top 70 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 42 points 5 months ago* (10 children)

No, he did not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism

In the first chapter of Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (1867), commodity fetishism is used to explain how the social organization of labour manifests in the buying and selling of commodities (goods and services). In the marketplace, social relations among peopleβ€”who makes what, who works for whom, the production-time for a commodity, etc.β€”are represented as social relations among objects.[3]

In the process of commercial exchange, commodities appear in a depersonalized form, obscuring the social relations inherent to their production.[4] Marx explained the sociology of commodity fetishism:

As against this, the commodity-form, and the value-relation of the products of labour, within which it appears, have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the commodity and the material relations arising out of this. It is nothing but the definite social relation, between men, themselves, which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must take flight into the misty realm of religion. There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations, both with each other and with the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men's hands. I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is, therefore, inseparable from the production of commodities.[5]

According to Marx, the operation of commodity fetishism requires the owners of capital to actively ignore or maintain an indifference to the relational whole that produces a commodity.[6]

tl:dr, Marx described that capitalism produces a semi-religious veneration for and obsession with products themselves, as a byproduct of alienating the worker from the work, from themselves, from their humanity, and from others.

An extremely rough, modern, internet slang way to say it might be 'you being a shopping addict is basically you just being kinky for capitalism, which is something captialism itself produces in people'.

Ya'll need to read some theory and up your meme game.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    Marx's analysis doesn't make the meme incorrect. He could be aware of the visible effect without fully understanding it's mechanism and potential magnitude. Let's not forget that Marx was working on Capital while the cutting edge of behavioral and cognitive science was phrenology ffs. His pool of knowledge and prognostic fidelity were fundamentally limited.

    Shopping and commodity addiction are no doubt exploited by capitalism but the neurobiological causes will exist independent of any economic system. You could live in a socialist utopia, and access to a diverse market of products or always-available acquisition (eg. an online marketplace) would still cause this problematic impulsive behavior.

    In the language of the meme, Marx considered "Shopping is fun" but not "Shopping is so fun! ❀️"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Ok, then I can say that Marx could say 'shopping is so fun' these days... because the magnitude and number of ways that alienation is occuring has dramatically increased.

    Yep, he had no understanding of neuroscience.

    But he had a theory of societies and people in them, with causal mechanisms and observable consequences, with considerable explanatory and predictive power... that didn't need neuroscience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Marx could say 'shopping is so fun' these days... because the magnitude and number of ways that alienation is occuring has dramatically increased.

    That's a complete distortion of Marx's theory to support your own ideological priors. Marx calls out capitalism as an active driver of alienation, as shown in his analysis of commodity fetishism. By his reckoning, commodity fetishism can more-or-less only exist in capitalism where a nebulous value is assigned to your shopping independent of its use value. But if there's a neurological vulnerability for fetishizing a commodity at your own expense, the alienation happens no matter what.

    Modern technology enables workers to produce an unfathomable volume of goods and the logistics to efficiently distribute them to unknowable corners of the world. Who owns the means of production is irrelevant, but I'm sure those laborers will be happy to get the full value of their production. And even if they do know the harm caused to the shopper, their guilt is shared by every other laborer with a product in that store. They couldn't rectify the alienation if they tried.

    The underlying problem is not some struggle with Gattungswesen, it's quantifiably electrical and chemical. So his prediction here is flat wrong unless you insist on twisting his theory to fit reality, Γ  la Nostradamus.

    That's the thing that makes people fans of Marx: his work can be aspirational philosophy/commentary or hard science. Just appeal to his authority with a quote and you're in a quantum superposition, collapsing to whatever you need it to be later in the conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    No, its not a complete distortion.

    A society that is abstracted away from the literal, material and human processes of production and trade... basically begins to treat commodities in a more perverse manner.

    The specific neurological mechanisms that underly this and explain it more mechanically, in greater detail... yeah he did not talk about those because he did not know about them.

