If I understand the concept correctly wouldn’t custom made products decrease, to some degree, Commodity Fetishism? — I like sushi

This is a good question. It does, however, get entangled with the general conditions that Marx saw the formation of individual aesthetics. The problem as drafted by Marx was not that individual desires were substituted for something not-individual but that what an individual wants is shaped by systems of exchange.
So, the bourgeoisie are both the exemplars for getting just what they fancy and people cut off from their true natures who are not listening to what they actually want.
As the idea has played out over the decades since it kicked off, how these factors play a part with each other gets more complicated. Are people able to become less alienated despite all the elements that would encourage them to stay within the lines? Do market conditions ever permit degrees of freedom to create others?
When one gets beyond asking for an easy answer, there are a lot of thorny problems.

The next step is the transaction between producer and consumer. Someone loves the pot, they’re ecstatic, their response adds further to this value. What shall you sell this pot for? If it’s not your only source of income, then fine, except you still have to pay for your physical resources. But if not then you need to make a living. What is the worth of this pot in monetary terms? How do you avoid this trap of monetary value? — Brett

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. I haven’t stated that we should avoid monetary value. I have stated that economics isn’t only about monetary value and had a look at what other valuations matter societally from individuals that have a greater impact than we may we aware of.

I’d also say the above example if an artist doesn’t relate to my point at all because of this. My point could be attached to it by stating today artists have greater exposure and people’s tastes therefore have a wider variety of experiences to develop from. The ‘one size fits all’ state of mass production appears to have been in decline - with the exceptions of hardware. My point is then that people would attach status to possession of more ‘original’ products and thus seek out more original products and - key point - this would eventually become more about refine aesthetic/artistic tastes than about owning items as a status symbol.

I am not viewing monetary valuing as a ‘trap’. My point is about equating the use and limits of a fungible go between. I haven’t found substantial literature on this topic except the occasional anthropological snippet looking at how humans have made ‘tools’ and then used these ‘tools’ to create abstract systems.

This is a good question. It does, however, get entangled with the general conditions that Marx saw the formation of individual aesthetics. The problem as drafted by Marx was not that individual desires were substituted for something not-individual but that what an individual wants is shaped by systems of exchange. — Valentinus

Personally I see this as no more than a conflict between wanting to be part of a group and wanting to be different/unique. As we act more or less as ‘groups’ of political bodies then we are socially encouraged to seek status. I think if Marx said that he’d got it backwards. The systems of exchange stem from the growth of communities (something looked at in the anthropological question of ‘the birth of inequality’ - although that title is a little misleading imo).

Are people able to become less alienated despite all the elements that would encourage them to stay within the lines? Do market conditions ever permit degrees of freedom to create others? — Valentinus

Please reframe these questions. I don’t quite understand what they’re referring.

Thanks

I thought we were at least on the same page. Maybe not. Anyway let me address this:

My point is then that people would attach status to possession of more ‘original’ products and thus seek out more original products and - key point - this would eventually become more about refine aesthetic/artistic tastes than about owning items as a status symbol. — I like sushi

“more ‘original’ products “. By this I think you mean products that have been created by the resources of human endeavour that include, for example, a love of the materials, respect for technique, satisfaction of making a ‘human’ product, satisfaction in the moment, and communicating and interacting with the potential ‘consumer’ on such a level, and passing on the experience encapsulated in the product, that is, not being part of the current commodifying of products.

As a consequence people “thus seek out more original products”.
Presumably because of the satisfaction both parties received in the transaction.

“this would eventually become more about refine aesthetic/artistic tastes than about owning items as a status symbol”.

What is their to stop the ownership of this “original” product from becoming a status symbol? You would have to alter the consumer attitudes of people, which you may have mentioned earlier in a comment about education. Perhaps this has already been attempted with socialism, and the attempted communes of the sixties. But in a way you create the possibility of another form of elitism or at best a separate self sustaining community. Maybe the Amish might be considered an example of what you imagine, but from what I understand that’s only a perception we have of them.

