Talk:Commodity fetishism

message: Ok article, but why is Mary DOuglas' World of Goods in the bibliography?  It makes no mention of fetishism or even of Marx.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.114.127 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm not sure if the embellishment of this article has much improved it over the last half decade. 
* Positives: Lots of interesting stuff related to the basic concept, and encyclopaedic references to related theories and theorists. Mostly fine, if a bit chaotic and tenuous in places. 
* Negatives: in terms of rendering the core point accessible to the non-specialist (or juvenile) enquirer, that's a nope. Not much sign of a structured story through the topic. Reads like a shoebox full of random post-it notes, not an article. 
But where to begin? Some particular claims and phrases are obviously doted on by jealous eds, leading me to feeling a general sense of 'am I bovverred?'. But if I had to start back on this, somewhere, I'd urge all parties to consider whether above-the-fold summaries should rely on terms like reification. C'mon, folks, write for the audience, not your intellectual rivals. A 14 year old should be able to make it to the contents table without feeling an overwhelming urge to retreat to Bieber.  What should follow from there is a gradual introduction of the subtleties and controversies surrounding the concept, arranged according to some kind of plausible framework or context, to render the information into an intelligible narrative. Adhib (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The stringing together of long quotes is very poor style that turns off most readers. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhaustive but exhausting 

message: It's amazing how little to no attention my previous post (confusion over commodity fetishism) has received. I've been teaching Capital One for over 15 years and let me just say that as interesting and insightful this topic is, it has been massively misinterpreted and misunderstood by all sorts of scholars.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.182 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor analysis of commodity fetishism -- PLEASE READ CAPITAL 

message: Here are the four points he makes (in his own words!):
Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from this form itself. (1) The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; (2) the measure of the expenditure of labour power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour; and (3) finally the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products. (4)  The sum total of the labour of all these private individuals forms the aggregate labour of society. Since the producers do not come into social contact with each other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labour does not show itself except in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the individual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, between the producers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.5.140 (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not interpret primary sources on wikipedia as this would constitute original research.Fifelfoo (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked through several secondary sources to see if anyone notable (e.g. McLellan, or Kolakowsi) and I cannot find any that supports Jurrian's interpretation of "commodity fetishism."  NPOV tells us we must include multiple points of view, but NOR tells us that these views cannot be our own.  It cannot be our own interpretation of Marx.  If it is a notable understanding of "commodity fetishism" then we will be able to provide reliable sources that say so. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Do not ask me why Marx says anything.  This is NOT a debate between you and me over what Marx meant.  Wikipedia is not a place for you or I or anyone to debate what Marx meant.  (1) this is not a chatroom.  If you want to debate what Marx meant, don't do it here, go to a chatroom. (2) we do not allow original research.  If you have an interpretation of marx that you believe is important and correct, and wish to publish it, find a publisher and publish it.  Submit it to the New Left review, or write a book for Verso or Polity Press or whatever.  But do not use Wikipedia to publish your interpretation of Marx. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  REAL meaning commodity fetishism 

message: In the criticism section, a change was recently made by MHazard, altering the sentence, "thus, if the market did not exist, it would have been impossible for the masses to have access to cultural objects" to a version that read "Therefore, if the market for commodities did not exist, it would have been impossible for the mass of society to have access to the gppds and services of the culture industry."
I restored this to the previous version -- while I don't have the Cowan text in front of me, I think it pretty unlikely that a (not very theoretical) neoliberal economist would be drawing on Frankfurt School terminology; to use this terminology in representing his view would give a skewed picture, given the value judgments and other baggage associated with the term "culture industry." I don't see that there's any need to use this inflated term in this context -- unless I'm wrong, that is: does Cowan use the term? Sindinero (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture industry? 

message: Each new clause of the opening sentence has a new, ambiguous subject; first, "commodity fetishism is a transformation" which gets "derived;" then, "trading of commodities" is the way in which social relationships get objectified; and then those "relationships" are what is among money and commodities and buyers and sellers. Or perhaps it says something completely different; it's hard to tell. The subject is constantly moving, and reading the sentence is like trying to keep your eye on a fast-moving subterranian gopher.
If someone knows what this sentence is trying to say, I'd suggest breaking it up into two or three smaller sentences, and using nouns instead of tacked-on clauses (e.g. replace "whereby" with a noun).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjaywork (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then revert the passages that are inaccurate already. 2001:558:6045:1D:56E:DCCB:ED9D:24EA (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first sentence here is nigh unreadable 

message: "Hence, in a capitalist society, social relations between people—who makes what, who works for whom, the production-time for a commodity, et cetera—are perceived as economic relations among objects, that is, how valuable a given commodity is when compared to another commodity."
Perhaps someone could polish up the definition of social relations here. Is it similar to or different from the concept of the relations of production? Along with economic relations, it seems to be a pretty important concept and worth elaborating on and so an item significant enough to call for 'et cetera' is probably important enough to be named.  
Economic relations among objects still doesn't make sense even if we think of it in terms of commodity X's value vis a vis commodity Y's value. Value refers to what exactly?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear 

message: Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a section discussing why commodity fetishism does not exist in other modes of production (e.g., feudalism). I can't find any sources at hand but I think a historical comparative analysis would be a good way to shed light more light on this concept and furthermore explain why or how exactly it is peculiar to capitalist society. Just a thought.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CF and other modes of production 

message: I removed the comment and chart in the "Naturalisation of market behaviour" section. It seemed distracting and not relevant to or illustrative of the concept of Adam Smith et al, of the natural forces of the market, i.e., supply and demand etc., and was unreferenced. IamNotU (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of chart 

message: "In the book In Praise of Commercial Culture (2000), the libertarian economist Tyler Cowen said that, despite the cultural tendency to fetishes and fetishism, the human fetishization of commodities (goods and services) is an instance of anthropomorphism (ascribing personal characteristics to animals and objects), and not a philosophic feature particular to the economics of capitalism or to the collective psychology of a capitalist society."
I read this book and I don't see any relevant passages about commodity fetishization. He lists potential reasons why some Marxists are cultural pessimists and makes the case that free markets make an "art-producing-friendly" environment but that appears to be it. The google search of the book name and "commodity fetishism" only links to this wikipedia page, and another page that links to this wikipedia page.
Sentientfroot (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Cowen?