So I was on Twitter doing my normal agitation posting, trying to catch the attention of people. When I saw Madeline Pendleton post a response to some rich jackass talking about how Marx didn't consider how good suede jackets feels. It's probably important to mention the jacket is also a designer jacket that costs over $7,000
Madeline, of course, responded that Marx did, in fact, consider this problem, and it is a problem of commodity fetishization.
After having a small discussion with Twitter communists, they're convinced she's wrong because she's utilizing "commodity fetish" in the wrong way. They think she's using it as this dude is worshipping the commodity, but I think she's arguing the dude is attempting to associate mythical value to this object in order to justify the extreme cost of a jacket.
When I asked for more clarification, I also got linked a 169 page book instead of a section from that book which is just so helpful when you're trying to understand a very critical hyper-specific concept that probably doesn't need a full 169 pages to explain it to you.
One, I feel like communists on Twitter are splitting hairs to attack Madeline over something that feels like it's probably just a miscommunication between concepts, two I kinda feel like Madeline has a pretty good argument to hear that this is, in fact, commodity fetishism the way that Marx describes it in Capital.
When I asked for clarification, since I got linked to a Wallace, Sean quote and a 169 page book on why the economy doesn't exist, I figured that @Cowbee@hexbear.net might have some actual good information to help a budding Marxist understand what's going on here.
Mostly stupid and dramatic. I am curious to know who is right and where I can find more information on commodity fetishization.
I think to understand commodity fetishism, people need to first ask "What is a commodity?" Marx's definition of a commodity is an object that was created for the purpose of being exchanged. In chapter 1 of Capital, Marx points out that clothing has existed for thousands of years but a tailor did not exist until clothing became a commodity.
So we had clothing, but then at some point, commodity clothing came about. What is the difference between a jacket that you make for your own use and a jacket that is made for the purpose of being sold? Commodity Fetishism is the intangible traits of a commodity which makes it different from an object that was made for use.
chapter 1, section 4
Marx says that you can take wood and make it into a table, but when you make the table into a commodity, ie make it for sale, then it becomes a new form.
I think the twitter leftist people are not reading the original tweet carefully enough because they are talking about how nice suede feels, but the original tweet says "how good life feels when you wear a brown suede jacket". The original tweet is not describing the physical traits of the jacket, but an intangible, indirect experience in relation to the jacket.
Madeline makes the presumption that the suede jacket is a commodity, ie that it was made for exchange, noting that the jacket in the image was purchased. Though the tweet doesn't specify that the suede jacket must have been exchanged in order to make life feel good. I think Madeline is interpreting the intangible trait of "how good life feels" as a symptom of Commodity Fetishism, ie this specific jacket has intangible qualities because it was made for the purpose of exchange.
I think that they both know the correct definition of commodity fetish but they are interpreting the tweet in different ways.
This is my interpretation of the situation, too. I think they both know what the definition is, and they're splitting hairs over minute details that could change what the definition is based on the OG posts.
This also is a good encapsulation of the argument I think that Madeline was trying to present. I just could not articulate it myself so, I really appreciate it, breaking down this argument for everybody. It also helps me understand more of what was going on.