But anyway, your OP was about the possibility of custom made products creating a decrease in Commodity Fetishism. I guess my thoughts now are, no they can’t.

.
It does, however, get entangled with the general conditions that Marx saw the formation of individual aesthetics. The problem as drafted by Marx was not that individual desires were substituted for something not-individual but that what an individual wants is shaped by systems of exchange. — Valentinus

Yes. I think that’s where Sushi and I part ways.

But anyway, your OP was about the possibility of custom made products creating a decrease in Commodity Fetishism. I guess my thoughts now are, no they can’t. — Brett

That is hardly an argument. Plus, it makes no sense whatsoever, as the leading proposal - from what I’ve read - of Commodity Fetishism is that the human emotional exchange is removed. It seems commonsense enough to me to suggest that greater levels of intimacy and interaction between the creator of a product with the customer becomes a human exchange and a human collaboration - the refining of aesthetics lays on top of this.

As for ‘elitism’? I’m not entirely against ‘elitism’ if the cost against it is possessing no value judgement whatsoever - that sounds like ideological insanity. People who are ‘better’ at something than others are more likely to help others learn than not - by way of competition, collaboration and/or innovation. Removing interpersonal engagement would have the effect of instilling Commodity Fetishism not guarding against it.

I wasn’t talking about ‘individual desires’ I was talking about interpersonal human exchange (socialising and exchanging stories, wishes, dreams and hopes).

Let me attempt again by noting a scenario. If I wish to buy a chair the idea of Ikea would be to side with Commodity Fetishism in the sense that it is distanced from human interaction and collaboration. If I went online and said I needed a chair - specifying my needs - then I can begin to have a personal exchange with someone passionate about chairs who is able and willing to see the ‘chair’ as more than just a ‘chair’. My personality would be of interest to them, maybe the discussion would move into unrelated areas and the ‘consumer’ would become more interested in ‘chairs’.

The point being ‘custom made’ items in this way are not entirely about the exchange of money and services. There is a human interaction in the form of collaborative investigation. Being treated like a ‘human’ rather than taking part in an activity viewed only as purchasing goods and services.

I agree with everything you say.

The point being ‘custom made’ items in this way are not entirely about the exchange of money and services. There is a human interaction in the form of collaborative investigation. Being treated like a ‘human’ rather than taking part in an activity viewed only as purchasing goods and services. — I like sushi

But what’s next in terms of creating a reduction in Commodity Fetishism, what’s the next step in terms of reducing the fetishism?

Consider this, using your scenario of buying a chair from the person you met and spoke to in buying a chair. Assume they become very popular because of this attitude and their business expands rapidly and they sell many, many chairs. The rarity that could be managed at a leisurely pace, face to face, perhaps a discussion on unrelated matters, interaction is now in high demand. It would have to be to reduce or replace the Commodity Fetishism. How will they serve their many, many customers on that personal level, source the chairs, transport them, manage the accounts, and so on? Do you see what I mean? It’s very success strangles it’s original aspirations.

It was merely an example to emphasis a point, not evidence.

I’m not trying to defeat you but point out what I regard as the obstacle that’s in the way. How do we get around this? Do we reduce consumption before prodding people in the direction of more meaningful transaction? How do we persuade people that we don’t need more chairs, that the relationship is more important?

Before this new relationship begins to germinate I think people have to be persuaded that they need less, that what’s important is what they need, not what they want. Isn’t this the very crux of Commodity Fetishism, isn’t that what’s necessary to break the grip of economic relationships?

But one of the problems I have is that the desire for more is a real human trait. Inexplicable but real.

I’m not saying this as a ‘should’ or ‘need’ statement. I’m stating what I see as happening already through more one-to-one interactions online.

People will convince themselves through a combination of a desire for ‘self expression’, a desire to ‘stick out’, a desire to ‘be part of a group’ and by refining their aesthetic sense by being naturally involved in the growing complexity of interactions.

