Abstract
I present a preliminary exegesis of the concept of fetishism, based on the famous quotation from Chapter 1 of the first volume of Capital: “There (with commodities) it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic from of a relation between things”. I discuss what other writers have made of this, before analysing each component of the statement in turn: ‘a relation’; ‘a social relation between men’; ‘relation between things’; and ‘assumes the fantastic form of …’. This raises a number of issues: most notably Marx’s emphasis on the social as opposed to the material, or natural; and his rather equivocal phrasing: ‘assumes the fantastic form’. This appears to leave open the question of whether the capitalist system somehow ‘produces’ this form, and whether it is ‘real’ or a self-serving and deliberate mystification.
There (with commodities) it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and with the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.
(Marx 1954: 77)
This is a revised version of a chapter in McNeill, D (1988) Fetishism and the Form of Value. Unpublished thesis, University of London.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I limit myself here to economists writing in—or translated into—English.
- 2.
The title of this essay, in the volume History and Class Consciousness, was “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat”. Lukács quotes the famous passage on commodity fetishism from Chapter 1 of Capital, but prefaces it with the words “Marx describes the basic phenomenon of reification as follows: …” (Lukács 1968: 86).
- 3.
Lukács is a rather controversial figure. His History and Class Consciousness is described by Stedman Jones as “the first major irruption of the romantic anti-scientific tradition of bourgeois thought into Marxist theory” but also as “brilliant and persuasive” (Stedman Jones 1971: 34). Lukács’ lack of concern for economics is common to all Western Marxism, according to Merquior who portrays it as “a set of philosophical writings seldom engaging in sociological, let alone economic, issues” (Merquior 1986: 44).
- 4.
Howard and King (1975) are something of an exception to this rule. Junankar (1982) discusses the issue, but does not integrate it into Marx’s economic theory. Brewer goes so far as to introduce his discussion of commodity fetishism with the words “Marx next turns to a quite different question” (Brewer 1984: 26). Desai does not, in his major work, appear to regard fetishism as central (Desai 1979), but he perhaps modified this view somewhat (Desai 1986).
- 5.
As indicated above, the present discussion is limited to works written in, or translated into, the English language. Rubin, discussed below, makes reference to a number of Russian and German writings on fetishism which are not covered in this brief summary.
- 6.
Althusser, of course, was also responsible for initiating the somewhat arid debate about the “young” and the “mature” Marx. It is evident—as I shall seek to show—that the concept of alienation remained of great importance in Capital, and indeed informs Marx’s understanding of the theory of value. In this summary of works by other writers, mention should also be made of a short, but often-quoted article by Geras (1971) “Essence and Appearance: Aspects of Fetishism in Marx’s Capital”, which, inter alia, contains a good critique of Althusser.
- 7.
Cohen, who proposes the term “socio-neutral” categories, suggests a possible criterion according to which the social and the material might be distinguished: “A description is social if and only if it entails an ascription to persons—specified or unspecified—of rights or powers vis-à-vis other men” (Cohen 1978: 94). “Rights or powers” seem a rather narrow interpretation of the range of potential social relations between persons. This he perhaps also feels, for he goes on to suggest that we may envisage a complete “socio-neutral” description of a society in which “ownership patterns, distribution of rights and duties, social roles, will go unremarked” (Cohen 1978: 94).
Sayer, in discussing the same issue, proposes the term “transhistorical categories” (Sayer 1983), that is categories which are not dependent on a specific social context, at a given time in history, but may be applied in all modes of production. Thus, he argues, labour is a transhistorical category, but wage-labour is not, and, of course, a use-value is a transhistorical category, but exchange-value is not. This choice of terminology also has its merits, but draws attention more immediately to the ahistorical rather than the asocial nature of “bourgeois” categories.
- 8.
Thus it might be helpful to establish a distinction between what may be called “interpersonal relations” (i.e. relations between persons by virtue of their individual characteristics) and “social relations” (relations between persons by virtue of their social standing; a standing which in capitalist society is, according to Marx, determined by their ownership or otherwise of the means of production).
- 9.
