A succinct distinction between fetish-character and fetishism.

The following passage gives a very succinct distinction between the fetish characteristic properties things have as bearers of value in the social ontology of capital and the fetishistic analysis of political economists, who trans-historicise these conditions:

“The stupidity of this procedure, whereby a definite social relation of production, which is expressed in things, is taken as the material and natural quality of these things, strikes us forcibly when we open the nearest textbook of political economy, and read on the very first page that the elements of the production process, reduced to their most general form, are land, capital and labour.” MECW 34, p. 406.

About HR

Deep in the adjunct crackhole.
This entry was posted in fetish character of money, Marx 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s