In the paper, A Tale of Goddesses, Money, and Other Terribly Wonderful Things: Spirit Possession, Commodity Fetishism, and the Narrative of Capitalism in Rajasthan, India, author and anthropologist Jeffrey G. Snodgrass finds that the application of Marxist theory to real life events is not always simple. The problem for Snodgrass lies in the narrowness of the Karl Marx’s definition of commodity fetishism. In an attempt to still use the definition, Snodgrass makes an argument for the expansion of the definition that enables the term to be used to explain actual accounts of fetishiation as seen in a real community in India. I argue that Snodgrass’ use of the commodity fetish takes Marx’s definition of the term out of solely deification of an object into one that includes demonization as well as deification of words and stories thereby showing that fetishizization can encompass much more than Marx foresaw. However in his broadening of the definition, Snodgrass moves too much away from Marx’s original idea and so wrongly uses the term to describe instances that would not fall under the commodity fetishism.
In Karl Marx’s writings, he focuses some of his work on the subject of the material and how material objects can come to rule over a person. Material objects, as seen by Marx, come to hold too much emphasis and power in a capitalist economy. Capitalism calls for obtaining the most money while spending as little as possible to achieve this goal. This mass production often leads to a power being given to money which leaves the laborer that produces the object in a powerless position. Snodgrass communicates Marx’s views in his paper pointing out “that persons inhabiting or entering a capitalist economy may come to perceive the fruit...
... middle of paper ...
...viewed as cases of selfishness for ones own views over another person and not what Marx had in mind because he thought of commodity fetishism as the lifting of an object over the importance of another person.
Although Jeffrey Snodgrass does use ethnographic evidence to ground his argument into the real world, he fails to adequately argue that the expansion of Karl Marx’s commodity fetishism is warranted. Ultimately, the author is working with a different type of fetishism that pertains to placing a group of people over the interests of another. In Marx’s definition, an object is placed above a person instead of a person or group which is why the fetishizing is so abhorrent. The core of commodity fetishism lies in a person being pushed aside for a mere object that should not have more importance than a human life and so Snodgrass’ expansion is not an acceptable one.
However, the advancements that he listed as enriching the human experience are merely a product of progression, which can occur in any economic system, not just capitalism. Goldberg then went on to discuss capitalism’s creation of “intangible capital” and the value it brings (Goldberg, 12). However, the capitalist elite control the means of distributing this “intangible capital”, and often access to “natural capital” as well. The inequity of this system is what results in the powerlessness of those in poverty, who find themselves unable to challenge those in power. Marx perhaps best envisioned this in his concept of a class struggle between the proletariat (working class) and bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production), and proposed socialism as an alternative economic
Marx states that the bourgeoisie not only took advantage of the proletariat through a horrible ratio of wages to labor, but also through other atrocities; he claims that it was common pract...
Marx’s explanation of capitalism is a widely recognised theory in a political, economic and social sense. His analysis of capitalism aims to explain how individuals allocate themselves and their resources to satisfy their basic human needs. He believes that the production of goods can be characterised by two main features: forces of production and relations of production. The forces of production refer to the ways in which people provide for their needs, this includes: land, labour and capital and the relations of production, which refers to the social relationships that dominate the production capacities of a society.
In Karl Marx’s Capital he analyses the intricacies of capitalism and its effects on the social relations between people and products. Marx’s chapters “Commodity of Fetishism” and “Working Days” in particular parse through and deconstruct the complex model of a commodity and its crucial role in capitalism. In order to do this, Marx introduces the notion of a use-value as the base foundation of a commodity. Marx then further relates this idea to exchange-value of a commodity. The exchange-value is incredibly important, as it is the driving force behind capitalism. In the first chapter Marx examines how commodities, once in the marketplace seemingly adopt innate value wherein the consumer does not equate the objects value with the human labour expended, but rather that the item
...er analysis to reflections on economic desperation or injustices in the distribution of income or wealth. She also argues that some markets form and change societies and its citizens, and that because of that effect on our identities and personhood, some goods should not be for sale. Satz is able to convey her opinion in a concise manner as she uses the example of contract pregnancy and demonstrates how inequalities prevail in the market transactions. Satz shows how commodifying reproductive labor in society can reinforces gender inequality of status and promotes prejudices about the role of women in society. However, it is important to note that Satz argues that our negative reactions to noxious markets are not a result of any essential feature of such markets but rather, we react because of the social circumstances in which they operate, for example prostitution.
