> As I noted, he has shown that the
>pomos in question confuse and conflate the social construction of
>knowledge with the social construction of reality.
Yet the polarization between subjectivity/conceptuality/social constructionism and objectivity/materiality/naturalism is already broken down in the practice of commodity production and exchange. For example, Marx writes:
'The objectivity (wertgegenstaendlich) of the value of commodities thus resembeles Mistress Quickly , of whom Falstaff said: "A man knows not where to have her." This objectivity of the value of commodities contrasts with the gross sensate objectivity of these same commodities (the objectivity which is perceived by our bodily senses) in that not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of value. We may twist and turn a commodity this way and that--as a thing of value it still remains unappreciable by our bodily senses. Let us recall however that commodities only possess the objectivity of value in so far as they are expressions of one and the same social unit, namely human labor, since the objectivity of their value is purely social.'
So here at the very beginning of *Capital* Marx is revealing the commodity to be a 'supra sensate thing in a sensate manner, a natural body or use value which harbors within itself a *non material objectivity*: value.
best, rakesh