Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclution about capitalism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Conclution about capitalism
Commodities simple put are goods that are available for exchange or sale, but what truly gives these commodities values are the social relations that revolve around it. In the consumerist society that we live in today, a society that circles around capitalistic economical relations, commodities end up being more than just a thing to exchange. While it retains its physical assets, which grants it its value in our market, theorists such as Karl Marx, speculate that there is more to commodities than that. Commodities in capitalism are endorsed with social values that are arranged from other spheres, such as racial thinking, gender norms, and social hierarchies just to mention a few. So in other words, what grants the commodity its value are these …show more content…
A term Marx used to describe “the ways in which commodities have a phantom objectivity” . It is in other words the manner of penning commodities with social qualities. In the marketplace, consumers and producers view one another by means of the goods and money that they exchange. Marx argues that what led to commodity fetishism was ultimately, capitalism . What happens then is that the social relations that are interlaced in the production of said commodities are made to disappear. In that way, the social relations that together links us to other people across space and time as well as the social relations involved in making commodities significant are replaced by how we come to see ourselves relative to commodities. We act then primarily as consumers of commodities. These commodities then become a form of fetishes, which are available for and become participants in projects of the self. An example of this is when we have markers on food, for instance: exotic food; this highlights difference and identity in consumption practices. Knowing about food marks, or buying certain marks makes the consumer current, fashionable and hip. This also applies for people that partake in alternative ways of consumption by choosing, for example, organic food and/or fair trade products. These marks, these meanings become then participants in the project of the self, linking individual’s bodies with global networks of power through
Since the worker’s product is owned by someone else, the worker regards this person, the capitalist, as alien and hostile. The worker feels alienated from and antagonistic toward the entire system of private property through which the capitalist appropriates both the objects of production for his own enrichment at the expense of the worker and the worker’s sense of identity and wholeness as a human being.
The ultimate result of a commodity chain is a relationship between the commodity and the consumer. Due to a lack of readily available information and a fetishism which ?attaches itself to the products of labour (Marx),? people are often unaware of the social, economic, geographic, and cultural processes which are involved in the production of a good. Each and every relationship which is formed, and every interaction which takes place within the commodity chain exemplifies these processes, and becomes a part of the commodity. An examination and understanding of the commodity chain can help us de-fetishise commodities and realize them for what they truly are?social and material crystallizations (Marx) of economic geography and capitalism.
Of all the strange beasts that have come slouching into the 20th century, none has been more misunderstood, more criticized, and more important than materialism. Who but fools, toadies, hacks, and occasional loopy libertarians have ever risen to its defense? Yet the fact remains that while materialism may be the most shallow of the 20th century's various -isms, it has been the one that has ultimately triumphed. The world of commodities appears so antithetical to the world of ideas that it seems almost heresy to point out the obvious: most of the world most of the time spends most of its energy producing and consuming more and more stuff. The really interesting question may be not why we are so materialistic, but why we are so unwilling to acknowledge
Webster's dictionary defines consumerism as "the economic theory that a progressively greater consumption of goods is beneficial." today we are surrounded by a culture of things and possessions:a materialistic world.consumption of materialistic goods has encroached upon every sphere of our lives and we don't even realise it.at first products had a value of necessity in our lives.but now they are sign of choice, social status and identification.the more we advance technologically and socialy the more we need products to keep up with the times.but do people really need all the things they buy?consumerism today is all about people feeling the need to buy more and more material goods to attain some sort of satisfaction.
Hobbes’ Materialism religion is portrayed as distinctly similar to Descartes’ in the sense that there is the staunch belief of a supreme being in existence. Descartes suggested that philosophy and material substance mattered as demonstrated by motion whereby an entity’s existence was only based on motion. Descartes had the belief that the earth was formed by a supreme entity, God, who assumed his place as the creator and watched the creation thriving and running dynamically and independently without any supernatural influence (Rogers 1988).
thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind.” A commodity according to Marx is important because of its value to people; and its usefulness can be viewed from two perspectives: quality and quantity. Here he introduced the term of use-value. He explained that the use-value relation of an object is the actual physical characteristics and the value is not affected by the amount of time spent on its production. The use-value of an object is considered to be the physical or material part of wealth. However, there is another part of the wealth that is abstract, meaning that is not tangible. Exchange-value is the second term introduced and it is referred to be the relationship between different objects and how one object
The term “commodity” is often considered to be synonymous with a “good,” any produced item, such as refined sugar or textiles (Spickard). Although this seems a decent, basic definition, a commodity actually refers to something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage. The key point here is that a good fails to be a commodity when it no longer has a commercial advantage. A pile of gold is only a commodity if someone agrees to buy it.