As an example maybe I want the respect you have and so I make the false judgement that people only respect you because of what you have, so I try and attain the possessions you have. By doing so I am exposing myself to exploring what I find ‘good’/‘bad’/‘beautiful’ etc.,. In a marketplace shifting more and more to ‘product placement’ and ‘custom items’ I would inevitably fall into collaboration with someone looking to give me what I didn’t know I wanted.

Note: I am looking at this long term and in a very broad sense. The basis is that through the pursuit of self expression and/or adherence to a group, the ‘custom products’ made to fit the individual in a person to person basis will bring personal taste into focus - on the part of me copying you to gain more respect and/or on the part of me wanting to express myself better.

Keep in mind here we’re talking about Commodity Fetishism which is about the monetary value attached to ‘material resources’ rather than the use (both practical, as in as tools, and as non-practical, as in ‘artistically creative’ - the effect of status and aesthetic valuation is the primary conflict I am trying to delve into here.

Thanks for stick with this btw. As I said, I am displaying this thought in its infancy so I’m grappling with what I mean and what I’m saying. I think I’ve been pretty consistent though. My intention is not to paint everything with one brush, but the thought is more or less looking past the ‘monetary’ valuation of items/people and into the ‘human value’ and the direction I see things slightly tipping toward given technological advances in communication over only the past couple of decades (a huge event we’re only just beginning to open our eyes to let alone beginning to understand in any constructive manner).

Personally I see this as no more than a conflict between wanting to be part of a group and wanting to be different/unique. — I like sushi

The fetish is not the result of a monetary value being attached to material resources. Perhaps it is time in this discussion to refer directly to what Marx says. In Capital 1, Section 4 the element of the fetish is presented as a social relationship being masked by a material one. The most succinct summation being:

"This Fetishism of commodities has its origin, as the foregoing analysis has already shown, in the peculiar social character of the labour that produces them."

Now, Capital is an ambitious argument, tying the different ways that exchange value relates directly to other kinds. But the "materialism" being argued for here is not a substitution for what gets hidden by "individuals" being defined by what they want to buy. Individuals wanting things for themselves is a key element in the "peculiarity" being considered.

Of course, maybe I’m misinterpreting something but you’ll have to explain further as the following extracts don’t conflict with what I’ve been saying as far as I can tell:

A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the same way the light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye itself. But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to another, from the external object to the eye. There is a physical relation between physical things. But it is different with commodities. There, the existence of the things quâ commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities.

And:

In Karl Marx's critique of political economy, commodity fetishism is the perception of the social relationships involved in production not as relationships among people, but as economic relationships among the money and commodities exchanged in market trade. As such, commodity fetishism transforms the subjective, abstract aspects of economic value into objective, real things that people believe have intrinsic value. - Wiki ‘Commodity Fetishism’

Please point out where and how you think my points don’t attend to the idea of Commodity Fetishism. Thanks

You had said that the fetish element was a result of commodities being assigned an exchange value or a price. I don't understand how to see that remark as a relationship in the text of Marx.

The way I understand it is that the ‘Commodity Fetishism’ is referring to the idea of holding to a set ‘objective’ value only by monetary measurement. I do see that the fungible application of money gives it a distinct sense of ‘objective’ value where in reality is acts as a kind of hierophant between humans.

I think the ‘exchange value’ is seen only in terms of ‘money’ - in terms of what is meant by ‘Commodity Fetishism’ as it creates a boundary between the ‘commodity’ (good or service) and the one producing/giving said ‘Commodity’. My position is an exploration of what happens when through a natural human inclination toward ‘novelty’ we find ourselves in a marketplace where custom products natural produce more chance of human interaction rather than supplanting this interaction with the barrier of monetary valuation - the true worth to the individuals involved becomes exposed.

Please keep in mind this is an idea I had recently. It is very much in its infancy and here I’m thrashing out as best I can. There are multiple layers of application this thought that I’ve only just started to uncover.

