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.
To bring this full circle to the twitter argument: commodity fetishism also is not about the way commodities make you feel subjectively. It is not that a suede coat feels nice, and so you're willing to pay higher than its value for the subjective feeling. That is simply a different part of the analysis than what Marx is getting at with commodity fetishism.
Commodity fetishism has objective existence in any capitalist society. On the other hand, if you really want to buy a pokemon card for $1000 for subjective reasons (it's super rare!), you can transparently understand that it didn't cost $1000 to produce the card. It's something you can overcome or at least understand mentally. Commodity fetishism is not like that.
I see, so, because this dude isn't talking about exchange value or anything related to the exchange value of this object he's simply just talking about the niceties of the objects. It has no bearing in commodity fetish because it has nothing to do with the relations or labor that went into making that commodity.
Yeah exactly. Although I think Madeline was referring more to the aura which companies or products have as a result of marketing. Like how brand names like Nike can fetch a higher price due to perceived brand quality etc. Since the aura is something immaterial but can affect one's perception of a commodity, this often gets conflated with Marx's commodity fetishism. But I personally don't see these to be the same (willing to consider arguments to the contrary).
In my opinion Marx's commodity fetishism is an objective feature of commodities, independent of the participants in the economy, conceptually it belongs in analysis of the economic base. This agrees with Marx's placement of commodity fetishism in Vol. 1 Ch. 1 after introducing the commodity.
Meanwhile, a commodity's "aura" is a superstructural phenomenon related to Volume 2 stuff about selling commodities, maybe also Volume 3 stuff about profit distribution between industries. Evidence against considering this as commodity fetishism is that Marx introduces commodity fetishism before he talks about prices distinct from values.