Fetishism is underestimated

[Philosophos]

So I wanted to ask you what you think about the fetishism that is a common thing for people living under capitalism. From my personal experience I believe we don't try hard enough to fight it while it's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) obstacle for socialism to occur (or at least bring capitalism down call it however).

Workers that don't have class consciousness, nationalists that believe their nation is supreme while all others must be under them and many other examples are a result of this capitalistic propaganda that created the fetish of 'following orders is good'/ 'having authoritarian relations with each other is only natural' etc.

Do you believe that us, communists, and communists' parties and organisations give little emphasis on the subject? Do you believe we are supposed to set it as our primary target?

[Blake's Baby]

I think it's important to fight against bourgeois ideology - 'the nation', blaming immigrants for the state of the country, blaming Germany for the state of country (or in the rest of the EU, blaming Greece for the state of the country) - but it's hardly surprising that some forms of fetishisation exist (football, youth subcultures, even trends in buying electronics), as they're a substitute for genuine solidarity and a sense of worth. We're told other people are our enemies, so we feel isolated and alienated from our fellow-humans, but then we seek validation and belonging in false communities and through getting 'things' to make us happy.

In the end we learn how to be human by associating with other people. It's taking part in the revolution, and the collective building of socialist society, that will cure us of this sociopathy.

[Thirsty Crow]

I think it's important to fight against bourgeois ideology - 'the nation', blaming immigrants for the state of the country, blaming Germany for the state of country (or in the rest of the EU, blaming Greece for the state of the country) - but it's hardly surprising that some forms of fetishisation exist (football, youth subcultures, even trends in buying electronics), as they're a substitute for genuine solidarity and a sense of worth. We're told other people are our enemies, so we feel isolated and alienated from our fellow-humans, but then we seek validation and belonging in false communities and through getting 'things' to make us happy.

Not only are we told by the hegemonic apparatus that we're out to get each other - we are in a way. Competition is acid to human connections and especially in the case of young workers who compete for few jobs that are being opened.

What I'm trying to say that genuine community and solidarity are not squashed only by the ideological apparatus - they are also subject to the workings of the dominant social relations of production. It's not only a matter of thoughts, but of practices.

EDIT: to clarify, I mean competition in its social and economic sense in capitalism. I don't think that kids playing football in two "competing" teams is anything like it, and that other kinds of competition, like sports, will probably exist in the classless world of the future.

[Philosophos]

I think it's important to fight against bourgeois ideology - 'the nation', blaming immigrants for the state of the country, blaming Germany for the state of country (or in the rest of the EU, blaming Greece for the state of the country) - but it's hardly surprising that some forms of fetishisation exist (football, youth subcultures, even trends in buying electronics), as they're a substitute for genuine solidarity and a sense of worth. We're told other people are our enemies, so we feel isolated and alienated from our fellow-humans, but then we seek validation and belonging in false communities and through getting 'things' to make us happy.

In the end we learn how to be human by associating with other people. It's taking part in the revolution, and the collective building of socialist society, that will cure us of this sociopathy.

I agree with you, but how can we make a revolution when most of the people around us have these particular views? I mean whenever I talk to people from a city they have more open views and there seem to be some hope, but whenever I speak to people from villages (as myself) I see a complete chaos in their ideology and at the same time no hope at all for a revolution. They are completely passive on everything you tell them. They want a Messiah to save them and the rest of the bullshit. If a revolution is about to take place we will have tons of counter-revolutionary people. What I'm trying to understand is which way is the best to change their mind (or at least try?). Do you see my point?


Not only are we told by the hegemonic apparatus that we're out to get each other - we are in a way. Competition is acid to human connections and especially in the case of young workers who compete for few jobs that are being opened.

What I'm trying to say that genuine community and solidarity are not squashed only by the ideological apparatus - they are also subject to the workings of the dominant social relations of production. It's not only a matter of thoughts, but of practices.

What are your views about taking action and changing the practices that make the community as it is now?

[Red_Banner]

I agree with you, but how can we make a revolution when most of the people around us have these particular views? I mean whenever I talk to people from a city they have more open views and there seem to be some hope, but whenever I speak to people from villages (as myself) I see a complete chaos in their ideology and at the same time no hope at all for a revolution. They are completely passive on everything you tell them. They want a Messiah to save them and the rest of the bullshit. If a revolution is about to take place we will have tons of counter-revolutionary people. What I'm trying to understand is which way is the best to change their mind (or at least try?). Do you see my point?



What are your views about taking action and changing the practices that make the community as it is now?\


The thing that annoys me here in the USA is that left wing parties don't have organization outside the big cities.

