I feel conflicted, am I spooked?
Holla Forums doublethink thread
Robert Green
Christopher Clark
Yes, you're spooked.
Cameron Howard
I don't think you know what commodity fetishism is, first of all.
Secondly, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
Thirdly, you're using "spooks" wrong again.
Carson Gray
I'm fairly aware of what commodity fetishism is, you do know it has cultural impacts and it's not purely economic, right?
how far does the rabbit hole go?
Joseph Gomez
No. Marx wrote about that before the age of internet porn. It means fetish as in religion.
(…)
>Complete commodification would imply a totally laissez-faire state, no trade unions, no oligopoly, and competitive economic sectors throughout. Marx is well aware that no such complete commodification could ever exist, and yet by observing the increasing commodification in history and extending it to completion in theory, we can arrive at an accurate picture of capitalism’s inner workings without distortions caused by outside interventions of extra-economic forces.
(…)
>Mainstream economics assumes that actual economies are so close to being totally commodified that abstract theory can be applied directly to them. This economic reductionism is not only fostered by the basic assumptions of mainstream economic theory, but also by the very organization of academic disciplines that tends towards thinking the economic in isolation from other dimensions of social life.
(…)
Lacking a theory of commodification, mainstream economists are likely to fall for the mystifications generated by assuming that complete commodification is simply a natural fact, and it is at this point that commodity fetishism emerges. When this is assumed, social relations, being totally swallowed up by the commodity, magically disappear. In its simplest meaning ‘commodity fetishism’ refers to a social situation in which people relate socially to each other not directly, but through the mediation of things (money and commodities). A social market connection between commodities and money generates prices, and it is as if prices tell humans what to do in so far as they are economic beings. In other words, ultimately things with price tags order the economic behaviour of humans, even as humans would prefer to think of themselves in charge.
Robert Albritton, Commodification and commodity fetishism
Carson Richardson
We're all spooked by consumer society. It's incredibly naive and narcissistic to think one can live within the system and not be brainwashed by it. Those that don't notice it in their own thoughts and behavior don't have enough of an critical eye for ideology.
This is a general principle: those who think they're not spooked are even more spooked. Just like those who say there's no ideology anymore in liberal democracies.
Evan Ward
...
Henry Jenkins
aye, but through this the relationship between laborer and laborer becomes an isolated relationship between thing and person which, and commodity takes on the form of social power, personification. The personification of the commodity, and the value of its labor becomes its own inherent attributes and reflects a social power. From this, the commodity can reflect things such as social status, and taste, why is a diamond ring necessary for a marriage? Why is a middle aged man with a sports car necessarily compensating for something? Commodity fetishism becomes ingrained in our lives and people identify not with each other, but their own hollow possessions.
That being said, sports cars are aesthetic.
Jonathan Collins
Disliking the use of exploitation in creating products of labor but liking products of labor is not doublethink.
Some examples of lefty doublethink would be:
or
or even
Jayden Cox
just a reminder market socialism is still socialism
Matthew Nelson
Market Socialism has capital accumulation and wage labor in it, but is it not still socialist as the means of production are socialized for the workers? Yes, they're still held gunpoint by the laws of value, and still enslaved to socially necessary labor time, and automation, but they're still socialist.
Ayden Jenkins
Bene!
Blake Gonzalez
Thats not what commodity fetishism is.
Thats also not what spooks mean.
Asher Moore
...
Josiah Young
IMO mass transit/cars for the workers are more artistic, when you have an infinite budget anyone can blow their load all over the blueprints, it's more admirable to make something pleasing when you have to also produce as efficiently as possible, imo
Blake Allen
Scegliere solo uno, mio amico opportunista!
Brandon Green
How would one maximise use value without measuring it in some form.
Hudson Taylor
...
Brayden White
By planning distribution according to need instead of according to value corresponding to market exchange.
Which is neither theoretically or mathematically a pipe dream, as any solid materialist analysis previously has concluded.
Levi Torres
It's not a case of exploitation rather than a case of being forced to work under the laws of value, and the accumulation of capital. Subject-object inversion still occurs under market socialism, and so does socially necessary labor time; this will be the undoing of market socialism.
Jose Ross
Markets are just logistical tools, not an end themselves.
Wyatt Fisher
>horizontally run private firms 'coops can just do whatever and ignore the law of value and SNALT required to maintain a structure built upon capital accumulation
Jacob Carter
Capital doesn't depend upon the existence of single people called capitalists. Capital is a social force in society, through which people, groups, states and all sorts, step into the role of the embodied capitalist. And when you say that socialists aren't against business, it sounds like you're saying that workers need only take over their businesses, but that would still just leave them confronting each other as property owners. Capitalism would continue except that instead of capitalists running it, and clearly marked class boundaries, the workers themselves would be running it. It serves only to conjure up the image of market socialism, of a democratically ran capitalism, and so on.
This thread was a great idea.
Hunter Torres
still never seen anyone debunk this
Bentley Flores
Henry Moore
no one is forcing you to work under market socialism, you can achieve self-consumption by joining a co-op that practices just that and you will still keep your fruits of labour
which is the cornerstone of marxian economics?
your own capital, you are not exploting anyone
a social market can responds to needs better than a bureaucratic dictatorship could
co-ops don't ignore the law of value
emplying the labour time better than another co-op doesn't mean the value of each commodity is determined by supply and demand, you could increase production if the commune determines so without lowering your wages and wihout having to obey the subjective theory of value
wew
Isaac Long
Not an argument
Isaac Walker
Now I've seen it all.