Note: if you read the previous section it is clear enough the section you mentioned follows from it. How can it not be referring to monetary value? What else is there that is spoken of in a market where exchanges are made? A system of barter is merely a less refined example of applying a fungible proposition.

I recognize that you are working toward some idea of creativity that provides things and services people want because people understand they are good things and services.

My understanding of what Marx is calling the mysterious quality of what is produced does not come from stuff being put on a market but from producers of things being commodities in their own right. The social relationships being referred to in the text of Marx is fashioned to put personal property in the context of who gets to own what. If many people agree to sell the ownership of their products to others on the basis of their effort in time and no other criteria, then the connection between maker and product becomes something different than how we talk about who owns this piece of land or that share of bacon.

I’m not considering the ‘labour’ here. Marx makes a point to ignore this too by saying:

The different proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appear to be fixed by custom. For simplicity’s sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to be unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction.

...

While, therefore, with reference to use value, the labour contained in a commodity counts only qualitatively, with reference to value it counts only quantitatively, and must first be reduced to human labour pure and simple. In the former case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How much? How long a time? Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value.

I’m concerned about the ‘qualitative’ aspect of these economic interactions, and furthermore the qualitative value embedded within the commodities that cannot be given monetary value in such a way that it is a fungible item.

The clash not mentioned yet is the mass production combined with individual wants and needs (practically and as status symbols - fashions and trends), and the sense of individual identity and ‘worth’.

Note the bold above. Here we have a simplistic reduction that points out ‘labour’ as representing the ‘value’ - the time spent as the intrinsic ‘value’. The ‘proportions’ mentioned are essentially the means of a fungible function which is founded in a universal system (money). The problem, as I see it, is that the ‘worth’ associated with commodities and labour is merely brought about by measuring only what we can measure with reasonable universal agreement dictated by market demands and the distribution of resources. The ‘Commodity Fetishism’, as far as I can see, is that ALL sense of ‘value’ is put into this idea of ‘resource’ (material only) and its extraction (’simple labour’ only), with no serious regard put to finding a way of tackling the extremely difficult problem of less measurable items of human interaction, such as basic appreciation, security, artistic expression, experience (skill and talent), and human attitudes and beliefs.

The way I see it ‘money’ is certainly a useful and highly applicable means of distributing resources based on wants and needs, but it clearly isn’t a universally fungible function - I cannot literally ‘buy’ anything I wish for or need with money alone. The issue with economics, since its modern inception, is the adherence to ‘resources’ as ‘monetary’ and nothing more than that. There is no workable system of measuring human emotions that integrate with current economic systems because there is historical a system of mass production, franchising, and interest in material gain above and beyond personal development - even the educational institutions are set up in this manner; historically speaking.

My point is that for pretty much the first time inhuman history citizens of Earth can communicate over vast distances almost instantaneously and that these vast webs of human interactions are able to individualise the ‘market place’. It doesn’t take a genius to see that there are individuals around the globe that used to think they were alone and now they find themselves able to interact with hundreds or thousands of like-minded people that they never knew existed before. An example is this site and others that delve into all manner of personal interests and hobbies. The days of the internet being open only to a select few are pretty much over too.

This means that, in accord with the original post, that ‘Commodity Fetishism’ will lessen because what becomes important to people in their exchanges is the personal element. There is also a constant demand for ‘new’/‘original’/‘novel’ items, driven by a combination of aesthetic taste and ‘trends’/‘fashions’ related to “Status Fetishism“ - meaning the drive to fit in conflicting with the drive to stand apart from - which, no matter how it pans out, will drive creativity and choice destroying ‘mass production’ in favour of ‘personalised production’. Such an increase will turn people away from ‘having’/‘owning’ what someone else has and become more about personal expression overall. This is the essence of why I am saying ‘Commodity Fetishism’ will reduce and arguably already is reducing, because people are being exposed to each other and the inherent value of living among people on an economic front that is essentially encouraging intrapersonal collaboration and emotional interactions. Today it is not simply the super-rich that can affordably interact with someone to produce a custom made item.

