Law of Value- 2. The Fetishism of Commodities (draft)

This is a draft of a script from my upcoming video series “Law of Value”.

There are a lot of people that are really powerful in the world: Presidents, CEO’s, bankers, leaders of movements… But there is an object, a thing, that is more powerful than any of them. This object is money.

Money is really powerful. It makes people, societies, and countries do all sorts of things. The pursuit of money, as and end in itself, occupies many people’s lives and is the driving force of economic growth. And all over society money acts as a symbol of status, prestige and social power.

The funny thing about money is that it is just an object. Nowadays its not even a valuable object like gold. It’s just pieces of paper, or digits on a computer screen. It has all of this power and influence yet it needs no will, weapons, or words.


This phenomenon where objects have social power, in which things act as if they have a will of their own, is what Marx sought to unravel with his notion of “the fetishism of commodities.” When Marx talked about fetishism he wasn’t talking about whips and chains and leather outfits. He was talking about the way the relations between producers in a capitalist society take the form of relations between things.

The word “fetishism” originally was used to describe the practices of religions that attributed magical powers to objects like idols, or charms. If the Israelites of the Old Testament won a battle with the Philistines they attributed it to the powers of the ark of the covenant that they carried around. If they lost it was because they had pissed off the ark. Of course in reality it was their own actions that caused them to win or lose. Attributing their own powers to an object is fetishism. For Marx, money and commodities are much like this. We think that they have mystical powers, yet their powers really come from us, from our own creative labor.

Let’s take a look inside a workplace. It could be any workplace- a capitalist factory, a peasant commune, a family farm, whatever. Here the relations between different workers are direct. I make a widget and I hand it to the next person. If something needs to change about the labor process a manager brings the workers together and says, “Now we will organize things differently.” Whether it is a democratic or hierarchical form of organization it is an organization that happens directly between people.

Now let’s look outside the workplace at the market. In the market things are different. The organization of work, the division of labor, doesn’t happen through direct social relations between people. In the market the products of labor, in the form of commodities, confront each other. These interactions between things act back upon production. They are what send signals to producers to change their labor, to produce more, produce less, go out of business, expand business, etc.

The material relations between people become social relations between things. A commodity is not just any old object at any place or time. A commodity is the product of a specific labor process at a specific time in history. In the market this commodity exchanges with any other commodity. It is worth the same as so many apples, this many pencils, this many pieces of gold…. These relations between commodities are what forms our immediate world of appearance. Behind these relations between commodities lie the social relations between producers.

Money is the god of commodities. Through money all other commodities express their value. The amount of social labor that goes into a pencil becomes 20 cents. The portion of the social labor that goes into making a grand piano becomes 10 grand. As the god of commodities money becomes the ultimate expression of social power. It can be anything, buy anything, do anything. Yet money is just a scrap of paper, a pile of shiny rocks, a digit in a computer… It only has this power because it is an expression of social relations.

But we don’t see these relations. When we buy a commodity we are just having an experience between ourselves and the commodity. We are atomized individuals wandering through a world of objects that we consume. We are blind to the social relations behind these interactions. Even if you consciously know that there is a network of social relations being coordinated through this world of commodities, we have no way of experiencing these relations directly because they are not direct relations. They are only indirect relations coordinated through the relations between things.

This process whereby the social relations between people take the form of relations between things Marx calls “reification”. Reification helps explain why it is that in a capitalist society things appear to take on the characteristics of people. Inanimate objects spring to life endowed with a “value” that seems to come from the object itself. We say a book is worth 20 dollars, a sweater worth 25 dollars. But this value doesn’t come from the sweater itself. You can’t cut open the sweater and find $25 inside. This $25 is an expression of the relation between this sweater and all of the other commodities in the market. And these commodities are just the material forms of a social labor process coordinated through market exchange. It is because people organize their labor through the market that value exists.