The thought-provoking song “Wings” is an excellent introduction to Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism. Commodity fetishism is the process of attributing phantom “magic-like” qualities to an object, whereby the human labour required to make that object is lost once the object is associated with a monetary value for exchange.
According to English Economists, commodity is “anything necessary, useful or pleasant in life”1 and the objective of bourgeois society is to maximize commodity accumulation thereby termed as Capitalists according to Marxist Philosophy. However, for any product to be termed as commodity, it must possess two intrinsic properties: use-value and exchange-value1.
According to the capitalist Marx, human beings are fundamentally greedy, egocentric beings who can only be compelled to act with the promise of profit. The belief is that free market capitalism is a natural by product of greed, a Darwinist idea of thirst for materialistic gain, and any economy that chooses to do about otherwise will fall into corruption. However over the years, various historians and challenged to believe that human nature is in fact social and that we depend on others for our own well being. We do not cling to each other in means of exploitation, but to fulfill everyone’s common
Consumption involves individuals purchasing goods to achieve a meaning or value to the consumer, not simply for the material benefit it offers. Instead, ‘commodities are not just objects of economic exchange, they are goods to think with, goods to speak with’ (Fiske, 1989) (Cited in Bocock, 1993). This suggests that individuals use goods as symbolic props, as a way of creating and moulding their own identities. It is suggested that the individual has the ability to create their own narrative and can rely upon the novelties of consumer goods. However, the individual is still bound by the market and the mass commodities of Capitalism. For example: sports individuals purchase equipment, clothing etc, to encourage the identity they wish to possess. As they see these goods as a connection to their lifestyle.
Researchers stated that there are five types of consumption. The first being Conspicuous Consumption: it is the consumption of products and services to satisfy physiological and security needs in large quantities more than the basic needs, to impress others. The first to touch upon and elaborate on this type of consumption is Thorstein Veblen. He said that consumption first appeared on the 2nd and 3rd generations of those who became rich after the industrial revolution. The second type on consumption is Symbolic Consumption. It is known as the phenomenon whereby people consume to reflect their sense of self-identity. An example to that is when people buy clothing items from premium brands not for their high quality, but for the purpose that these clothes reflect the person’s identity and self-image. This type of consumption is not about showing materialistic class but showing a certain identity of one’s self. Addict...
Rather than a particular price, value stands for the whole set of conditions which are necessary for a commodity to have any price at all. It is in this sense that Marx calls value a product of capitalism. The ideal price ("exchange value") of a commodity and the ways in which it is meant to he used ("use value") likewise exhibit in their different ways the distinctive relationships Marx uncovered between workers and their activities, products and other people in capitalist
Sociological concepts can be applied to many parts of one’s life. The concepts that surround both consuming and gender are both exceedingly relevant in our society today, with our consumption being an integral part of our life and gender becoming more freely explored as our society becomes more comfortable with the idea that there are more than two categories of gender. In this socioautobiography I will analyse how sociological concepts surrounding consumption and gender have shaped my life. I will focus on commodity fetishism, how I learnt gender roles through socialisation, and ‘doing’ gender as I was growing up. Using a sociological imagination, I will interpret my life through a historical and structural lens in relation to consumption
American has had in the last fifty years decades of unprecedented economic growth which has has all but solved the economic problems of how to secure the necessities of life and most people are living lives of luxury and comfort (Alexander 1). This has caused the consumer industry to skyrocket. Everywhere one looks there are advertisements being thrown at them. These items are not advertised as luxury items, but as something someone needs to survive. The consequences of consumerism is people are saving less money and feel they need to keep earning more money to keep up with the demands of society (Etzioni 1). Students today are being told to go to college because it will give them an opportunity to earn more money at a better job. Has anyone stopped to question if they really need to make more money or could they live a satisfying and happy life without having to work sixty or seventy hours a week? Alexander states in his paper The Voluntary Simplicity Movement “The huge increase in wealth has stopped contributing to people individual” and “social well-being and the process of getting richer is now causing the very problem that they seem to think getting richer will solve” (Alexander 1). It would seem many americans do not enjoy this quick paced lifestyle which keeps them always at the edge of truly having it all. According to a study done in 1989 “Three out of four Americans would like to see our country to reform to a simpler lifestyle with less emphasis on material success” (Etzioni 3). At the same time though from 1980-1990 consumer spending rose by 21.4 percent (Etzioni 4). If both these studies are true then Americans are running into this oxymoron where they are living the consumerism lifestyle but wishing their lives ...