shop, because they don’t test on animals, and you buy Green and Blacks chocolate because it is Fair Trade. You’ve spent a bit over the odds, but you know its worth it for a clear conscience. The thing you don’t realise is that Green and Blacks is owned by Cadbury, a company that in the past has been accused of using sweat shop labour. The Body Shop is owned by L’Oreal, a massive company that tests on animals and has been accused of “including harmful pollutants and worrying chemicals in its cosmetics.” L’Oreal also own 26% of Nestle, a company that owns a whole host of other companies. The majority of the market place is owned by just a few brands, effectively making consumer decisions pointless as peoples money is all going to just a few people.

It is similar with the media, which is owned by just a few people, meaning that decisions between whether to buy, say The Sun, or The Times, which are viewed as 2 completely different newspapers, as good as pointless. They are both owned, as are various other companies (like Sky, Fox and Myspace), by News Corporation. Although the content of the two newspapers varies, the underlying political viewpoint and choice of which stories to cover and what slant to put on them is ultimately made by one man.

Conclusion

To begin my conclusion I would like to quote Ludwig Feuerbach, who helped inspire both Marx and Hegel:

“But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence…truth is considered profane and only illusion is sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced, in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.”

The majority of people are living in a world where they are being constantly ripped off for the latest product, as they feel it will enhance them in some way. We are living in a dream world where our possessions speak for us. This false consciousness is manufactured by an elite few, who use it to make themselves extremely rich.

The truth is that most people aren’t idiots, they know they are being conned, they know they don’t really need to buy yet another pair of shoes, but hey its doing no harm, we have all got enough money to eat, and they are really nice shoes.

It is true, despite extreme differences in wealth; the majority of people in the west have enough money to live in relative comfort. To realise the true harm that capitalism does we have too look further than the people of the west.

On a national scale the world is completely different from the time that Marx lived in, however on an international scale we can see similarities. The idea of their being two distinct classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is still there. The people in the west, despite their differences, are the new bourgeois. The people working for a few pennies a day in developing countries, the millions of animals being kept in cages so small they cant move and the natural world is now the proletariat class.

Modern production methods mean that every time you buy a pair of jeans, chances are they will have been made in a sweatshop where people work 15 hours a day and still can’t afford to feed their families. Whenever you buy food with egg in it, it will have come from a hen that lives in a cage the size of a piece of A4 paper, and had it’s beak cut of without anesthetic, and everything you buy will have someway polluted the environment.

We are quite happy to destroy everything around us so long as we can consume constantly and unnecessarily.