    But again, he didn't need to know about them, in great detail, to observe and explain what I just said two sentences ago.


    As far as I can tell, you have invented some kind of prediction that Marx made, relative to what we are talking about, commodity fetishism, that turned out to be wrong.

    ... What? What is this wrong prediction?

    I genuinely do not see where you described this.

    Marx objectively was wrong in his prediction that a socialist revolution would come out of urban/manufacturing cores... it actually largely came out of agrarian areas.

    So yeah, there's an example of something he got wrong.

    But I'm not aware of how the second sentence of this comment has in anyway been shown to be broadly wrong.


    Modern technology that hacks your brain's dopamine pathways to make you feel more happy when you see a new thing ... that could be yours! ... that markets an identity or emotional state that will be conferred upon you when you buy the thing...

    That's a hypercharged form of alienation, directly furthering you and your mental framing away from the literal material and human reality of the thing.

    Historical materialism was the foundation, the 'priors' that Marx worked from... look at the actual state of the physical reality of people and stuff and how they are related and interact, and that can tell you things about how societies will change.


    That you can imagine a utopia with shopping malls or digital shopping malls, and also imagine that that could be socialist... that doesn't make Marx wrong about how alienation produces commodity fetishism in a society.

    I think that Marx would argue that...

    You could live in a socialist utopia, and access to a diverse market of products or always-available acquisition (eg. an online marketplace) would still cause this problematic impulsive behavior.

    ... this is problematic.

    I don't think he would call that a socialist utopia, because I think he would find the concept of an online marketplace, as we have them now, massive in scope, totally minimized human to human interactivity, streamlined for your convenience... I think he would call that alienation, alienation that produces commodity fetishism.

    I think Marx would literally call an American shopping mall from the 80s or 90s 'a cathedral of capitalism'.

    I think Marx could imagine a way that an online market place could exist in a 'socialist utopia', but that would be to the extent that it would be designed in such a way that forced human to human interactions, that it was stripped of manipulative marketing and dark patterns, that directly made you fully aware of the truth of the manufacturing and shipping processes, and all of the costs that go into all elements of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    In capitalism, the consumer need only care about two things: the product, and the price. This makes it easy for consumers to compare products and prices, and pick the best "bang for the buck". This fuels competition, which in turn, incentivizes production efficiency.

    Sometimes externalities are factored in. For example carbon taxes. But these are simply factored into the price, so the consumer can still compare products and prices like before.

    This "commodity fetishism" that Marx complains about, is exactly what makes capitalist economies so effective and efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    In capitalism, the consumer need only care about two things: the product, and the price.

    Not true, not since at least the 1950s, or at least incomplete and misleading.

    The consumer also cares about what the object implies about them, how them having that object will make them feel about themselves and others feel about them.

    Commodity Fetishism.

    This is why almost nobody does the extremely literally grounded-to-the-product marketing of the 1800's anymore, they all switched to selling emotions, identities, concepts... attached to the object, conveyed by the object.

    Doing that, that literally is the old school definition of a 'fetish', an object imbued with extra, essentially magical meaning, considerably detached from the base material reality of the object.

    Its why capitalist economists have for over a hundred years been plauged by things like 'animal spirits'.


    This, and other things like this, contibute to actors in capitalism being not actually rational, neither at a micro or macro level.

    A vast chain or network of irrational decisions, compounded over time, is not what I would call flatly 'efficient'.

    JIT logistics are efficient in the short and medium term.

    They're catastrophic in the long term.

    You can say thats because the externalities of all the fuel consumption are not properly factored in, I can say the predictable future price/cost rises in many forms of insurance that will be created by climate change are being irrationally ignored... because the logic of capitalism incentivizes that delusion.

    Hopefully I do not need to explain that it is extremely obvious that capital markets are also not rational, that 'efficient markets' are ... not.

    "Guys lets spend $5 bazillion dollars on AI! Oh whats that? 90% of companies saw no to negative productivity gains from the largest reallocation of capital in human history?'

