What exactly is commodity fetishism?

What exactly is commodity fetishism?

Attached: 68747470733a2f2f73332e616d617a6f6e6177732e636f6d2f776174747061642d6d656469612d736572766963652f53746f (320x221, 1.64M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SsFC3FuuRVw
youtube.com/watch?v=4Z5_uHOONNE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Are beautiful women's feet a commodity?

Are they still attached to the women?

Does that matter? Is a hooker's snatch not a commodity?

Shamanism with divining meaning and communication with "God" through transaction and monetary exchange

Attached: 1564005182041.png (600x487, 96K)

Hooker pussy guts are certainly a commodity as they are openly traded day after day and often delivered just as frequently.

Based schizo CCRU

So, how about feet?

You can't buy use of a girls feet.

Says whom?

It's been a while since i've read Marx, but if memory serves it's basically the way that capitalism transforms, or contextualizes, social/human relationships into the same mechanisms as the exchange of commodities. So, rather than a—to borrow a concept from Durkheim—mechanical solidarity between members of society, where people relate to each other on the basis of similarity in belief, culture, ect. (i don't think this is what Marx had in mind for how people should relate to each other, but it's good to draw a dichotomy) there is rather an organic solidarity where society and social relations are based on economic need, and as such value is placed on individuals-as-means of the exchange of commodities. Now, i could be completely wrong in this, and there are plenty of knowledgeable Marxists on this board that can give you a correct (or maybe just better, depending if my memory is right) explanation. Just consider this a Bump with a bit of effort put in.

Attached: 1547445162804.png (951x538, 502K)

Normie girls use their feet like ATMs. When they want money, out come their beat up tootsies in search of patronage. There's not only websites and apps to facilitate their search and discovery of foot fans, but lavish events where ladies can setup personal or group stalls where they languidly linger and lounge and pitch their primped and preened feet atop velveteen stools or piles of fruits or precious stones to entice the shuffling stream of bashful foot guys.

youtube.com/watch?v=SsFC3FuuRVw

Attached: 1k7jodnw14e21.png (1890x1080, 786K)

Attached: switched.jpg (3024x4032, 852K)

I wish I could listen to this brainlet for more than 5 minutes. The fact he rejects Deleuze is all I need to know

no u

Thats pretty kafkian

NEVER FORGET WHAT KANT TOOK FROM YOU

>The mysterious character of the commodity-form consists therefore simply in the fact that the commodity reflects the social characteristics of men’s own labour as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things. Hence it also reflects the social relation of the producers to the sum total of labour as a social relation between objects, a relation which exists apart from and outside the producers. Through this substitution, the products of labour become commodities, sensuous things which are at the same time supra-sensible or social. In the same way, the impression made by a thing on the optic nerve is perceived not as a subjective excitation of that nerve but as the objective form of a thing outside the eye. In the act of seeing, of course, light is really transmitted from one thing, the external object, to another thing, the eye. It is a physical relation between physical things. 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 [dinglich] 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. [...]

>Men do not therefore bring the products of their labour into relation with each other as values because they see these objects merely as the material integuments of homogeneous human labour. The reverse is true: by equating their different products to each other in exchange as values, they equate their different kinds of labour as human labour. They do this without being aware of it. Value, therefore, does not have its description branded on its forehead; it rather transforms every product of labour into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, men try to decipher the hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of their own social product: for the characteristic which objects of utility have of being values is as much men’s social product as is their language. The belated scientific discovery that the products of labour, in so far as they are values, are merely the material expressions of the human labour expended to produce them, marks an epoch in the history of mankind’s development, but by no means banishes the semblance of objectivity possessed by the social characteristics of labour.

the fact that you reject all of someone's ideas for their rejection of a single thinker is all i need to know about you, brainlet

Source?

Fetish
>an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency

Zizek's buffoonery is so patent that it unites in disdain absolutely everyone above a certain level of intelligence, in absolutely perfect undifferentiated unanimity. If anyone listens to this with even mild approbation, they do stand inescapably below this intellectual ceiling; not probably; not almost certainly but perforce and automatically.

