I am a commodity, first of all, and a commodity fetishist to boot. I was junked as a laboring commodity when I grew too old. But I am still consuming (thank you, SSA). I belong to the "L" Tribe of men's clothing -- LL Bean, Lands End, and Lee. I eat Quaker Oats (rather than artesian rolled oats produced in a mill powered by falling water or tired mules) and Green Giant rather than the local farmers market (the growing season just isn't long enough here).

I get my hair cut at Great Clips, I buy my shoes from Aesics, I prefer up-market Calvin Klein underwear (always bought at deep discount from Marshalls) to down-market Fruit of the Loom, discounted or not. I shop at Target (certainly not Walmart, God forbid!!!) Amazon or Macys, (except to go slumming at Penney's). K-mart is beneath me. I've never set foot in a Dollar General store and sorry, I don't like Aldi either. I yack on an Apple iPhone, and read on an Apple iPad. Music is still delivered on the go from an aging Apple iPod. I surf and write on an Apple iComp. I ride Lyft when a bus or bike won't do.

I am a disgrace.

There are 7,000,000,000+ people in the world (too damned many) and 320,000,000 people in the United States (also too damned many). I don't see how the bare needs of even the 5 million people living in my state, or the 627,180 people living in Vermont--Go Bernie) could meet their minimal needs through pre-commodified interpersonal production and consumption. I don't know anyone who can make a pair of shoes out of the skin of a dead cow, or out of a dead tree. I don't know anyone who spins wool or linen and weaves it into cloth for leggings and a tunic (the minimum clothing). I do know people who raise apples, carrots and kale (first grown as cattle feed--disgusting stuff), and who can make butter and cheese with the help of a live cow. They could furnish me with some food once in a while, but soon I would have starved to death.

London once had water sellers -- people selling slightly less murky liquid that than what the people could get out of a bad well or the Thames. That was a nice person to person business. I prefer the commodity relationship of centralized water treatment facilities. A little more chlorine, please?

Ale? There is a passage in The Tunning of Elynour Rummyng (1550) describing the wench's ale, which was brewed in a barrel over which her chickens roosted. It's a long raucous poem written by English poet John Skelton and presents disgusting images of rural drinking and drunkenness. I was shocked! Shocked! See, they didn't have a commodity relationship to their alehouse. I prefer sanitary, bottled and branded ale that I can count on to not have chicken shit as a flavoring agent.

Our commodity status and relationships are so essential to our lives (and have been for, oh, maybe 150 years) that we no longer see them, and have forgotten (or never knew) anything about the downside of artesian production -- like starvation in the spring, freezing in the winter, dying from bad water in the summer, or having to gather acorns, walnuts, apples, chestnuts, mushrooms, bits of cereal, berries, and what not at harvest time and somehow keeping the stuff from spoiling or being eaten by vermin. Life for us lumpen proles was tough before commodity relationships came to the rescue. (Not too tough, or we wouldn't be here today; most of us did not descend from well-fed, richly clothed, palace-housed royals.)

The person-to-person non-commodified pre-fetishized economy has been fading away for quite a while in different parts of the world. It hasn't disappeared, but to reinstate it as a more humane, less alienating market relationship would be extraordinarily difficult.

I’m asking because I believe the state of society has changed today and the ‘novelty’ of mass production is not exactly something that has lasting appeal (as fashions shift). Reputation is the selling factor for mass produced goods - Apple is an example of this (although it has waned by most people’s standards). Really I was trying to highlight how what is ‘new’, ‘original’ and ‘novel’ plays into this ‘fetishism’ as well as the distance between the manufacturers and consumers.

I think we’re really consumed by ‘rarity’ and the conflicting drives to feel/appear ‘uniquely individual’ whilst also craving to be ‘part of the crowd’. I don’t see there being any other major force behind what drive economics that doesn’t fall into one of these two broad categories. The question is then how best to satisfy both in a stable economic system. On an interpersonal basis I would like to put forward the idea of artistic/aesthetic qualities being a force to drive a healthier social interaction between what is made, who is making it and the buyer.

In no way shape or form can I see a way to nullify human temperament, and nor would I want to. The Global Village is very much here now, but we’re still adjusting from less obvious ties - I mean this in the sense that the world has opened up for all ‘classes’ by ready access to immediate communication.

I think it was Chomsky who said the Soviets created propaganda and then the Americans perfected it in the form of ‘advertising’. Resources are more widely available than ever before and I see the economic problem as being misaligned with ‘material’ ideological views of economics rather than seeing economics as ‘resource management’ - as a means of spread opportunity. Every human is a ‘resource’ to the each other. The current problem, as far as I can see, is that we have access to resources yet don’t know how to use these resources effectively or efficiently.

I’m certain a better economic solution lies in creating an effective means of showing people what they could do rather than what material items they could have. I cannot see how this doesn’t begin with changes to ‘education’ and a larger focus on ‘pedagogy’ as a means to serve each human as a human, as opposed to ‘humanity’ (a one size fits all mentality) because as similar as we all are the minuscule differences are what give us a sense of direction and value rather than shuffling along in line.

