The Re-rewrite of my Lukacs re-write is in full swing. I am once again reminded of terminological slippage Lukacs commits that wouldn’t fly in these analytic days.
This slippage consists in: (a) Lukacs’s interchangable use of the terms commodity form, fetishism and reification when discussing the phenomenon of reification. (b) his usage of Marx’s discussion of different types of fetishism to define various reified phenomena. (while Marx defines these different types of fetishism as part of his presentation in Capital, I see no homology with the way Lukacs uses them in his mapping of reification.) (c) his perverse omission of the one time Marx uses the term reification (verdinglichung) in his quotation of a passage from the Trinity Formula.
Now I’m not trying to say Lukacs would have any interest being a purveyor of what he might describe as that reified sheeeit. Nor am I an analytic philosopher But I must admit I find this ponderous. I also find it somewhat infuriating because of the influence Lukacs has had on interpretations of fetishism, reification etc.