Introduction
Commodity fetishism appeared in Marxism as an important component of Capitalism. According to Marx, fetishism was prevalent in the Classical Era both in commodity fetishism and the commodity production process (Edles and Appelrouth, 2005: 68). However, there was commodity fetishism even in the Contemporary Era, with both similar characteristics as those of the classical era as well as updated ones.
Therefore, commodity fetishism existed in both eras. The common reason for commodity fetishism was technology. Totalitarianism gives a society’s viewpoint to explain fetishism in the Contemporary Era. Commodities have a certain superior but unseen power over human beings. Commodities are used to satisfy the needs of human beings.
An object should be useful not only to oneself but also to others. Marx argues that products have both the use value and exchange value. Marx developed the theory of commodity fetishism in order to explain the use value and exchange value of commodities. Fetishism refers to a great obsession in something.
The exchange value is what makes an object to become a commodity. The use value exists naturally in the object while the exchange value is created by a capitalist society. Commodity fetishism is created by the nature of the various types of values that are attached to objects. Marx believes that capitalism is the source of commodity fetishism. Commodity fetishism is dominant in capitalist societies. This discussion seeks to explore the dominance and effects of fetishism in both the classical and contemporary eras.
Classical Era
Marxism perceives the value in the use of a commodity according to its capability to satisfy human wants or if those properties are as a result of human labor (Marx, 1867/2005: 72). Therefore, both quality and quantity are used in determining the commodity value. Human labor is an important part of a commodity.
Marx revealed that “the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labor is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labor” (Marx, 1867/2005: 72).
In the earlier analysis of Marx of alienation in the form of the ‘fetishism of commodities’, he believes that there is a distorted relationship in commodity fetishism “between individuals and the production and consumption of goods” (Edles and Appelrouth, 2005: 68).
The value of a commodity should originate from the labor used in its production. However, exchange value supersedes use value in capitalistic societies and it does not get its value from any process but surpasses the labor process. In capitalism, all commodities are measured by their exchange value, which has become fetishized.
This is the only value that individuals know about. The real value of commodities is hidden by the fetishized exchange value. The relations between people have been replaced by the relations between commodities. People only interact during the exchange of commodities. People are isolated from the real components involved in the process of producing goods.
Individuals buy goods as if the values are able to increase or they believe they deserve. The fetishism of commodities affects the individuals in different ways. Marx used the examples of silver and gold. Gold and silver are ordinary substances which have odd social characteristics and they were used as money (Marx, 1867/2005: 75).
Therefore, commodity fetishism makes people to misevaluate the value of products. In the long run, the social interactions of the public in buying of commodities are not facilitated by individual qualities but by the products. Therefore, fetishism makes the consumers to only focus on goods and not themselves (Edles and Appelrouth, 2005: 68).
In other words, the consumers focus on the fashion, the appearances or the technologies the goods can bring to them instead of their own needs.
Such attitudes improve the development of production but also encourage the commodity fetishism. In a capitalistic society, people desire a product, not for its basic value but as a symbol due to the social value attached to that product. A product can have both use value and exchange value attached to it.
A product’s use value refers to the real value of a product that is used in satisfying human needs. On the other hand, the exchange value of a product refers to the value of a product that is determined by the demand and supply of the market.
Use value is dominated by exchange value in capitalist societies. Through marketing, capitalists increase the people’s demand for useless products. Needs that are not existent are created by capitalists. People therefore strive to gratify these created needs and they believe that they have achieved happiness.
According to Marx, commodity fetishism makes people to “mask” things to themselves and others and may or may not be aware of what they are doing. People can therefore sell and buy many things without being aware of what the full repercussions of their actions are. The relationships between people and the commodities they trade are concealed.
What can be observed from the surface is not necessarily what really goes on. Things are not the way they seem to be and the whole meaning of the activities is hidden.
Marx believes that people can function well in the markets and conduct their trading activities without being aware of the nature of their social set-ups and the markets. The people are not aware of what causes the markets to work well or not. In order to participate in the markets, it is not necessary to have the true knowledge about the markets (Marx, 1867/2005: 74).
Marx sees capitalism as a way to isolate the people who produce commodities from the products that they produce. As a result, human beings are unable to accomplish their life activity. When individuals are isolated from the goods that they produce, they become detached from their value as human beings.
