Marx depicts commodities
as what they are for 2 principle relations. Marx speaks of the labor hours
which are put into a product which he calls labor value and that which it is it
is useful for man. Marx writes of “fetishism of commodities” to discuss an
exception of the binary of types of value. Marx says that commodities are not what people
find useful or gratifying to themselves, but rather provide them social
capital. “There the existence of the things qua commodities, and the
value-relation between the products of labor commodities, and the value
relation between the products of labor which stamps them as commodities, have
absolutely no connection with their physical properties or with the material
relation arising there from” (321). This process extends to buying luxury
goods. When one buys a luxury item she often does not purchase it because it is
useful to her or find it the value of the labor hours it took to produce it.
She often buys it because she likes the way others will assume about her. Marx
says that commodities are designed for the social capital they produce rather
than the actual item itself. Marx’s theory can easily be applied to
speculation. The act of valuing a good not for use or labor but rather for
society’s understanding is a different idea.
Marx is an empirical scientist in a sense, which has lead to his creation of the notion of fetishism of commodities. I'm curious about the manner in Marx came to his conclusions surrounding his distinctions of proper value, exchange value, and abstract value, particularly regarding the benefits of the abstract value opposed to the other two. Once one has acquired an item with social capital, what comes next? Is the following step uniform for all consumers of social capital? Is this rooted in competition, deficiency of self esteem, or to achieve a particular goal in life? I think the allure of abstract value is as interesting to study as what follows for the individual once social capital has been attained.
ReplyDelete