Commodity Fetishism vs. Capital Fetishism - Case Study Example

Commodity Fetishism In the field of anthropology, fetishism is a strange belief that relates godly powers to inanimate things. Apparently, the magical quality of commodities in the cotemporary world has introduced a new connection to social life. In the first sight, any commodity appears to be the most trivial thing. As a matter of fact, new commodities either cause shock or commotion in the market if not controlled. Notably, any commodity ought to maintain its use-value withstanding other important factors (Chen, 2014). Any commodity without the ability to uphold the sensuousness does not prove viable for the universal equivalent. Commodity fetishism is an illusion that brings direct control of a social process tied to the production channel. In reality, commodity fetishism has prevailed in a series of production lines. Despite the wide variety, the paper focuses on Apple while putting into perspective Karl Mar view. The mystification surrounding commodity fetishism has attracted various scholars and researchers alike. Among them, of special attention is Karl Marx who synchronised the concept in his early writings. The ridged distinction in commodity Fetishism comes into light through the Althusserian school of thought that connects commodity fetishism to a definite material base (Lemert, 2009). In many circumstances, people have put their lives into various objects; however, situations change when the object takes a greater part of control. Marx notes that such people cannot control their life, have no external existence and in worst circumstances do not have an independent life (Blackburn 1972 cited in Oakley, 1984). Apart from the social aspect, commodity fetishism also finds base in the capital production process. The relationship between labour and the final product plays an imperative role in shaping value. From this perspective, evaluating the painful process of production becomes indirect, a factors bringing into light the restricted relationships in the line of production. Undoubtedly, the material roots of this form of fabrication leads to poverty and exploitation (Lemert, 2009). It, therefore, is inevitable to reconcile the masses and bring on board various groups in the production process for harmony. According to Marx, the problem does not arise from Man’s inability to control knowledge; however, circulating capital in any economy is responsible for the change. Arguably, the Apple world demonstrates commodity fetishism and continues to swim in its waters. From generation to generation, Apple has been distinctive in production and sale of its products. It is a market segment dominated by many upper class and countable lower class customers. Apple products have established a market value and finds favour among many people. In the contemporary world, some people breathe and sleep Apple. They are obsessed by it, laugh around it, want to move it every time and at times want to slide their fingers across its face (Chen, 2014). Conceivably, a close observation of people enjoying the service of Apple reveals insanity. Notably, this is a symbol of power, which the company enjoys in the market. Several competitors fear the brand and always are in a lookout for new devices. Whether iPods, MacBook, iPads or iPhones, Apple Inc. is a fashionable trend to watch. Interestingly, the current president of USA, President Barack Obama has applauded Steve jobs for the revolutionary products from Apple. Certainly, this represents the power of commodity fetishism that the product enjoys in the market (Musto, 2008). The usefulness of Apple products definitely lies in the natural property even as human labour remains part of the great intervention. Lovers of Apple products believe that they are in control of their purchasing power while in contrast it is the opposite. Additionally, they reason out the prices to be commensurate with products. Hobsbawm cited in Dimoulis and Milios (2004), notes that Apple sells human labour, as part of the products and buys copyrights from different producers in the line of production. In tis light, objectification of human labour clearly dominates the way Apple operates. Commodity fetishism creates a natural value of products hence tuning consumers towards one direction (Lemert, 2009). One may always wonder why apple thrives in a limited but productive market share. The subconscious system of labour does not have autonomy at Apple; nonetheless, the transfer of value is a characteristic of product fetishism. According to Karl Marx, commodity fetishism only exists when a hidden value prevails in a product when in real sense the reverse is true (Oakley, 1984). Certainly, this only holds water when the product can establish a status or value that is not easily shaken by other products. In the view of Marx assertion, Apple is one product that has initiated a material relationship between the social, person and object of sale. Outstandingly, commodity fetishism can contribute and worsen alienation mainly experienced by the work force. For instance, the pressure for new or more products aggravate alienation. iPads and MacBook currently infatuate people as evidenced from social effects. Interestingly, it is socially acceptable for people to line outside stores to own latest technologies. Nonetheless, people fail to question the pre-occupation behind wage-labour exchange values. In as much as the alienation is not visible in the current society because people focus more on objects, it is a series problem of production. Marx asserts that commodity alienation can greatly affect the social relation between capitalists and its workers. For instance, Foxconn employees responsible for production of Apple products face various types of alienation. They do not have ownership of the products, receive limited wages and most importantly have no opportunity to air their grievances. An example is the nineteen-year-old Ma Xiangqian who committed suicide because of deplorable working conditions with Foxconn (Barboza, 2010). In conclusion, commodity fetishism is a potential way to navigate the competitive market; nonetheless, it presents serious problems of alienation. According to Karl max, it is the ability of any product to gain value and maintain a recognised status. Furthermore, he notes that commodity fetishism is not because of man’s inability to control knowledge but because of the abundant social capital. Notably, Apple Inc. is one company, which enjoys commodity fetishism. It has a range of products produced in limited range but only accessed by people of a given class. Despite the long-standing life and promising future, the behaviour has led to alienation among its workers who do not have the privilege of taking ownership. In essence, commodity ownership is a blessing for Apple but a cussing in disguise that requires monitoring. References Barboza D. (2010). After Suicides, Scrutiny of China’s Grim Factories. New York Times. Retrieved on 28th Oct 2014 from, www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/business/global/07suicide.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Chen, W. (2014). Confucian marxism: A reflection on religion and global justice. Leiden; Boston: Brill, Dimoulis, D., & Milios, J. (2004). Commodity Fetishism vs. Capital Fetishism: Marxist Interpretations vis-à-vis Marx's Analyses in Capital. Historical Materialism, 12(3), 3-42. Lemert, C. C. (2009). Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. Musto, M. (2008). Karl Marx's Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy 150 years later. London: Routledge Oakley, A. (1984). Marx's critique of political economy: Intellectual sources and evolution. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Read More