Commodity fetishism leads to the value of commodities to be attributed to the commodity’s essence instead of the labor used to produce it (Marx, 1867/2005: 75). Commodities in capitalist societies possess the power to interact on the market and determine their value because people believe so.
Marx argues that the activities and production volumes of society’s private and independent producers can be adjusted to each other only by the inconsistent product values when exchanged in the markets.
These producers may only relate to each other through the transactions that they conduct among themselves. Therefore, their societal cohabitation is only expressed through their transactions and trading activities.
Money and commodities express their social relations. The relationship between the traded commodities greatly depends on their production costs. Production costs include the human labor but the workers have no power over what happens to the products that they produce (Marx, 1867/2005: 72).
Relationships between the commodities start to dictate the relationships between the people and therefore, they have to adjust regularly to the changing values between commodities. The people no longer have control over the changing values of commodities since the markets are really never controlled by anyone.
The commodities’ trading values achieve an actualized and autonomous power such that things seem to have inherent and natural social characteristics. Demand and supply seem to be automatically balanced by the market but people do not see the human effort that makes it possible.
The role of human beings is no longer needed in economic theories since the market actors trade things and associate as individuals. The fetishism of commodity relationships leads to the alteration of the real economic relationships between people and the environment. This brings about the distortion of the social relationships that hold people together (Marx, 1867/2005: 74).
The process of commodity production can be fetishized. The production of commodities, according to Marx, is “the specific social character of private labor carried on independently” (Marx, 1867/2005: 74). Product values are determined “by an exchange” and by the various kinds of human labor spent on them (Marx, 1867/2005: 73-74).
Two different products with same quantities can be expressed in various values due to the different kinds of labors spent on them. The act of exchange is found “directly between the products and indirectly between the producers” (Marx, 1867/2005: 73). The exchangeability of all the useful different kinds of labors can satisfy both social wants and multiple wants of individual producers.
Due to the process of exchange, the values that commodities realize in the market depend on its use of labors. Therefore, in order to increase the commodity value, the efficiency of production will be eventually improved. The machines and the works have a special relationship, which is easy to confuse.
In the process of increasing the production efficiency, people would rarely recognize that the production process is transformed by the owner of the means of production and not the machines that are used (Edles and Appelrouth, 2005: 68).
Laborers are prevented from holding capitalists responsible by the fetishism of the commodity production when new technology is used to either increase the speed in which a labor process is done or to change the way in which that labor process is structured amongst the workers (Edles and Appelrouth, 2005: 68).
Serious political consequences arise when we assign the source of workers that increases exploitation to the new technology instead of the capitalists (Edles and Appelrouth, 2005: 68). The converted social nature of the production process does not enable the workers to “press their class-based interests for change” effectively (Edles and Appelrouth, 2005: 68).
Therefore, in the classic era, workers did not support the invention of machines because of the belief that those machines eliminate their skilled labor. On the capitalists’ side, the new technology leads to the reduction of the production time and costs. They would definitely keep on inventing new machines to replace the original labors.
According to Marx, machines are used in the production process in capitalist societies so as to produce cheaper commodities and not to make the workers’ life easier. When machines are improved, fewer employees will be needed. Therefore, they will be laid off. This will lead to increased unemployment.
Capitalism entails the thorough division of labor in which workers specialize in a particular task only. Therefore, only one particular capability of the worker is exploited while the others remain untapped. This division of labor makes the workers overly dependent on the capitalists and in case they are laid off due to the increased use of machines, it would be hard for them to secure another job.
Even if they find employment elsewhere, they will be unable to perform a different task from the one they were used to. Capitalism reduces human beings into working machines and therefore, human labor becomes forced labor. Workers therefore are isolated from the products of their labor, the labor process, other human beings and human nature.
The workers are isolated from the products of their labor since they produce commodities which they do not use or sell because they are owned by the capitalists. The workers have no control over the commodities that they produce and they cannot use them to meet their needs. In addition, workers are alienated from the labor process in that they cannot control their working conditions or work organization. The workers are overworked and all the work processes are determined by the management.