When you claim that someone is empirically mistaken, even in a single instance let alone "often", you immediately adopt the onus of providing a verbatim quote, not a mangled beyond recognition paraphrase, of at bare minimum one empirical proposition posited by your opponent, followed by your specific evidence to the contrary. You automatically and exclusively commit yourself to this rational option and no other.

If what follows is anything else, anything at all, you instantaneously expurgate from your audience absolutely every genuinely intelligent person - every single one - who pays you the slightest attention for any reason apart from trivial amusement.

And yes, just for that.

No, it just means you are referring to some instance or idea that the audience is already suppose to be aware of, or simply that you do not wish to engage with it atm.
Logically, even if the reference is a strawman or unsupported, that has no genuine bearing on the content of argument that follows, only on its form.
Also, to invalidated someone’s whole body of work for one fallacy or mistake is rather illogical and extreme, even emotivist.

what do you think

Attached: tumblr_inline_moxcab_Czy_P1qz4rgp.jpg (535x413, 75K)

Five minutes of drival for one minute of definition at the end. Post something that expands on the definition given at the end.

*opens classified section of my local newspaper*

Why all the hate for zizek?

good post

When did they discover the optic nerve?

Because he said almost nothing of value for five minutes and then gave a few paragraphs of definition at the end.

>In the second century A. D., Galen had at least two different theories of the eye to choose from. He chose the extramission theory because it corresponded well with his image of sight as a function of an optical pneuma, flowing forth from the brain to the eyes through hollow optic nerves.

for a more literal interpretation, Marx uses “fetish” as in: the commodity has been imbued with an animism and spirituality akin to a totemic fetish

Why does Marx think objects can't possess value in-and-of-itself? Why would the human labour input be privileged over the use value of a thing-in-itself relating to the end consumer?

A gas theory very different to the electrifying frogs legs theory of nerve transmission.

So Marx is using fetish as term of abuse to deride the idea that object possess use value independent of their labor input, and to believe that means you're worshipping a magic idol like a stone age primitive brainlet.

>Why does Marx think objects can't possess value in-and-of-itself?
What would it even mean for an object to possess value in-and-of-itself?

>Why would the human labour input be privileged over the use value of a thing-in-itself relating to the end consumer?
It's not. These are two separate aspects
>It is only by being exchanged that the products of labour acquire a socially uniform objectivity as values, which is distinct from their sensuously varied objectivity as articles of utility. This division of the product of labour into a useful thing and a thing possessing value appears in practice only when exchange has already acquired a sufficient expression and importance to allow useful things to be produced for the purpose of being exchanged, so that their character as values has already to be taken into consideration during production. From this moment on, the labour of the individual producer acquires a twofold social character.

retard

The abstract value we give an object.

How is the "value" of the socially objectively equal "third thing" transformed into a Walrasian equilibrium?

>What would it even mean for an object to possess value in-and-of-itself?
Scale that back to value separate from its production (the implication being that a commodity has use-value by its nature and hence its use is contained within its essence.)

For example why would the labor input value matter to a treasure trove someone discovers and uses?

>These are two separate aspects
Why would labor input related to use-value? Why would it be on-par as a relation? Labor input is one efficient cause among many, the use is the teleological cause. The use-relation is the determining relation and is privileged over the labor input relation.

Sure sounds like he's drawing a bunch of superfluous distinctions in order to keep his exploitation mechanism tethered to labor.

Sure sounds like you can’t follow an argument

why is>retard
?

Why is the value abstract? Appears to be question begging by Marx.

no u

It's because he only has canned responses to the three or four primary criticisms of Marx's "concept" of value.

the shelf threads on Yea Forums

Explain how creating two categories for "social" and "sensuous" value is anything but superfluous to economic analysis.

speak english

>the implication being that a commodity has use-value by its nature and hence its use is contained within its essence.
I don't think this is entirely "in-and-of-itself" since a use requires a user, but that's beside the point.