The illusion that value comes from the commodity itself and not from the social relations behind it is a “fetish”. A capitalist society is full of such illusions. Money appears to have god-like qualities, yet this is only so because it is an object which is used to express the value of all other commodities. Profit appears to spring out of exchange itself, yet Marx worked hard to explain how profit actually originates in production through the unequal relations between capital and labor in the workplace. Rent appears to grow out of the soil, yet Marx was adamant that rent actually comes from the appropriation of value created by labor. We see these fetishistic ideas in modern day mainstream economic theory in the idea that value comes from the subjective experience between a consumer and a commodity, and that capital creates value by itself.

Yet the theory of commodity fetishism isn’t just a theory of illusion. It’s not that the entire world is an illusion, reality existing somewhere far below the surface, always out of sight. The illusion is real. Commodities really do have value. Money really does have social power. Individual people really are powerless and material structures really do have social power. There is not a real world of production existing below the surface in which the relations between producers are direct. Relations between producers are only indirect, only coordinated through the mystifying world of commodities.

The theory of commodity fetishism is central to Marx’s theory of value and it’s one of the things that sharply distinguishes him from his predecessors. Adam Smith and David Ricardo both held that prices were explained by labor time. But Marx’s value theory is much more than a theory of price. It is a theory of the way the social relations between people take on material forms that then act back upon and shape these social relations. Labor takes the form of value embodied in commodities. Money price becomes the universal expression of this value. Means of production become capital. Money, commodities and capital, as representatives of social value, become independent forces in their own right.


About kapitalism101
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Law of Value- 2. The Fetishism of Commodities (draft)

  1. This was a great read. Thanks for sharing.

  2. Pingback: Law of Value- drafts for the upcoming video series « Kapitalism101

  3. camilo says:

    “We see these fetishistic ideas in modern day mainstream economic theory in the idea that value comes from the subjective experience between a consumer and a commodity”

    Mainstream economics do not merely posit that subjective experience ‘imprints’ value in commodities (that’s a straw man i think), but that the driving force in exchange is utility (and that utility is in itself subjective)
    I don’t think that the neoclassical idea is wrong; it is, as in supply & demand, just kinda superficial. People do engage in exchange for utility, and they do subjectively evaluate the purchase of goods for their personal needs, those are forces that do effectively work in a market (that means that you can’t assume them to be external forces). The neoclassical mistake is not its commodity fetishism but rather the that it places way too much importance on the distribution of scarce goods (once produced) , abstracting from the production process in itself.
    If that’s some kind of fetishism, it would be some individualistic- fetishism (or the idea that market are driven by atomistic individual forces abstracting them from the social relations of production), not the commodity one that Marx’s was talking about . Well, that’d be about it…
    Oh, BTW, I once heard a professor talk of a theorem (from an orthodox economist) that stated that the on the aggregate, the personal utility function has zero influence. I could look for the theorem’s name if it is of any use for your crusade against bourgeois pseudo-science haha

    Any way, nice work, keep it up

  4. Paul says:

    I hope you find some good stock footage for the part of the video about whips and chains and leather outfits. 🙂

    There are a lot of peripheral factors in the consumer-commodity experience: the store where the purchase occurs, the advertisement that lures you to the store, the packaging that holds the commodity and presents it to you, etc. Each of these is carefully crafted to suit the fetishization; if they speak, it is always in the voice of the often-protagonized commodity itself rather than the worker(s) that made it.

    This is an exciting project. I’m looking forward to the rest of it!

  5. LukasFIST666 says:

    I was wondering if you have had the chance to look at Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle? Without going into to much detail (timed library computer), there are two or three specific chapters that may be of interest to you; namely The Culmination of Separation and The Proletariat as Subject and Representation.

  6. James says:

    Marx’s famous quote on fetishism – ‘They don’t know it but they do it anyway’ isn’t specifically cognitive. It’s a comment on their actions rather than their thoughts. Zizek has written pretty extensively on this. The idea is that people know that when they buy a commodity they are aware that social relationships exist beyond the product but that they assume know one else does. They realise the truth in isolation so it has no bearing on their actions, so their actions as buying it regardless is where the truth is.

  7. ZeroNowhere says:

    I liked this one, it went over an important theme quite well. Incidentally, a great presentation of this theme, connected to Marx’s critique of Hegel, is in Colletti’s ‘Marxism and Hegel’, as well as his introduction to Marx’s early works, which is available on the internet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s