Marx contends that once an object that is the product of labour is fashioned into a commodity, it gains a certain enigmatic quality, and that this quality arises from its very form as a commodity and what that means socially; that it has value (p 47). Since all commodities are products of labour, they all have value. According to Marx, objectively, all products are equally valued in relation to the fact that every kind of human labour is equally valued. The quantity of value placed on a commodity is then shown in how much labour-power went into it as well as the duration of time the labour-power was expended over (p 47). Essentially, Marx is stating that the time and effort a labourer puts into an object is what determines its value, and since all commodities are made through time and effort, all commodities objectively carry value. Additionally, the relationship between the producers of commodities is forced to take up a social aspect when considering the value in those commodities; this creates a social relation between the products themselves in terms of how they are regarded in society by producers and consumers. In highlighting this social relationship, Marx adds another humanizing aspect to the processes surrounding the production and consumption of commodities, and once there exists a social relationship between products and producers, it becomes hard to disregard humans and their labour as an essential yet sometimes morally inconvenient part of making a product.<\/p>\n
The \u201cmysterious\u201d character of a commodity arises from the fact that all commodities that are a product of human labour are exchanged and traded according to the needs of society in a way that places value on them that can only be actualized through this process of exchange and society\u2019s need for certain products at certain times. In this way, the importance or value of the product of labour is seen by the producer in how the product is sold and exchanged among people in society. According to Marx, this is precisely why products of labour become commodities; the social weight placed on them and people\u2019s needs for products turn them into objects of value that are usually thought of without regard to the human labour that went into them, and this quality is, as Marx puts it \u201cat the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the sense.\u201d (p 47). Marx explains this relationship by using how we perceive light as an example. When we see light, we see it as something that exists in the real world objectively independent of the eye itself, while the processes that truly allow us to see light happen during the excitation of the optic nerve. In any case, however, regardless of how we see the light, it is still being perceived by our eyes as it exists in the real world and computed in the brain. With commodities, the only difference is that the value they carry has nothing to do with the physical form of the commodity itself and everything to do with why people think the commodity has value. This placement of value on a physical thing intended for consumer consumption that would otherwise have no value is what Marx calls the fetishism of commodities.<\/p>\n
Marx, K. (2010). Capital and the Fetishism of Commodities. In C.L. Editor (Eds.),\u00a0Social Marx contends that once an object that is the product of labour is fashioned into a commodity, it gains a certain enigmatic quality, and that this quality arises from its very form as a commodity and what that means socially; that it has value (p 47). Since all commodities are products of labour, they all … Continue reading A Commodity’s Value and the Social Relationship between Products of Labour<\/span>
\ntheory: The multicultural and classic readings<\/em>\u00a0(pp. 47). Philadelphia, PA: Westview.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"