>For example why would the labor input value matter to a treasure trove someone discovers and uses?
Who says it does?

>Why would labor input related to use-value? Why would it be on-par as a relation?
Because they're attributed to the same material thing.

>The use-relation is the determining relation and is privileged over the labor input relation.
Privileged in what respect?

>superfluous
for a retard maybe

because he says retarded shit that is denied literally in the first part of the first chapter of Capital:
>A thing can be a use-value without being a value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not mediated through labour. Air, virgin soil, natural meadows, unplanted forests, etc. fall into this category.

what the fuck did I miss Marx's resurrection? is he now writing one-liners on Yea Forums?

Use vs exchange value is covered by the marginal use value theory better. Exchange value is determined by supply, demand and scarcity in addition to use-value.

the price of $10 per hour is an expression of the social-economic value of your mother as a commodity, while the pleasure I get from creaming her pussy is the sensuous value

>Speak English
Here, I'll hold your hand. Marx claims that there is an objective equivalence between two exchanged commodities, and that because of this, they must be equal to the value of a third thing (labor). How do we go from this value of labor to a competitive market equilibrium?

>Why does Marx think objects can't possess value in-and-of-itself?

Because that's nonsensically retarded

what do you mean by "going from this value of labour to a competitive market equilibrium"?
labour has no value btw

How do you apprehend the "social value" of a squizz?

>Privileged in what respect?
Value. The use determines the value far more than labor input. The use-relation is therefore privileged over the labor inoht relation in relation to determining value.

>Because they're attributed to the same material thing.
But not as equals. The labor input relation has a far lesser determining cause on the value of a thing than it's use-relation.

Use is inherent to the nature of objects independent of relations. All objects are always present-at-hand.

I must be having a stroke because the questions make even less sense than usually

>Value. The use determines the value far more than labor input.
if you say so

>The labor input relation has a far lesser determining cause on the value of a thing than it's use-relation.
"far lesser?" did you measure it or something?

no, it's dependent on the relation of the user to the object

I mean the way in which exchange value is transformed into prices, according to Marx.
>Labor has no value
"Labor power" if you want to be as pedantic and arbitrary as Marx. No, your dialectical process does not matter.

It's ok, I know ESL makes posting here difficult. How do I identify the sensuous value of having an orgasm as sufficient to justify its social value? Is it perhaps because there isn't a meaningful economic distinction?

it doesn't have to be transformed into prices. it appears as prices from start to finish

>pedantic and arbitrary
it's the complete opposite of arbitrary. labour can't both be value and have value

what makes it difficult is not esl but the fact that your question makes no sense. why the fuck would you have to identify anything?

seething retard

Wow, you really are incapable of following another person's train of thought. Maybe read up on the transformation problem so that you don't embarass yourself like this again.

A hammer is only valuable because it can hit nails, not because it’s a hammer

I can hit nails, yet I am not valuable.

>my face when a Yea Forumstard googles "why marx was wrong", picks up a few buzzwords from a reddit thread, and then comes back to Yea Forums and drops them randomly thinking it achieves anything

Attached: 82km1.jpg (476x661, 81K)

Commodity fetishism is when a commodity's truth (it being the result of a specific form of social relation - the exploitation of labor and so on) is hidden by its exchange value. Simple as, no need for such a long bitch-ass thread

I've been alluding to it in all of my posts, bud. Maybe it's you who needs to retreat to 8ch.

>What exactly is commodity fetishism?

Attached: the american dream.jpg (1296x968, 197K)

Attached: supreme-brick-1.jpg (480x320, 16K)

watch this
youtube.com/watch?v=4Z5_uHOONNE

>muh objet petit a
get outta here with that lacanshit

What were the parents fucking thinking. Look at that man's fucking grin. WHAT IS GOING THROUGH HIS HEEEEEEAAAAAAAADD