| This question <295|128> overall <122|124> Tim: <72|199>. |
| Question 258: Mark Blaug writes in p. 268:2: “Commodity ‘fetishism’ refers to the tendency to reify commodities, to treat what are in fact social relations between men as if they were relations between things.” Right or wrong? |
| [123] Tim: I agree with Homer's comment from [1996sp:221] and would like to add that currency also perpetuates reification of commodities because it can “define, symbolize and manipulate relationships between things that people make in abstraction from the social and technical relations involved,” see |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_of_production |
| Hans: As in [72] you are not explicit enough. You should have briefly summarized those aspects in [1996sp:221] you agree with. We are discussing profound and subtle issues, therefore it is necessary to be very specific. Do not assume your discussion partner knows what you mean. |
| Homer argued that reification comes from the contradiction that on a deeper level people are very dependent on each other, due to the division of labor, but in their market transactions they act as if they were independent and autonomous. You are adding that the monetary character of those surface transactions also add to the reification. You have a point. |
| Money is a unifying force in the atomistic market transactions, which represents the inner connection between all market participants. This inner connections enters their practical activities as the properties of a thing, rather than a social relation between people. The reification involved in the use of money is therefore very much related to Homer's explanation of reification. |
|
|
|||||