Response to "Fetishism of Commodities" -- by Angela and Matthieu

The "Fetishism" of commodities" refers to the special relationship between commodities whereby said commodities are the "products of men's hands." The analogy is made with the religious world, where human brains are independent and "enter in a relationship" between themselves and the greater "human race". The root of this fetishism comes from the social aspect of the work behind them -- which is to say, the way in which these products become commodities gives rise to the "fetishism". All this is in the context of a capitalist society. Marx also argues that commodities have no inherent "use-value", but rather, just "value". The proof is that commodities are just that, commodities ("natural intercourse proves it"). Marx equates "use-value" with "riches" and are attributes of men, while "value" is the attribute of commodities. "Value" comes from the social process of exchange. Finally, Marx explores various production-systems like a one-man island, feudal society, and also posits a society of "free individuals" where the distribution of subsistence is determined by the labour-time of each producer.

When reading this text, it's hard not to spiral into Communism, considering its impact on our world, and for each of us, academically and socially. Having said that, we focussed on the idea of a commodity, and what it means in our world (21st century), versus Marx's world (19th century). In an increasingly connected world, where markets are no longer constrained geographically, it seems difficult to transpose Marx's ideas of use-value and value. Most of today's "commodities" are the result of increasingly accurate marketing and cheap labour. As such, the wants and needs (production and subsistence) seem to be so heavily influenced by outside forces (our brains... are they really independent beings endowed with life?) that it's difficult to make the leap. Further, some of the world's biggest and most influential communities are no longer defined regionally, but intellectually. Increasingly these communities may no longer behave in the way the Marx describes -- the organization of the modes of production are not constrained within one community, but intersect across many, and across space and time.

Marx asks of the "modern economy", "does not its superstition come out as clear as noon-day whenever it treats of capital?" Our question is, "Does the essence of capital entirely lie in this superstition, i.e., its Fetish character? Can that be all there is?"