I don't know if I qualify as a 'Marxpert', but let me take up the challenge. Marx's commodity fetishism was indeed concerned with 'use values' though not in the way that Jim wants.
The point was that the use value of objects became the physical manifestation of social relations. Hence not just material relations between people, but social relations between things.
Where Jim feels Marx is wanting, in a critique of the functionality of consumption, Marx is not indifferent, rather he explains the underlying reason behind the kind of criticism of consumption that Jim is making.
Jim is right that Marx is mostly indifferent to personal consumption, except insofar as it is restricted. In a throwaway line in Ch1 Cap 1 he says that the specific qualities of commodities as use values is the subject of a different kind of study.
Marx is concerned, though, with the way that restricted personal development under conditions of exploitation distorts cultural life (and therefore consumption). He writes for example about the way that bread is despoiled, by mixing alum in with the flour in Victorian England.
More broadly he sees consumption needs as socially determined, not simply natural. 'Hunger is hunger,' he writes, 'but the hunger that is satisfied with teeth and claws is different from that that is satisfied with a knife and fork' (paraphrase from memory).
And, insofar as he considers capital in this respect he sees the tendency to engender new needs through advertising and other commercial activities, as mostly positive. This is part of the civilising tendency of capital, as opposed to its limiting aspect as exploitation. So Marx is pretty much at odds with the critique of consumerism.
In fact, may I suggest, his critique of commodity fetishism provides the key to understanding the anti-consumerist critique of the market.
To the anti-consumerists, the market is everything and production barely an issue. Capital's fetishistic form obscures the origin of surplus value in production, leaving only the surface appearance of exchange up for contestation. No brand? That is a brand.
More: the fixation of the anti-consumerists upon objects of consumption, such as SUVs and McDonalds hamburgers is precisely an expression of the commodity fetishism that Marx was talking about. Relations between persons take the fantastic form of relations between things.
The assaults upon working class consumption goods are simply displaced attacks upon the working class itself. John Carey's book on the Intellectuals and the Masses gives an excellent account of how turn of the century intellectuals poured their vitriol upon working class consumer goods, like tinned meat, as a coded way of despising the workers themselves.
Not consumption, but the campaign against consumer goods is the expression of Marx's theory of commodity fetishism.
In message <l03020900b5ffc4dbcc34@[128.114.140.99]>, Barbara Laurence
<cns at cats.ucsc.edu> writes
>The fetishism of the commodity (seen as a use value) Marx said little
>about. Michael P and other Marxperts will correct me if I'm wrong. In his
>theory of capital, capitalist accumulation, etc., Marx had what I think is
>a rather functionalist view of wage goods or consumer goods: Production not
>only produces the objects that satisfy needs but also the needs that the
>objects satisfy. (Yet he wrote brilliantly about the fetishism of money.
>But this never found its way into his theory of capital, to my knowledge.)
>The functionalist theory takes you some of the distance, but not the whole
>way. Car workers need a car to commute to work, go on vacations, etc.
>Chemical workers who are paid to pollute natural water sources have the
>need to buy bottled water. Etc.
>But why car workers bought those big finned (horizontal and vertical)
>vehicles of the 1950s requires another method, or way of thinking., Or take
>SUVS: a recent study showed that a definite personality type buys SUVS.
>
>This fetishism we've all experienced when we buy a brand new book we look
>forward to reading, and when we open the book at home (preferably in the
>winter, and a fireplace) there is an unaccountable thrill (the unconscious
>sense that since we've bought the book we've acquired all the wisdom,
>information, or whatever in the book, without reading a line).I've done
>this many times. I read the first page or two with incredible enthusiasm,
>then it dawns on me that knowing the book requires much work on my part. I
>didn't buy wisdom or whatever when I bought the book, made it mine, only
>the chance to work my ass off to acquire a little. People have told me the
>same thing about buying clothing. A thrill then quick disappointment
>because the suit or dress doesn't change one real aspect at all. Or a pair
>of Nike shoes, which are the best made shoes of that type (one reason they
>cost so much).
>
>On Nike, the swoosh puts me in the same league as all the great jocks who
>wear them on their uniforms. At first I really think I can run faster, turn
>quicker, accelerate more smoothly, with the swish attached to my clothing;
>of course I am soon disabused of this notion.
>
>Buying an expensive receiver and speakers (or using someone else's) at
>first, momentarily, gives me the feeling during the first two bars of a
>Mahler symphony that I have suddenly become a Mahler expert. When this
>disappears, I realize all I have is a tool, which with other tools (some
>music lessons, a good book on the subject, elementary knowledge of
>progressions, etc.) and with lots of work, can make me more knowledgeable
>about Mahler.
