Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:44:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Hans Ehrbar <ehrbar-AT-keynes.econ.utah.edu> Subject: BHA: Misleading Marx translations Charles asked: > Isn't the fetishism of commodities critical in creating > this reality and activity and subjectivity of commodities? > This is how an idea gripping the masses becomes a material > force. Commodity fetishism is one of the most difficult questions, but since I am on the subject of misleading translations, I'd like to say here that Marx uses two quite different terms which are both usually translated with "commodity fetishism": One is "Fetischcharakter der Ware" (fetish-like character of the commodity), and the other is Warenfetischismus. The fetish-like character of the commodity is a social fact: in capitalism, things are the carriers of social relations and therefore have a fetish-like character. Fetishism is then the ideology generated by this fetish-like character, it is the inability to see that the social properties of commodities have a social origin. I think the question Marx addresses in his commodity fetishism section of chapter 1 of Capital is: how come that humans, who historically have expanded their powers, i.e., they have emerged higher and higher over nature, are in capitalism an element through which emergence passes, i.e., the emergence of value and capital, rather than the authors of this emergence. I think the difference between alienation and objecteification, which RB points out on the bottom of p. 94, is important here. Objectification is necessary, mankind has to relate to nature in order to be able to emerge over it. Mankind harnesses the natural powers of things to serve human needs and goals, and this indeed enriches them. But in a commodity society, in which things not only have natural powers, but also social powers, the temptation is great to try to subordinate the social powers of things to human goals as well. The capitalist uses the market power of his products to improve his own life. This is an alienated attempt since these social powers come from the social context in which he lives, i.e., ultimately it comes from himself. He is not aware of this, and therefore does something that can be compared to the attempt to quench his thirst by drinking his own blood. Due to this unawareness, the attempts to impose his will fail and the capitalist becomes the unwitting instrument of powers which he has not invented and does not control. The dogged persistence in the attempts to subordinate to his will the social powers of things as if they were natural powers, is one of the conditions of existence of capitalism. Hans. --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005