Commodity Form Analysis and Contingency.

In the course of a conversation I had last night with someone working on an article on real abstraction and counter intuition I had a thought about how contingency might be factored into commodity form analysis. Without going into too much detail I think it can be said that the type of form analysis that proceeds from the commodity does so in terms of structure. For example in Lukacs it is the structure of the commodity form that is generalized into reification, for Sohn-Rethel it is the structure of the exchange abstraction that forms the basis for abstract thought. While I find some appeal in these theories it also seems that they are too standardized. One could follow Adorno and attempt to subvert this standard by brushing everything that does not correspond with such a structure into non-identity. But this still seems to discount the contingency, uncertainty and precarity that is endemic to exchange, social life and thought. Therefore it seems to me that one way to try to bring these elements into commodity form analysis would be to stress the fact that what is also a structural feature of exchange in capitalism is the fact that x number of items put on the market will not be exchanged. Just a thought with my morning cups of coffee.

Advertisements

About HR

Deep in the adjunct crackhole.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s