‘Fetishism of the commodity’: Theorizing value and the value of Bourgeois, Marxist and post-Marxist theories

Keywords: Marx, Labor theory, Value, Debord, Climate Change
Abstract Type: Paper Abstract

Abstract

Marx argues that “fetishism of the commodity” (FOC), or the commodity’s “appearance” as exotic, seductive, tantalizing occludes the “reality” of labor’s exploitation, and hence, allows the continuance of class power. We compare Marx’s ideas with the classical/bourgeoise political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo demonstrating, that the latter mistakenly assumes “appearance” for the “real” and therefore, misunderstands society’s objective as the individual’s ability to command “exchangeable value” (commodities) and hence, achieve good life by avoiding the toils of labor(ing). Contrarily, we argue after Marx, that good life or the accumulation of exchange value is the extraction of surplus or exploitation of labor. We also compare FOC with post-Marxist theories of Debord (socio-symbolic alienation) and Baudrillard (domination over the system of signification/sign value) and argue, that while post-structuralist theories illuminate the symbolic dimensions of consumption, they however, in dissecting surplus value into material and symbolic, sever the process of symbolic alienation/domination from exploitation. Post-structuralism, therefore, provides inadequate explanations of the connection between sign value and the theft of surplus value in the context of socially necessary labor time, and sign value’s role in the production-reproduction of labor. The article uses two examples: a case study of smart city Los Angeles and a case study of wetland/climate change mitigation to demonstrate FOC’s contemporary relevance. Finally, we conclude that only in de-fetishizing the commodity, can we reveal the exploitative nature of capitalism and align with the oppressed.