[lbo-talk] Re: light of my life, maybe not the fire of my loins

[Michael Dawson]

Why is the properly-used concept difficult?  It made perfect sense to me
when I first read the beginning of Das K as an undergraduate.  It is a
mistake to look only at products and prices, rather than the social
relationships that create them.  Capitalist exploitation precedes exchange.
Conventional economists, smitten and fooled by capitalism, miss this point,
which renders their work misleading.  Where's the difficulty?  What is
missing from this simple restatement?

How can you expect people to like and use and improve upon Marx if you treat
him like the Talmud?

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 7:42 AM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: light of my life, maybe not the fire of my loins

Michael Dawson wrote:
> 
> Commodity fetishism must be one of the top 3 most over-rated and misused
> Marxist concepts. 

Misused, yes; and all the recent uses of it on this list have no
relation whatever to what Marx meant by it. Buying something for snob
value or for display is _not_ commodity fetishism. Following fashion is
_not_ commodity fetishism.

But, it is not over-rated. It is absolutely core to the whole of Marx's
thought. It has to do with the structure and dynamic of capitalism, and
it has nothing to do with individual psychology. It is also the most
difficult concept in all of Marx. People should swear off using the
phrase until they have read and reread Rubin on Marx.

Carrol

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk