Talk:Commodity fetishism

Exhaustive but exhausting

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)

The stringing together of long quotes is very poor style that turns off most readers. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

poor analysis of commodity fetishism -- PLEASE READ CAPITAL

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)

So you guys want to wreck the article some more?

If you people posing as "authorities" want to wreck the article some more, go ahead. It's just that if you do, I am not going to waste time working on it again. Having studied and taught these things for 30 years, I would agree that this topic has been "massively misinterpreted and misunderstood". The first (but not the only) reason is that people simply do not read Marx's own text at all, and that is why, in my contributions, I referred to a few texts deliberately. The second reason is that they cannot actually understand Marx own text. I think though the reader is entitled to know where Marx got his idea of fetishism from originally, and how his specific use of the term evolved in the course of his studies. However, I would also agree that the concept of commodity fetishism can be understood ("read") in different ways, including ways which go far beyond Marx's own understanding. All you can do about that in the article, is to distinguish fairly between Marx's own idea and various subsequent interpretations. But if Marx is not even allowed to speak for himself, because "authorities" claim to know better than Marx himself what his idea was, and want to silence Marx himself, we simply don't get very far with that project at all. The discussion is not helped either, by fascistic scholars arrogantly and haughtily telling us to do our homework, when in fact there is no evidence for their own scholarship, none. What we need is constructive suggestions about how to improve the article, not Marxists masturbating their inflated ego's. As far as "authority" is concerned, a few days ago, the research director of the IISH here in Amsterdam (where many of Marx's original manuscripts are stored) took me out to dinner and, among other things, presented me with a copy of the first volume of Riazanov's Marx-Engels Archiv (the journal of the Marx-Engels Institute). It raised a smile, but anyhow I don't think he would have done that, if he thought I willfully tried to misrepresent the ideas of Marx and Engels! We might well argue that Riazanov committed scholarly errors as well, or that his work is in several respects outdated/superseded, but his dedication to Marx-Engels scholarship is wellknown. I am saddened by the narcissism, arrogance and flatulence displayed on this page. If you have a constructive suggestion to make about how to improve an article about this undoubtedly controversial topic, please do. But if you just want to have a status-wank, do it somewhere else, please! User:Jurriaan 12 September 2011 19:47 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.48.162 (talk)

REAL meaning commodity fetishism

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)

We do not interpret primary sources on wikipedia as this would constitute original research.Fifelfoo (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

What is there to interpret? Let Marx speak for himself. You have taken ONE single point from his section on commodity fetishism and paraded it as his sole definition and meaning of commodity fetishism. Why then does Marx spend so much time discussing use-values and exchange-values (i.e. socially necessary labour time imbued in the commodity)? No one on wikipedia seems to care or they think they're "interpreting" a primary source...how absurd this all sounds! Marx is very clear in his writing and the points he makes. You have totally left out or failed to mention 1) different use-values being exchanged, 2) different amounts of socially necessary labor time or abstract labour being equated....ugh what's the point, no serious Marxist scholar here so I think I am wasting my time.