People also get isolated from other human beings because they only relate through buying and selling of commodities. Moreover, workers get alienated from human nature since capitalism subjects them to forced labor. Capitalism makes individuals to think only about profits and not consider the consequences that some production methods may cause to the natural environment (Marx, 1867/2005: 75).
According to Weber, the most significant feature of capitalism was market exchange rather than production. As Weber observes, religion is a condition of likelihood of modern western capitalism when instilled in economic activity modes. He believed that the ideology of ascetic Protestantism could be able to be a source of motivation towards the justification of daily life.
This predisposition would enable people to accumulate capital though religious ethics and therefore achieve economic advancement. This would lead to the inclination to reinvest capital. The making of money is in the modern economic order if it is conducted legally (Weber and Parsons, 2003: 180). Thus, the fetishism of commodity production was prevalent in the classical period.
Contemporary Era
In the Contemporary Era, the commodity fetishism is affected by the advancing technology. Under Marxist theory, the working class, as “the source of revolutionary change”, has been “assimilated into the prevailing social order” (Appelrouth and Edles, 2011: 110). The new prevailing “forms of social control” are technological (Marcuse, 1964/2011: 115).
The technological controls occur to be “the very embodiment of reason for the benefit of all social groups and interests” (Marcuse, 1964/2011: 115). In the contemporary period, the industrial society along with technology and science effectively dominates man and nature and efficiently utilizes all resources (Marcuse, 1964/2011: 117).
These efforts create brand new “dimensions of human realization” successfully. In the industrialization, with updated technology, “the highest productivity of labor can be used for the perpetuation of labor, and the most efficient industrialization can serve the restriction and manipulation of needs” (Marcuse, 1964/2011: 118).
On the other hand, with the advanced technology, the new “needs” are the ones that “maintain the existing way of life” (Appelrouth and Edles, 2011: 110). In the modern world, people are faced with a couple of new “needs”, including true and false ones. Technology becomes “a means for preserving domination” avoiding making a wrong choice (Appelrouth and Edles, 2011: 110).
The new technology helps the economy to grow fast and improves the individuals’ lives efficiently. Individuals face a couple of new choices because of the improvement in technology. Their desire to purchase goods increases due to the appearance of upcoming new products. The commodity fetishism expands under the influence of the consumer and updated goods.
Marcuse believes that advancement in technology can be advantageous to the working class by modernizing the society. When operations are automated many tasks are done by the machines. The technological operations have become the dominant social control forms. Political power is able to dominate through having control over the technological machine processes.
Technological advancement improves the living standards and conflicts are stabilized owing to the increased productivity. Technology brings about change and can lead to a society that is unrestricted. The world can be revolutionized through the adaptation of technology in the production process.
Marcuse argues that partial adoption of technology in today’s society is a form of slavery and therefore, all operations should be automated in order to liberate human beings.
According to Marcuse, the false needs that are created by capitalists through marketing lead to the failure to gratify the real needs. He asserts that people should independently determine their real needs and control their lives. People gratify the false needs created by capitalism through consumerism (Marcuse, 1964/2011: 112).
In the contemporary period, the alienation of commodity fetishism on the societies’ side is shown as totalitarian. According to Marcuse, advanced societies, including capitalist, communist and socialist, all conclude “totalitarian social orders” (Appelrouth and Edles, 2011: 110).
Totalitarianism is “not only a terroristic political coordination of society, but also a non-terroristic economic-technical coordination which operates through the manipulation of needs by vested interests” (Marcuse, 1964/2011: 112).
In Marcuse’s view, the political power in the industrial societies can only be preserved and protected if it is successful in organizing, mobilizing and exploiting the available productivity for industrial civilization, including the scientific, technical, and mechanical productivity (Marcuse, 1964/2011: 112).
In the contemporary era, with the rapid improvement of technology, the economy developed at a high speed. As a result, the product values increased and new products were produced to satisfy the social activities. In the meantime, the situation of commodity fetishism appeared especially in some well-developed industrial societies.
Capitalists were after the profit of production. Governments fetishized in political power and fortune. They accumulated the fortune of other countries to develop military or cutting-edge technologies, for example, outer space explorations. Such fetishism leads to an extreme status of totalitarianism. In the contemporary period, there were two countries with dominating powers in the world. These include the Soviet Union and the United State of America.