The law of value is the cornerstone of the machinic workings of an economic system based on capital accumulation. This includes ethnical ca- market socialism.
Except yourself.
I'll take 'what's a council?' for 20, doc.
I also notice that really, really spicy use of capital-centric categories like 'needs' instead of 'necessity' or 'use'. The best Freudian slip in this thread.
Yep, they live by it.
I'll take 'what is SNALT?' this time for 20, doc.
Indeed, it doesn't. Have you read any Marx?
Haha, this is fucking fantastic. LibSuccs and FDCKs never fail to deliver.
Dylan Gomez
No, but you're forced to work under the demands of the market exchange process, and as such, production for exchange triumphs, and your ideology becomes corrupted by SNLT, and the automation process. The most successful coops will be those with the least amount of workers, and the most amount of automation. You just become porky in the end.
Noah Stewart
Literally all a market is, is when the distribution of wealth is handled through supply and demand.
Caleb Jones
It's like those Marxists in the 70s that believed post-fordism was going to bring liberation of workers. Or like those desperate leftists, some of them respected public intellectuals, that now say the same thing about "sharing economy". I understand it, it's forced optimism because the reality is pretty depressing and requires some serious reevaluation. Although co-ops are much better, they can just as easily be fitted into entrepreneurial ideology.
Jackson Gonzalez
except that is the subject theory of labour
en.wikipedia.org
no you aren't, you don't need to follow any "market force" in order to achieve self-consumption
nice meme
Hudson Jackson
also
not even trying to make good memes
Andrew Stewart
nice argument
Julian White
I hope I'm getting trolled. This is just too much.
I could very well deal with a calculated and pragmatic stance on their little ethical capitalism meme, and it's undoubtedly preferable to the less ethical variant, but calling it socialism is going to break the sides of literally anyone who's read a fucking book ever. It also reeks of opportunism and the idealizations of their concept (if they sincerely think it's socialism) and any such program not enacted under the conscious knowledge of a struggle for actual socialism to build out of their ethical capitalism is doomed to reify some of the worst shit I could ever imagine. You'll get something even more cancerous than parecon or the Zeitgeist 'movement'.
Jaxson Gray
In order to obtain this self-consumption the individual is going to have to enter the market as a seller of his labor before he is a buyer of others. And where is he going to do this, why through the coop production process. An individual who wants to obtain their self-consumption will seek to maximize their production according to the SNLT of the commodity at hand, and will engage in a market where others will do the same. Pray do tell, what are the masses of unemployed workers going to do when the majority of jobs are automated and there is an overstock of commodities with virtually no buyers?
Eli Smith
I should stop here.
If it wasn't obvious already, this post (and the accompanying Chinese cartoon jpeg) is the decisive signal for the fact that you're so entirely uneducated on anything pertaining to political economy and have probably 'learned' all you know through Wikipedia summaries and Youtube videos. Now take a breather, head to marxists.org and libcom.org and knock yourself out. You will be doing yourself a grand favor, trust me.
Daniel Barnes
Commodity fetishism is applying social power to to commodities.
It's a reference to shamanistic practices. Say, before a battle, a tribe's shaman brought out an effigy of the warrior god (a "fetish") and claimed that it carried the blessing of the divine and would lead them to victory. The tribe wins the battle and uphold the holy effigy as the reason for their victory. Of course, the object had nothing to do with it, the tribe won the battle, but they nonetheless attribute their own social power with an inanimate object.
This is commodity fetishism. At the end of the day a commodity is just an object, but the logic of capital attributes massive amounts of social power to them.
Leo Mitchell
you literally have no understanding what a market is
keep trying
If you are too retarded to understand how the LTV is related to the law of value you should be the one who redirects himself to marxist.org and so on
Xavier Martin
who is he selling his labour to if he is keeping all the products of his labour and working just for his own consumption?
Daniel Ortiz
Is it really commodity fetishism to admire a well-built object as what it is rather than what it represents?
Jeremiah Turner
also
sit back and enjoy communism?
market socialism is not driven by profit, its driven by the necessity of labour that existing within the current technological framework, it is not an end, but the means to one
no one is accumulating the profits generated by the workers but the workers themselves, which is again reinvested in better, more efficient machines, and at one point, full automation
Sebastian Reed
Please, o please stop. Now.
Ayden Ortiz
I mean, if the ruling class doesn't gas all of us first.
Jace Clark
ideally, there wouldn't be a ruling class in market socialism/mutualism
the ruling class needs private property to engage in force
Joshua Campbell
No, it's not.
Kevin Sanchez
There we go.
Andrew Morris
I mean sure, its kidn of idealistic, but its the only option left
Samuel Brooks
...
Logan Hall
There's no conflict here. Objects can be designed to be visually pleasing.
Daniel Garcia
Aestheticism isn't inherently fetishism.
You can appreciate art, even if its used to sell products.
Jace Lopez
bump
Hunter Stewart
Bump. I don't want this thread to die ever.
Ryder Barnes
bump
Justin Carter
bump
Henry Davis
...
Eli Jackson
Not OP, but thanks.
Thomas Taylor
bump