Yeah I understand there is cost involved setting up offices all over, but there aren't even ones in smaller cities, nevermind towns, townships, and villages.

[Philosophos]

\


The thing that annoys me here in the USA is that left wing parties don't have organization outside the big cities.

Yeah I understand there is cost involved setting up offices all over, but there aren't even ones in smaller cities, nevermind towns, townships, and villages.

I tried to create a SYRIZA's youth, a KKE's youth even anarchist youth and all my 'left' friends denied without a second thought. I told them again and again that we are just going to be anonymous, having some conversations about anti-capitalist actions (always peacefull because they seemed really afraid of GD members and 'what the rest of the people will say') or communist views and many other political things. I don't know what the fuck they think about organisations but I believe they think that we are going to be a guerilla front or something like that :laugh: .

Even if this shit existed, even if it was just for talking, things would get much better in less time than fucking eternity. But as I said they are afraid and they are passive people, so nothing I can do about it.

A very interesting fact is that when I told them about the left organisation the first thing they asked me about was not about the cause/goal of the organisation but who was going to lead it. 'FETISH ALERT'.
The best part was the confused look they had when I told them that nobody was going to be a leader :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Thirsty Crow]

I
What are your views about taking action and changing the practices that make the community as it is now?
Changing those practices which are fundamental to capital means social revolution.
Guess if I'm in favor of that :lol:

But yeah I think actions aiming at establishing solidarity and fostering the fighting spirit of the working class are indispensable. But I don't think that existing revolutionary organizations can engineer class struggle.

Basically, those who are pro-revolution fight and think as "double beings":

1) as workers at a particular workplace - this cannot be stressed enough, the importance of communication, solidarity, community and incessant striving for workers' initiative

2) as revolutionaries within political organizations or study groups that try and do a propaganda outreach - in demos, through contacts with other workers at "hot" workplaces and shop stewards, as producers of synthetic views on the whole of the world

EDIT: sorry I just realized that I didn't actually go into your question. Now when it comes to forms of the illusory community such as nationalism, it is obvious that pro-revolutionaries engage these as part of 2) the most, through written word and criticism, which should in all cases take care of a) the audience intended - many radicals de facto write only for other radicals (cast out the demon of heavy jargon comrades) and b) exact ways of engaging workers in existing struggles and campaigns on these points.

As individual workers, of course, we might as well engage in informal discussions with fellow workers at the workplace or later at the pub.

[Blake's Baby]

...

What I'm trying to say that genuine community and solidarity are not squashed only by the ideological apparatus - they are also subject to the workings of the dominant social relations of production. It's not only a matter of thoughts, but of practices...

Don't we have a long-standing argument about how we understand what we do ('capitalism is at its root just an idea' and all that)?

I agree it's a matter of practice. I don't differentiate much between the two. Hence emphasising that changing our practice (participating in activities with other people, up to and including the construction of socialist society) changes how we think about other people and ourselves (and the relationships between ourselves and others).

[Thirsty Crow]

Don't we have a long-standing argument about how we understand what we do ('capitalism is at its root just an idea' and all that)?

I agree it's a matter of practice. I don't differentiate much between the two. Hence emphasising that changing our practice (participating in activities with other people, up to and including the construction of socialist society) changes how we think about other people and ourselves (and the relationships between ourselves and others).
I just wanted to state that there are two sides to the problem.

1) the ideological apparatus diffusing notions and ideas about social reality primarily through mass media

2) and the specific practices as parts of the dominant social relations

They're not separate phenomena in life, but can be analytically separated for the purpose of a sharper isolation of specific aspects.

EDIT: I mean, they are separate phenomena but not isolated and without connection. Think about going to a job interview and chatting with other potential workers' there and buying a newspaper and reading an article on the need for national unity in overcoming the crisis. Quite separate experiences I'd say.

[Red_Banner]

I tried to create a SYRIZA's youth, a KKE's youth even anarchist youth and all my 'left' friends denied without a second thought. I told them again and again that we are just going to be anonymous, having some conversations about anti-capitalist actions (always peacefull because they seemed really afraid of GD members and 'what the rest of the people will say') or communist views and many other political things. I don't know what the fuck they think about organisations but I believe they think that we are going to be a guerilla front or something like that :laugh: .

Even if this shit existed, even if it was just for talking, things would get much better in less time than fucking eternity. But as I said they are afraid and they are passive people, so nothing I can do about it.