    Capitalism may be efficient in the short to medium term, but its extremely inefficient in the long term.


    Capitalism also has within it many forces and effects that redistribute and concentrate real wealth upward as it generates new real wealth.

    Eventually, broadly predictably, the credit supercycle peaks and then crashes... and you get a mass immiseration, as the sum of years or decades of delusion must now be reckoned with.

    Short to medium term efficiency and stability.

    Long term, predictably inefficient and chaotic.


    So basically, yes, commodity fetishism is part of what makes capitalism 'efficient', but that efficiency is short to medium termed, and it reliably produces delusion and long term instability... which I would struggle to describe as 'efficient'.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Wow that is pretty weak reasoning entirely focused on his perogative.

    Counterpoint: Take a craft market where the people selling are actually immediately the people making the thing. Isn't it nice to buy something pretty there? And isn't it an added bonus that you actually got to talk a bit to the people there?

    So the effect of being happy to have something nice works beyond disembodied consumerism. And is even heightened by personal contact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The entire point is that capitalism makes craft markets exceedingly rare, it makes that experience you describe more uncommon, it makes everything more abstract.

    The commodity fetishism grows out of that, the more abstracted away the thing is, the more mystically and irrationally products are treated by people.

    Hell, in the US right now, you can find tons of stuff at 'Farmers Markets' that are actually just some product of a massive corporation being rebadged, repackaged, and trying to get flipped for a margin.

    That 'authentic', 'small-batch', 'bespoke' product? Yeah that's just a marketing tactic now, in many cases.

    Stanley cups? Beanie babies? Fast fashion? Pokemon cards? Fancy pantsy sneakers?

    Perfect examples of fetishized commodities, consumed and 'shopped' for with essentially crazed, religious zeal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I don't think the described commodity fetishism is a particular feature of capitalism though. Because the exact same can happen in a planned economy. Hence my example of a crafts market where you personally know people.

    There are some famous examples of this commodity fetishism happening similarly in the GDR with for example the Trabant.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    To be fair, Usagi did go on to cure death and create a neo-socialist workers paradise while bloodlessly uniting all the people of earth...

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    All the people of earth at that point were the few people in Japan that she happened to save from a global freeze. So, bloodlessly is probably not the right term for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Eeh, Great Freeze was an ecological disaster caused by sailor chaos. When Usagi is interred on the Silver Throne after revealing herself as Neo-Queen serenity, she restores the population to their rightful place on earth, then loses her daughter to time manipulation hijinks, which prompts her to ally with Sailor Mars and embark on her great crusade to unite the Sailors and find her lost child, accompanied by her loyal yet enigmatically powerful servant Mamodor...

    or, wait hang on...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I heard that Marx was, ironically, rather financially irresponsible and often had money troubles. Once he had money he spent it all on parties and nice food and such.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Tbh I don't get "shopping"/"retail therapy." Obviously I have wants for luxuries, but usually I pine after these for months and hold off on the decision until I feel I have saved enough and worked hard enough to justify it. Spontaneously going out to buy luxury items is a much rarer impulse for me.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Iddon't buy shit I need, but I can get behind the feeling. When I walk through the hardware store I would like to buy a grinder, a saw, a drill and many more things. Not that I need any of them, because most is already in lower quality at home, but I really would have fun buying shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I really like shopping for clothes but I don't buy new I always go thrifting. There is something so satisfy with finding a nice unique dress that fits right for $10.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Most of my local thrift stores have LOST THEIR MINDS. The goodwill's carry target clearance, for the same price target cleared it for.

    Most are now savvy to what old properly made clothes are worth. most of the fun of thrifting had priced me out of participating. If i'm going to pay 80% of the retail price, I'm going to buy it new, or buy it dirt cheap from china.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    πŸ’–πŸ§Έ come on Marxi, let’s go party πŸŽ‰πŸ’–

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    compelling argument.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I'm a Marxist girl

    In a Marxist world

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Have you ever been to a free shop?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 9 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    I get it now πŸ₯²

    • Boris Yeltzin in an American πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΈπŸ¦…Grocery Store:
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    That’s more of a climate critique between Russia and the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Right.