Many people may be pessimistic about this. I cannot help but have an optimistic outlook as no matter how hard I try to envelope my thinking is staunch pessimism my reasoning just doesn’t agree with some future dark view of the world and I see ‘art’ sprouting in humanity - simplistically put the means of ‘propaganda’ and its refinement in ‘advertising’ has created a richer and richer field of play for artistic endeavors. The Fetishism will, and is, evolving. The ‘poor’ will not ‘eat the rich’, they’ll just come to realise what ‘poverty’ really means outside of the scope of monetary wealth - a person living on a few dollars a day understands the meaning, use and value of money far more than I do.

Marx noticed something I think. That is those repressed by ‘powers above’ are happier because they know their direction better than any other and rely on each other for survival. As an example look at what people say who’ve escaped North Korea when asked if people are ‘happier’ in South Korea. The answers seem counter intuitive at first, but with a little thought ‘happiness’ takes on a whole new meaning when you listen.

Every human is a ‘resource’ to the each other. — I like sushi

Economically, there is no other way of stating the (potential) utility of a human being with (respect?) to another.

But, we all know that's this just isn't true, and I hope we can agree! that it just ain't so.

The current problem, as far as I can see, is that we have access to resources yet don’t know how to use these resources effectively or efficiently. — I like sushi

This is actually a really well thought out post, and sorry I can't address it all. The issue that Marx saw it as, was that through perceiving other people as resources, the blatant exploitation of the bourgeoisie would become justified in the mind of the proles. An extreme form of alienation...

And... this is what happens to this very day. People like Ayn Rand took this to something extreme as to produce such fictional entities that are industrialists that bear the weight of the world on their shoulders, whereas anyone with an IQ higher than 100, would know it's the workers that do the work.

I think we’re really consumed by ‘rarity’ and the conflicting drives to feel/appear ‘uniquely individual’ whilst also craving to be ‘part of the crowd’. I don’t see there being any other major force behind what drive economics that doesn’t fall into one of these two broad categories. The question is then how best to satisfy both in a stable economic system. On an interpersonal basis I would like to put forward the idea of artistic/aesthetic qualities being a force to drive a healthier social interaction between what is made, who is making it and the buyer. — I like sushi

Well, yes, what is of value isn't the amount produced, but the worth of a product to one's way of life. And, Marx couldn't have fathomed what Keynes came up with in terms of what you highlight. At the end of Keynes' General Theory, he talks about preferences and tastes dictating the market at some point in time.

Ask any economist, we're at the end of Keynes' proposed economic development at least in most affluent countries. Well, maybe not the very end; but, we're getting there with a saturation of productivity increases.

You know, meditating over the last few posts, I think the thread should be renamed as worker's disenfranchisement.

This is only because, as an American, I view myself as a commodity for other people or corporations. Think like the service-information based economy we are experiencing.

The demands of the economy have shifted, in a reflexive manner towards this info/service-based economy.

And, not many people have realized it, or rather it is left unsaid that my preferences are becoming commodified.

You’ll have to explain that confusing statement.

What I mean, is that people aren't inherently worth anything unless self-taught or venture capitalists, etc.

Usually, there's nobody around (not even your parents) to tell you to study XYZ, to become rich. We tend to arrive at these sorts of existential conclusions on our own if we aren't child prodigies.

You have an extremely narrow view of what is and isn’t a ‘resource’ then.

You have an extremely narrow view of what is and isn’t a ‘resource’ then. — I like sushi

Elaborate, I feel we're talking about the same thing, just in different terms.

What I mean, is that people aren't inherently worth anything unless self-taught or venture capitalists, etc. — Wallows

I completely disagree with this. You’ll have to explain better what you mean by ‘worth’.

‘worth’ — I like sushi

At the very least can we agree that it's human capital if we are to go down this intrinsic route?

Reputation is the selling factor for mass produced goods - Apple is an example of this (although it has waned by most people’s standards). Really I was trying to highlight how what is ‘new’, ‘original’ and ‘novel’ plays into this ‘fetishism’ as well as the distance between the manufacturers and consumers.

I think we’re really consumed by ‘rarity’ and the conflicting drives to feel/appear ‘uniquely individual’ whilst also craving to be ‘part of the crowd’. I don’t see there being any other major force behind what drive economics that doesn’t fall into one of these two broad categories. — I like sushi

What you’re really talking about here is ‘Branding’, branding of a product. Branding works by targeting an audience susceptible to, or engaged with, a product or its personality. Obviously a product doesn’t have a personality, so one is created.

On an interpersonal basis I would like to put forward the idea of artistic/aesthetic qualities being a force to drive a healthier social interaction between what is made, who is making it and the buyer. — I like sushi

These qualities you mention are already being used. ‘Artistic/aesthetic qualities are entirely subjective. Each target audience responds to its own set of ‘artistic/aesthetic qualities”.