A very interesting fact is that when I told them about the left organisation the first thing they asked me about was not about the cause/goal of the organisation but who was going to lead it. 'FETISH ALERT'.
The best part was the confused look they had when I told them that nobody was going to be a leader :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I know people who are into conspiracy stuff, they will talk about it alot amongst themselves, but they won't do anything about it.

Me atleast I am more outspoken to those who don't know or share my views.

[revolutionarymir]

This is indeed a vastly underrated problem. Until we can shake the mass delusion that we're all temporarily displaced millionaires who will one day reclaim our riches, we'll never make much progress. In the United States we see a sad state of affairs indeed; workers hating other workers, people talking shit about others for (God forbid wanting to eat!) being on food stamps, in many cases in conjunction with full time work, etc. So little class consciousness.

[Blake's Baby]

While I think that in the US this is a particularly accute phenomenon (you're right about the 'temporarily embarrased millionaire' syndrome - can't remember who said it first but it seems pretty accurate) it's a problem elsewhere too. Xenophobia, and the demonising of the poor happen everywhere, and are obviously a method of 'divide and rule'.

But in the US the working class seems particularly mesmerised by the idea that 'anyone can succeed if they just work hard'. If people actually believe that (that the US is 'the land of opportunity') then by implication anyone who has not succeeded hasn't worked hard enough. US workers seem to be among the least class-conscious in the world, at least taken as a vast mass. Obviously there are class-conscious workers in the US but they seem to be tiny groups in a sea of people who buy into the dominant narrative.

I suspect it's a combination of the 'Frontier' mythology (beloved of 'anarcho-capitalists') - where men wrested food out of the ground and proudly starved their children rather than accept help from their neighbour (which is total shit of course) - and the lack of an obvious class system - there's no aristocracy, just a plutocracy, so it's easier to claim that 'everyone's the same' (therefore, 'success' and 'failure' are individual not structural problems - if you're poor, it's your own fault).

[Loony Le Fist]

So I wanted to ask you what you think about the fetishism that is a common thing for people living under capitalism...

Do you believe that us, communists, and communists' parties and organisations give little emphasis on the subject? Do you believe we are supposed to set it as our primary target?

I agree that fetishism is an ugly outgrowth of what happens in a capitalist economy. I'm not so sure that it's the actual obstacle. The obstacle is the institutions that inspire this consumerist lust. Fetishism is a symptom of the existence of these institutions. However, tearing down the structures that manipulate the masses through this lust is quite a lofty goal. But I don't see how we can fight this fetishism while these structures continue to exist and promote it. The institutions themselves must be dismantled.

Perhaps it is possible to dismantle them from the ground up. Either way, it would take resources, hard work, and persistence to get individuals in a society to lay plain how it makes them slaves. It's possible, just difficult.

Human beings have been molded do what they are told. It is an evolutionary artifact from an earlier time. If a child in a paleolithic society were told not to play in a certain area due to danger (predators, etc), failure to comply would most likely result in death. Children that listen were more likely to survive. So authoritarian compliance is a result of natural selection.

But survival instincts must change to adapt to circumstances. Moths use the Moon for navigation and therefore end up flying into the flame of a candle. Likewise, unquestioning compliance has drawbacks in organized societies with a plutocratic class that seeks to exploit our work and our instinct of deference to authority.

Humanity must rise to challenge these structures and dismantle or at least render them mute. But, while possible, there are many bumps along the way. It is difficult to overcome our own genes.

[MarxSchmarx]

It is important to be careful of our terminology when discussing the question of "fetishism". On some level, fetishism can be defined as an irrational attraction to certain material products (especially Apple products), but I think this definition can be needlelssly constricting at best, and at worst leads us to misunderstand the potential scope of the phenomenon.

Marx, in rather typical Teutonic obscurantism, introduces the concept in capital thus:


... the commodity-form, and the value-relation of the products of labour within which it appears, have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the commodity and the material relations arising out of this. It is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things... I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism

Perhaps the interpretation I am most sympathetic to is that within the context of any given economic system, products take a "life of their own" by virtue of being placed within the social context.

In the strict sense, I do not think there is anything especially capitalistic about this. For instance, it is likely that fetishism in a very real sense will persist in a post-capitalist order. A simple example might be our faddish preference for, say, cloth of a certain color, and our relative valuation (however value gets measured when the means of production are democratically controlled) of such cloth that is independent of the production process. Whilst obviously I don't think there will be tulip crazes come the abolition of capitalism, nor do I think preferences would remain static or even aperiodic.

What I think makes these sorts of phenomena more prominent in capitalism comes down to a somewhat more tangible term: marketing. This is a very specific capitalist phenomenon that occurs within the context of the fetishism described above, but I think is really what most leftists find objectionable, detrimental, and, unfortunately, immensely powerful.