>
>I don't think any of this can be understood outside the context of the
>totality of the society, it's a social thing. One example is the UK
>economy, when faced with superior competition from the Germans and US in
>the late 19th century made a turn to quality and away from quantity. Bikes,
>shotguns, whiskey, aircraft engines (someone should write a piece of the
>Battle of Britain, bringing in the great superiority of Brit engines
>compared with the Nazi machines). Among other upscale goods, which
>conquered the upscale world markets for a time. Here the sense of a quality
>good, a superior Brit aristocracy (half the firms were being managed by
>landed wealth at the time, which is one reason the economy shifted to
>quality goods), the lift that the Brits must have gotten from outsmarting
>their competitors, plus some other things must all have entered into the
>bang one felt acquiring a British shotgun. When I was a child, you couldn't
>get a better bike than a Brit bike and the one kid in the neighborhood who
>had one was both proud and possessive of his machine. The first time I rode
>it, my little childish self-concept jumped to the top of the meter. Etc.
>
>3. While you need economics or political economy to understand commodity
>(and at a more complex level capital) fetishism defined as "market rule,"
>you need anthropology, sociology, psychology, and yes cultural studies to
>really understand the false kick you get when you first open that new book.
>The trick the book plays on you, "if you own me, you'll acquire the
>knowledge I have." I remember in the early 1950s, starting to read my new
>copy of Keynes' General Theory, I discovered that I could read the first
>page or two or three of a chapter in a state of bliss, then came the hard
>work. I solved this by reading one chapter at a time, day-to-day, so I
>could relive that first thrill, which of course declines rapidly from one
>day to another.
>
>"Buying stuff" as Charles wrote, "is not only a cure but a cause of
>alienation. Relationships with things are substituted for relationships
>with people." I agree generally but would put it a bit more dialectically.
>The "cure" according my argument above is the "cause," in the sense that
>buying a commodity, having a commodity, fools us into thinking we have
>acquired, personally, all the cultural value, technological value, etc. of
>the item. What a thrill to start to put together one of those
>do-it-yourself bench or bookcase kits, only to find yourself cursing, with
>bleeding thumbs, half an hour later.
>
>4. The swoosh is a sales expense, the way I see it, not a capital outlay or
>capital advance. The swoosh helps Nike realize value and surplus value,
>not produce them. It's sort of like unnecessary packaging, of the type you
>acquire when you buy a razor, or something else. The swoosh, like all
>sales expenses, attempts to minimize the number of customers who don't buy
>swoosh gear. It's a form of guard labor, if you think about it.
>
>Nike can produce shoes so cheaply, not only because of cheap labor on
>export platforms, that they have to do something to minimize the number of
>people who don't buy swoosh-marked clothing or shoes. I think there is
>also some "consumer rent" acquired by Nike with its swoosh and other
>propaganda. Monies spent by consumers who wish to acquire the logo. But I
>think there are a dozen or so other operating factors: sociability; being
>identified as the smart consumer or buyer; the alienated feeling that when
>you buy some Nike shoes, you'll run faster. What I don't understand is how
>Nike can keep getting away with the same thing. Perhaps because as new
>sports heroes arrive on the scene, they sign with Nike, which might give us
>the sense of being the big-time sports insider, e.g., did Michael Jordon
>really explain to Tiger how to handle being a top celebrity? The swoosh
>travels from sport to sport, from men to women and back again, in a way
>that you need a good cultural anthropologist to figure out.
>Jim O'Connor
>
>PS I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you especially our
>leader, Doug, for all the marvelous postings, an incredible help to anyone
>working on current events, global capital and all that. I don't read the
>Financial Times and other papers and mags like it, so I feel very grateful
>to have the access that you folks supply.
>
>I would post things myself, but I still work with a Smith Corona
>Coronamatic 2200 and Barbara Laruence, managing editor of CNS and secretary
>treasurer of our Center for Political Ecology, who is deeply involved in
>anti-pesticide work locally, chooses each day which items I should read.
>The theory being that if she thinks I should know or think about something,
>then I'll do it! She types out and sends out my postings to the list which
>explains why sometimes they are not as timely as they should be, because
>given her other responsibilities, my postings are not top priority.
>
>PPS While I'm at it, if anyone reading this want a free sample copy of an
>issue of Capitalism Nature Socialism, just let us know (off list) and we'll
>send one. Also, we're always looking for good stuff on economics and
>ecology, natural and human history, political economy of nature, philosophy
>of nature, red green politics, etc....that kind of thing. And always
>welcome submissions.
>
>
>
>
-- James Heartfield
Great Expectations: the creative industries in the New Economy is available from Design Agenda, 4.27 The Beaux Arts Building, 10-18 Manor Gardens, London, N7 6JT Price 7.50 GBP + 1GBP p&p