(Marx 1) this job was real estate I was working in a very competitive office in Crown-Heights and every here and there they had meetings with the very wealthy building owners on what they should do to make thing better and by the looks of it they all became nastier the the next the look of peoples faces when they would do anything for money even though they have so much of it is remarkable. Another alienation I noticed was alienation of product Karl Marx mentions in his passage Alienated labor “That the product of labor does not belong to the worker” (Marx 6). I remember when I would do showings that I would make the unto look so amazing that I made it sound like it doesn’t even need a broker, it so happens to be that one time someone actually said “if this unit is so amazing why is there a brokers fee you could have sent me the keys and ill show it to myself” I don’t know what was worse the feeling of someone calling me useless or my boss and my trainee witnessing that, from that moment I learned something and that it that never make the cure for something make a treatment so you’re not used for a one time service you always make
In proving this old proverb, Karl Marx explained some key features of capitalism that remain relevant today. Towards the end of the first chapter of Das Kapital, after having established the validity of the labour theory of value, Marx presents a section on the Fetishism of Commodities.
In his Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx created a radical theory revolving not around the man made institution of government itself, but around the ever present guiding vice of man that is materialism and the economic classes that stemmed from it. By unfolding the relat...
Communism, socialism, and capitalism are the three basic forms of economical systems, each evident in the world. Although Karl Marx is portrayed as the father of communism, Marx is able to provide a substantial amount of information about the capitalistic world. In his work, “Capital (1867)”, Marx discusses the nature of commodities, wages, and the relationship between a worker and the capitalist economic system. As a result, Marx portrays workers as human beings who have been exploited in order to maximize production and profit in a capitalistic society. Although Karl Marx wrote “Capital (1867)” over a century ago, Marx’s arguments concerning the various uses of human labor, commodities, and values, have remained relevant in the United States
When Karl Marx first penned his shaping works on communism, he assumed that the relationship between workers and capital would always be opposing. While most rejected his overall theories, they did not argue with the basic idea that the interests of workers would always be at odds with those of owners. This is one of Marx's only theories that has proven to be true. As a consequence, over the years, that thought has guided the marketplace in terms of deciding wages, working conditions and other worker centered benefits.
Karl Marx’s critique of political economy provides a scientific understanding of the history of capitalism. Through Marx’s critique, the history of society is revealed. Capitalism is not just an economic system in Marx’s analysis. It’s a “specific social form of labor” that is strongly related to society. Marx’s critique of capitalism provides us a deep understanding of the system to predict its pattern and protect ourselves from its negative sides.
Marx’s theory stems from the social conditions existing during his lifetime. This was when the industrial revolution was hitting its stride. Great technological advances were being made to the modes of production, especially in the areas of agriculture and textiles. This was the main factor that drove peasants from the countryside to find work in the cities. In addition, capitalism had emerged as the dominant form of economics. Marx contended that class is based upon the economic conditions of society. He identified class through the history of the changing modes of production. In a capital...
Karl Marx focused on Capitalism and the rise of social conflict as the basis of modernity. Marx felt that capitalism through industrialization had increased the productive capability of the economy. Nevertheless, he also felt that capitalism produced two opposing classes of people. The first class, who owned and controlled the means of production and hired laborers, were known as the Bourgeoisie. The second class, who were com...
Karl Marx emphasized a lot on the importance of socialism in society. In his theory, socialism was the only way to end the huge in socio-economic classes. He condemned the emergence of capitalism and the growth of industries that made disunited employers and employees as captured in his theory of labour. In his view, under capitalist production, a great number of people, more often than not, are confiscated from their rewards after so much hard work, and have utterly no control over the environment in which they work under. Jobs no longer reflect human imagination, but rather an insignificant method of generating more profits to enrich modest elite. Marx 's fixation on class reflects even today 's post-modern, socially dynamic world. Marx ideas
The capitalist is motivated by being rewarded wealth. Capital can only multiply by giving itself in return of labor power. This exchange is based on specified percentages. For example, after a long 12 hours of weaving the worker is only compensated two shillings. They attain residual wealth by taking advantage of workers. These workers are being compensated less than the value of their work. The workers endure great deals of exploitation. Workers put their labor power into effect to acquire means of survival which makes existence possible. The amount of commodities is based on the cost of life and the workers’ work ethic. Marx foreseen that class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat would result in the collapsing of capitalism. The motivations of the capitalist and the workers create conflict because the capitalist attempt to uphold capitalism by advocating their principles, beliefs, and fabricated perceptions that prevent proletariats from rebelling. Once the two classes conflict with one another the cla...