According to Elster, the nature of the relation between things differs from the nature of the relation between men. The former is one of comparison and the latter of interaction. That A has more money than B is an example of a relation of comparison; that A exploits B is an example of a relation of interaction. He therefore concludes that:
The fetishism thesis can in fact be stated as follows: relations of interaction between men appear as relations of comparison between objects. Even more sharply: they appear as external relations, since the properties by which the objects are compared do not appear to have a relational component (i.e. to embody a reference to the relations between men), but to inhere in the objects as natural qualities. (Elster 1985: 96)
Elster is right to address the issue of apparent inherence; and the distinction between relations of comparison and relations of interaction might potentially be enlightening. But he concludes by proposing an even more “general and parsimonious” way of presenting the thesis of fetishism, that “In commodity-producing societies there is a tendency to overlook the implicitly relational character of certain monadic predicates” (Elster 1985: 96). This is surely going too far in pursuit of parsimony.
- 10.
See Engels’ review of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:
The logical method of approach was (therefore) the only suitable one. This, however, is nothing but the historical method, only stripped of the historical form and diverting chance occurrences. (Marx 1970b)
Bibliography
Allingham, M. (1983). Value. London: Macmillan.
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: Verso.
Arthur, C. (1986). Dialectics of Labour: Marx and his Relation to Hegel. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brewer, A. (1984). A Guide to Marx’s Capital. Cambridge: University Press.
Cohen, G. (1978). Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence. Oxford: Clarendon.
Colletti, L. (1975). Marxism and the Dialectic. New Left Review, No. 93.
Debreu, G. (1959). Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium. Newhaven: Yale University Press.
Desai, M. (1979). Marxian Economics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Desai, M. (1986). Men and Things. Economica, Vol. 53, No. 209.
Dobb, M. (1972). Political Economy and Capitalism: Some Essays in Economic Tradition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Elster, J. (1980). Cohen on Marx’s Theory of History. Political Studies, Vol. 28.
Elster, J. (1985). Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge: University Press.
Fine, B. (1975). Marx’s Capital. London: Macmillan.
Fromm, E. (1961). Marx’s Concept of Man. New York: Ungor.
Geertz, C. (1975). The Interpretation ofCultures. New York. Basic Books.
Geras, N. (1971). Essence and Appearance: Aspects of Fetishism in Marx’s Capital. New Left Review, No. 65.
Hook, S. (1936). From Hegel to Marx: Studies in the Intellectual Development of Karl Marx. London: Reynal & Hitchcock.
Howard, M., & King, J. E. (1975). The Political Economy of Karl Marx. Harlow: Longman.
Junankar, P. N. (1982). Marx’s Economics. Oxford: Philip Allan.
Korsch, K. (1971). Three Essays on Marxism.
Lowe, A. (1938). Mr Dobb and Marx’s Theory of Value. Modern Quarterly, Vol. III.
Lukács, G. (1968). History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. London: Merlin.
Marx, K. (1954). Capital (Vol. I). Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1959). Capital (Vol. III). Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1970a). A Draft Introduction to Grundrisse. Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1970b). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1971). Theories of Surplus Value, Part III. Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1968). Selected Works. Moscow: Progress.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1983). Letters on “Capital”. London: New Park.
McLellan, D. (1980). The Thought of Karl Marx: An Introduction. London: Macmillan.
Meek, R. L. (1973). Studies in the Labour Theory of Value. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Mepham, J. (1979). From the Grundrisse to Capital: the Making of Marx’s Method. In J. Mepham & D.-H. Ruben (Eds.), Issues in Marxist Philosophy, Volume Three: Epistemology, Science, Ideology. Brighton: Harvester.
Merquior, J. C. (1986). Western Marxism. London: Paladin.
Mészaros, I. (1970). Marx’s Theory of Alienation. London.
Ollmann, B. (1976). Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pilling, G. (1980). Marx’s ‘Capital’: Philosophy and Political Economy. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Rosdolsky, R. (1980). The Making of Marx’s ‘Capital’. London: Pluto.
Sayer, D. (1983). Marx’s Method: Ideology, Science and Critique in ‘Capital’. Brighton: Harvester.
Stedman Jones, G. (1971). The Marxism of the Early Lukacs: An Evaluation. New Left Review, 70, 27–66.
Sweezy, P. (1968). The Theory of Capitalist Development: Principles of Marxian Political Economy. New York: Modern Reader Paperbacks.
Walras, L. (1954). Elements of Pure Economics. London.
Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McNeill, D. (2021). Fetishism: A Preliminary Exegesis. In: Fetishism and the Theory of Value. Palgrave Studies in the History of Economic Thought. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56123-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56123-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56122-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56123-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)