Thus fighting "fetishism" per se is a bit like fighting the cycles of the moon: true, it is a social phenomenon, but it is something which almost by definition must exist given the nature of human society, just as, say, language does. I think the leftist critique shuldn't therefore focus of fetishism per se, but rather the lengths to which capitalism takes this process.

[argeiphontes]

fetishism can be defined as an irrational attraction to certain material products (especially Apple products)

To me this sounds like an extension of Marx's idea. The relations among people assume the form of relations among commodities. Apple users are using commodities as stand-ins for social interactions. Their use of Apple or other products is negotiating things for them in the social space, like "coolness" or "savvy".

[Jimmie Higgins]

To me this sounds like an extension of Marx's idea. The relations among people assume the form of relations among commodities. Apple users are using commodities as stand-ins for social interactions. Their use of Apple or other products is negotiating things for them in the social space, like "coolness" or "savvy".

I think this would definately be a kind of consumer fetishism - as in giving special status value - but I don't know if it directly relates to the Marxist concept of commodity fetishism which is less about consumption and more about how the market changes how we see commodities: that the market seems to set prices by some logic of it's own rather than according to the class dynamics involved.


So I wanted to ask you what you think about the fetishism that is a common thing for people living under capitalism. From my personal experience I believe we don't try hard enough to fight it while it's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) obstacle for socialism to occur (or at least bring capitalism down call it however).

Workers that don't have class consciousness, nationalists that believe their nation is supreme while all others must be under them and many other examples are a result of this capitalistic propaganda that created the fetish of 'following orders is good'/ 'having authoritarian relations with each other is only natural' etc.

Do you believe that us, communists, and communists' parties and organisations give little emphasis on the subject? Do you believe we are supposed to set it as our primary target? Not to be too much of a terminology-nerd, but I think what's described here would mostly be considered "reification" in Marxist jargon (but in talking causually with people I don't think it matters so much because "fetish" would get the idea across fine). So "nations" are abstract concepts but made into some "real" thing by nationalists, for example. In a common use of "fetish" I guess this would work because the nationalist is giving supernatural sort of significance to what's really just a political agreement among various ruling classes, but I think reification would probably be the more accurate thing since a "nation" could also be just a concept that's not attached to existing political borders: nations in this sense are ideas that people treat as actual existing things.

I don't know if there's much that people can do directly to combat tendencies towards reification of things in capitalist society - I think we could probably group this phenomena in with a general tendency towards "idealist" notions of the world that many people have. I think people will probably hold onto many of these ideas unless there is a practical concrete alternative. For commodity fetishism, however, I think that the emergence of working class movements has the possibility to expose the "hidden" class relations behind commodities by the fact that the actual producers are calling attention to their role (and exploitation) in the production process.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Humanity must rise to challenge these structures and dismantle or at least render them mute. But, while possible, there are many bumps along the way. It is difficult to overcome our own genes.

Do you mean 'mute' (without speech)?

Or do you mean 'moot' (a subject of hypothetical debate, without consequence, from a 'moot' = 'meeting', a mock debate among trainee lawyers)?

[Philosophos]

Not to be too much of a terminology-nerd, but I think what's described here would mostly be considered "reification" in Marxist jargon

my england is not very best, sory.

[MarxSchmarx]

To me this sounds like an extension of Marx's idea. The relations among people assume the form of relations among commodities. Apple users are using commodities as stand-ins for social interactions. Their use of Apple or other products is negotiating things for them in the social space, like "coolness" or "savvy".

It might just be a matter of semantics. I would say (as JH seems to point out) an " an irrational attraction to certain material products" is a special case of commodity fetishism, rather than really "an extension." Marx's analysis, in my view, is sufficiently comprehensive to include this kind of relation.

And not to be reductionist, but the "coolness" and "savvy" attributed to apple products (for instance) are really examples of market value. In fact, they have correspondences in dollar figures, because the "coolness" of a product can be used as essentially synonymous with justifying a mark-up price of hundreds of thousands of US dollars for equipment that does the same thing. Ditto with "savvy". We mere consumers may not be privy to these dollar figures, but trust me the people who run these marketing departments, they have an equation for roughly how much more these mac fiends are willing to spend just to be perceived as 'cool' and 'savvy'. Otherwise, they won't be in business. Negotiating social space is also a financial transaction, and I think that is the brilliance and generality of the idea of commodity fetishism - the specific manifestation doesn't really matter, what matters is the transfer of the value of the commodity from the value invested in its production to the value it carries within the broader social web.