    Because communism doesn't exist, it's completely free of problems.

    (not /s, by the way.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    A communist US would still grow oranges and peaches.

    A capitalist Siberia still wouldn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Will the sailors be there?

    If they are, I'm not going. Something terrible always happens to whoever they hang out with for the day.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    This is blatant consumerist propaganda!

    Also shopping not fun. I want to walk into a store and pick up Balsamic Glaze and leave. I don't want to have to assess the minute differences in weight, cost, and quality of 30 different products that are all in the same race to win over my dollar and maximize their profits.

    That's one reason why refill store is good.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    A couple of years ago they started putting the per kg price under the item price in Germany. At first I thought that's for idiots who cannot calculate. Now I absolutely love this. I hardly even check the item price anymore, my eyes go straight to per kg. Fuck my idiotic entitled smartass past self, per kg prices are the best thing that ever happened to capitalist supermarkets

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    In the US we have a mix of:

    • Price per individual unit
    • Price per entire unit
    • Price per weight
    • Price per volume

    And different products from the same category will choose different ones so you have to do the math anyway.

    E.g. Sometimes our berries will be sold in split tubs so you'll get the price for the whole thing and then on the comparison tag a price for half the tub. That will be sitting next to a different brand of the same berry in a package 2oz smaller and it's comparison text will have the price per Oz, sitting next to that is an entire other brand and it will list the price of the whole unit and in comparison will list the same price again labeled explicitly as "per unit".

    Like every thing the US manages to shit out it's an utterly terrible system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    God yes, that pisses me off to no end. Law requires comparison prices, malicious compliance. they're not in the same fucking units.

    Ounce vs Pound count vs unit count vs Pound

    then:

    large sign, 80/20 ground beef sale $5.99 / pound

    You have to dig through the brands looking for 80/20 until you find the right stuff and it's always on it's sellby date.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I do like going shopping but that's because then I get stuff, and having new stuff is cool. But you don't need a capitalist hierarchy to make any of this happen

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago
    [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I think he probably considered this - part of commodity fetishism?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You can still shop under communism

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It's a chore. And boring. And a chore.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    It's so strange, when my mother used to tell me we were going shopping it was just misery. We were going to k-mart or woolworths where she would stop and look at every piece of clothing in the store. twice.

    In the end she'd buy nothing, or one thing. Hours of time before devices, I was left alone in the toys section where i'd have seen everything of interest in 5 minutes.

    Wife or I go shopping, it's a surgical strike. The first acceptable item, bought, and extracted.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Well then do i have an opportunity to preach the good word of syndicalism to you.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I prefer foraging in the forest.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    If we have a communist revolution, then we can all go shopping at the free store!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I won't upvote this, but it did make me laugh

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah but under communism you have a leader who puts a collar on you and calls you a good puppy and you waf at them :3

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I'd like to wear a collar and be called a good boy. That's about as far as the fantasy goes. I don't really like the puppy play stuff. Certainly things about it I like but not as a whole. Also if I may inquire, what is uniquely communist about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    One side of me shuns consumerism.
    Other wants to participate in the stereotpical feminine tradition, out of spite.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I adore thrift shopping but it can become an easy way to lift your conscience after overconsumption. I have a friend who tries to buy nothing new and good for her and the environment, but she constantly treats herself to thrift shopping sprees, realizes that she doesn't need most of it shortly after, and declutters boxes of stuff each week and puts them in "for free" giveaway cupboards in the city where, let's be honest here, 80% of the stuff ends up getting trashed. Tldr: thrift whenever you can but it is no excuse to go berserk.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Is shopping for groceries fun?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Trade would be more fun

  • source
  • oh god my brain hurts

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago

    Didnt get it

  • source