Well, you have put your finger on the odd quality of Marx insisting that that all processes of the human enterprise are bound up with the material while also pointing to the fetishism of commodities.

When you ask how the statement can be verified, one may not be constrained by the geometry of Marx.

Is this assertion true? How can it be known to be true? Is this assertion false? How can it be known to be false? — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's a suggestive quote, and I think it's better to develop it in this or that direction than worry about true/false.

It reminds me of this one:

The first phase of the domination of the economy over social life brought into the definition of all human realization the obvious degradation of being into having. The present phase of total occupation of social life by the accumulated results of the economy leads to a generalized sliding of having into appearing, from which all actual “having” must draw its immediate prestige and its ultimate function. — Debord

To me this is a transition from being to having. But today having is to some degree more about appearing to have than actually having. It's 'better' to look rich, smart, virtuous than to actually be such. The real things are still important, and many of us pride ourselves on seeing through hype. But this seeing-through is itself one more thing to be projected, one more selfie. Clearly it doesn't only give us pain. We pay for the privilege to pose and peep (at least for the hardware.) The software is driven by ads, though it's hard to draw the line now between ads and whichever products the famous are seen with.

This is the principle of commodity fetishism, the domination of society by “intangible as well as tangible things,” which reaches its absolute fulfillment in the spectacle, where the tangible world is replaced by a selection of images which exist above it, and which simultaneously impose themselves as the tangible par excellence. — Debord

It’s a very loose statement and so out of the context it is written in we’d be guessing what exactly it is meant to mean.

It’s generally true from one position and generally false from another.

For example, if we view the ability to measure as a requirement of discerning higher/lower ‘value’ or the inability as a requirement of discerning ‘value’ in general, then we could turn the whole thing on its head and say that it is better not to view humans as objects of value because we are not able to measure with any sensible accuracy the ‘value’ of individual people. We can weight a bag of sugar or a the length of a piece of rope though.

Basically we’re able to more readily attach, and agree, on material measures and value. Does this ‘devalue’ human life? It is certainly not a huge leap to imagine that people, being difficult to measure with any reasonable precision, then become related to the value of measured materials they are surrounded by - and/or are skilled at producing.

I can fully understand the rational approach for and against the statement. It depends what was meant and the limitations within which the statement is used. It is worth noting that when it comes to matter of basic survival we do more readily drop the pretense of ‘all humans are equal’ and try to work together for mutual benefits - the whole social contract business.

I’ve always been opposed, on a personal level, to studying/learning with the intent to ‘fit into a occupation’. Generally one of the most important factors in a company’s success is the passion for the field of interest - yet I’d be lying if I said some aren’t out only for the sake of profit.

I have become more and more interested in areas I generally regarded in my youth as ‘repulsive’ - that is psychology, politics and economics. I now view ‘economics’ less as a money-based issue and more as its true meaning - the management/use/distribution of all resources: including expertise, fuels, food, artistry, friendship, information, etc.,.

My general feeling today is that societies are starting to blend ‘specialised’ fields into more combinations, and that whilst the ‘experts’ - the stamp collectors - are still important, we’re becoming more aware of the benefits of having broader interests and finding new and better solutions to the problems we’re faced with. On top of that is the issue of sifting through the discourse and picking out what is and isn’t useful. It’s tough.

This is the principle of commodity fetishism, the domination of society by “intangible as well as tangible things,” which reaches its absolute fulfillment in the spectacle, where the tangible world is replaced by a selection of images which exist above it, and which simultaneously impose themselves as the tangible par excellence.
— Debord — jellyfish

Thanks for responding. The quotes are intriguing and I'd be interested to know the source. Thanks.

Basically we’re able to more readily attach, and agree, on material measures and value. Does this ‘devalue’ human life? It is certainly not a huge leap to imagine that people, being difficult to measure with any reasonable precision, then become related to the value of measured materials they are surrounded by - and/or are skilled at producing. — I like sushi

The idea of environs and the psychological clutter of a thing-centered culture seem to hold sway here. If one's mind and world are rife with instances of measuring - if the mode of production of a society creates an atmosphere of unceasing measurement - there is a risk the human world will get tossed into the mix with the world of things.

There is a good article tangentially related to your post at Aeon addressing the question, Is capitalism modernity's most beguiling and dangerous enchantment?. The author dips into the Philosophical Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, and so on. It was a good food for thought.

Marx has been proven correct. Human life has been devalued. We are replaceable units of production, less reliable than robots and automated equipment. Laborers are not an asset to a business; they are a cost, best shed as soon as possible.

A good share of humanity is simply irrelevant to capitalism.

A good share of humanity is simply irrelevant to capitalism — Bitter Crank

Just so. That's why Polanyi advocated 'substantivist economics' which considers all aspects of human existence, instead of simply monetizing life. A great idea.

Here's the source. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm

I don't claim to follow all of Debord, but some quotes really speak to me.

Thanks. Looks like an interesting read.