[quote="Wallows;353132"
]This is only because, as an American, I view myself as a commodity for other people or corporations. Think like the service-information based economy we are experiencing.

The demands of the economy have shifted, in a reflexive manner towards this info/service-based economy.

And, not many people have realized it, or rather it is left unsaid that my preferences are becoming commodified.[/quote]

Yes, absolutely everything has been commodified. Culture has been commodified. Even your position on climate change has been commodified.

On an interpersonal basis I would like to put forward the idea of artistic/aesthetic qualities being a force to drive a healthier social interaction between what is made, who is making it and the buyer. — I like sushi

I think you might already see that with the organic/health market. But I don’t see it being any different in the long run than any other commodified market; branding and marketing reaching out to those who have an emotional investment in their perception of a product.

But I don't get paid for being a commodity. What's up with that?

A commodity gets passed around, consumed. It has a value determined by its perceived worth.

The Kardasians are a commodity.

What is "Commodity Fetishism"?

If I understand the concept correctly wouldn’t custom made products decrease, to some degree, Commodity Fetishism?[/quote]

I think a Rolls Royce car would mean, no, custom made products won’t decrease product fetishism.

What is "Commodity Fetishism"? — unforeseen

I’m guessing I like sushi means an obsession with cheap, meaningless, over priced, massed produce products that contribute nothing to society.

By the way, how do I copy a profile name?

Thanks, but apparently that's not it.

According to wikipedia:
"In Karl Marx's critique of political economy, commodity fetishism is the perception of the social relationships involved in production not as relationships among people, but as economic relationships among the money and commodities exchanged in market trade. As such, commodity fetishism transforms the subjective, abstract aspects of economic value into objective, real things that people believe have intrinsic value."

Another website:
"Commodity fetishism is the collective belief that it is natural and inevitable to measure the value of useful things with money."

And I tend to agree. It is a convenient way for economic analysis and so on. Although it probably isn't much useful in real life. One cannot compare a luxuxy car to a certain quantity of vital commodities like food and medicine in real life. But it is helpful in economic analysis.

But I think the OP also made the same mistake, and as did I in guessing what it meant at first, the concept of commodity feitishism.

"decrease, to some degree, Commodity Fetishism?"

It is a perception or a concept, one cannot increase or decrease it. It is au seful tool for economists.
Perhaps the term you're looking for is "mass production"?

I think a simple example would be wearing a T-shirt of Nike, and going around promoting their product with no real monetary compensation.

As such, commodity fetishism transforms the subjective, abstract aspects of economic value into objective, real things that people believe have intrinsic value." — unforeseen

Thanks for that. Commodity Fetishism is a perception. Perception is the transformative agent. Branding is about perceptions. Who creates the perceptions and what are those perceptions based on? There needs to be an audience for this. Where does the desire for products that are so removed from what I like sushi was referring to, come from?

Edit: you can’t sell refrigerators to Eskimos.

If I had to guess, those desires mostly come from advertisements and other tactics businesses employ for profitability. Whether that is a good thing is another question. Surely there are some basic stuff everybody needs, but those aren't usually the expensive ones. I for one could surely do without half the useless stuff I have. If I could exchange that for something actually important in life, like happiness or love or aesthetic appreciation or something cool like that, I definitely would.

I wasn’t using ‘worth’ in that way. Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to inherent human ‘worth’, like the emotional value of sitting down in the company of another without speaking - the emotional weight.

If someone wants company all humans have ‘worth’ in that respect. Social interaction is a ‘resource’ that we cannot put monetary value on though - at least not in a manner that seems either accurate or fair. We’re quite happy to say we value our friends (see them as a source of emotional value) without putting an actual price tag on them.

Sorry for the confusion.

But at the same time, one must remember all the good that this sytem has actually achieved. Quality of life is better than ever before in all quarters of the world. All the major factors have to be taken into consideration while judging these types of things and prescribing a better alternative. I mean, had either capitalism or socialism actually worked really well, the problem would be easy. But clearly it didn't. Maybe for now Keynes is just the best we've got for this particular era.

If I had to guess, those desires mostly come from advertisements and other tactics businesses employ for profitability. — unforeseen

So why is it so easy to convince people that a pair of jeans with the knees torn out are more valuable than those without the knee torn out?

What I’m trying to say is that there is something transactional in human nature that contributes to the Commodity Fetishism. Otherwise why do it?

I meant this in a way to suggest that more concern with the aesthetics would create a more interpersonal relationship between producer and consumer. I am certainly not holding to this idea as absolutely true, but I believe it is worth talking about the effect of an expanding marketplace where ‘novelty’ and ‘rarity’ become the norm - as strange as that sounds.

Yes,I understand that. My feeling is that there is something about human nature that wants this fetishism and contributes towards it.