The two countries with totalitarians created tentative and intense atmospheres globally. Usually, two totalitarian countries can easily lead to wars or arms rivalry, which are disasters to the whole world. Luckily, the intense situation was solved in the end. Therefore, totalitarianism should be controlled by the society (Appelrouth and Edles, 2011: 110).
According to Herbamas, the source of political power is in the citizen’s communicative power. He draws a difference between communicative power and administrative power and explains that the law is used as a tool to transform communicative power to administrative power. Successful communication can only occur when two speakers reach a mutual understanding (Habermas, 1998: 497).
Herbamas pinpoints rationality in interpersonal linguistic instruction structures. All human beings possess the competence of communication. Herbamas argues that the public sphere decay has been facilitated by several factors. These include the conversion of the public into a passive consumer public by the growth of moneymaking mass media.
Another factor is the growth of the welfare state which combined the society with the state leading to the detriment of the public sphere. Habermas is optimistic that the public sphere can be revived where there will be a democracy-driven system (Habermas, 1998: 510).
According to Sklair, globalization should be perceived as a new chapter of capitalism. He argues that there are other possible alternatives to global capitalism that can be adopted (Sklair, 2002: 590). Four perspectives from which global capitalism can be studied include global culture, world-systems, global capitalism and global society.
The world-systems approach is concerned with the discrepancy between peripheral, semi-peripheral and core countries based on their varying roles in the capitalist-dominated world system. The global culture model is concerned with the problems posed to national identities by a normalizing culture based on mass media. According to the global capitalism model, the dominant global forces are located in the structure of a capitalism that is continually globalizing (Sklair, 2002: 591).
Baudrillard believed that production was not the main motivation in a capitalist society. He believed that consumption was the main drive and criticized Marx’s economic thought. Needs are not inherent but are created. People buy things because of fetishism and thus, consumption is more significant than production.
He outlined four ways through which objects attain value (Baudrillard, 1994: 426). An object has the functional value, exchange value, symbolic value, and sign value. The functional value of an object refers to its active purpose, for instance, a pen is used to write. The exchange value refers to the economic value of that object, for instance, the economic value of a pen can be equal to three pencils.
The symbolic value of an object refers to the value assigned to the object with regard to another subject, for instance, a pen may be a symbol of a gift presented to a student for excellent performance.
The sign value of an object refers to the value of that object in a classification of objects, for instance, a pen might signify status when compared to another pen although the two have the same functional value. Baudrillard explains that consumers do not buy goods based on their meanings but they buy according to the signs on them (Baudrillard, 1994: 429). This is commodity fetishism. Therefore, fetishism was also dominant in the contemporary era.
Conclusion
From the above discussion of the classical and contemporary era, it is evident that fetishism exists in both periods in various forms. Fetishism occurs due to the improvement of production and technology. From the economic point of view, commodity fetishism has the advantage of improving the manufacturing of new goods and stimulating the demands of the market.
However, the fetishism of the commodity production encourages the invention of new technology and machines, which partly replaces the human labor and further influences the working opportunities of the working class. From the political perspective, commodity fetishism is represented as totalitarian.
Totalitarianism has negative effects on the stability, peace, and development of the whole world because it leads to wars. Commodity fetishism is a controversial topic in the history of human development. To the modern society, it is necessary for both individuals and governments to include the advantages and disadvantages of commodity fetishism in order to develop the world properly and rapidly.
Reference List
Appelrouth, S. and Edles, L.D. (2011). Sociological Theory in the Contemporary Era. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Pine Forge Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and Simulation. USA: University of Michigan Press.
Edles, L. D. and Appelrouth, S. (2005). Sociological Theory in the Classical Era. (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE/Pine Forge Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. USA: MIT Press.
Marcuse, H. (1964/2011). “One-Dimensional Man.” In Edles, Laura Desfor and Scott Appelrouth. Sociological Theory in the Contemporary Era (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Pine Forge Press, pp. 111-119.
Marx, K. (1867/2005). “From Capital”. In Scott Appelrouth and Laura Desfor Edles. Sociological Theory in the Classical Era (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Pine Forge Press, pp. 69-80.
Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization: capitalism and its alternatives. USA: Oxford University Press.
Weber, M. and Parsons, T. (2003). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Courier Dover Publications.