Couple the above argument up with technological advances and we’re firmly in unknown territory even more so than what we are right now with what little we do know and can vaguely appreciate about he dynamic changes to global society.

People are not machines for labour nor or they consumers of items. The whole modern perspective on economics is so completely delusional that I’m surprised this hasn’t been mentioned more prominently before. I’m not saying it hasn’t been mentioned, but I guess the difficulty inherent is that there is no means of ‘measuring’ the important aspects of being human and that ‘Commodity Fetishism’ is an example of this disjoint where ‘value’ is only associated economically to what can be measured in a ‘monetary’ sense.

I’m not offering this as a ‘solution’. It is a critique of economics at large I guess.

Whatever there is that can create a better economic environment for every one I strongly feel that it will take the form of enhanced opportunities to experience and an educational framework within which people are actively supported and encourage to explore possible opportunities and take part in experiences outside of their usual social spaces.

I stick to the proposal that current ‘marketing’/‘advertising’ techniques are being consumed by personal online exchanges and that, with some irony, the large corporations are breaking themselves apart by funding independent ventures based on ‘personal exchanges’ rather than on scheme for ‘mass production’ and flooding the market. The internet has certainly made artists of all sorts able to make a respectable living where in the past they’d have had to give up their passions in favour of eating To having a roof over their heads.

Really this thought all stems from aesthetic appreciation and how those that wish to ‘own’ an item to present some kind of ‘status symbol’ will inevitably fall under the spell of aesthetic valuation above and beyond the initial (and perhaps subconscious) ‘status’ function of popular items. You may call this ‘branding’ but if there is no ‘brand’ we’re no longer presenting ‘brands’ only something of intrinsic aesthetic value to those who look on.

Articles such as this

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ch/Documents/consumer-business/ch-en-consumer-business-made-to-order-consumer-review.pdf

Show there has been a push in marketing to ‘entice consumers’. My belief is that this drive for personalised items will increase further and further to the point that ‘brands’/‘labels’ will become hidden and then eventually disappear. In the above article 46% said they would prefer choice within a ‘brand’, but I don’t see this holding up for long as the item made by a known person/s holds more weight of trust than one made on a production line (both in terms of quality and customisation). The only obvious point here, that I’m not avoiding, is the cost of products. This will mean that some items will remain more or less the realm of mass production to some degree as functional items are not generally ‘custom made’ for obvious reasons. I’m not suggesting that ‘mass production’ is necessarily a bad thing only that today there is an inevitable shift away from generic goods that are attached to aesthetic quality more than say a metal screw or a hammer.

How far will the aesthetic need reach into the ‘consumer world’? I don’t know. Maybe it won’t go much further than what it already has? Given a world where 3D printers for all manner of goods may as ordinary as sending an email or text I’m not really sure what the limitations of this could be.

Anyway, thanks for the comments. Please expand your thoughts further if you wish. As yoi can see from the body of text this has numerous areas and applications to a whole array of ideas and questions about global economics and resource management - I’ve only briefly managed to touch on the potential power behind an increased public interest in aesthetic quality (by way of pursuing status symbols) and what potential positive/negative repercussions this could have on society at large - locally, globally, in terms of communications, and politically in terms of laws and national rule.

Tbh I probably should have done more reading up on this subject for a few months and pondered its possible applications more thoroughly. The idea gripped me quite strongly though and had to try and express it as best I could.

My understanding of what Marx is calling the mysterious quality of what is produced does not come from stuff being put on a market but from producers of things being commodities in their own right. — Valentinus

I’ve been reading this more closely and comparing translations. I think this is wrong - in the opening at least - as he appears to be talking about objects of production holding ‘commodity value’ due to the labour embodied in them (obscure as in the more thorough trans. I’ve looked at ‘embodied’ isn’t used and he instead says ‘crystalised’ but we can take it to mean roughly the same (?). Seems needlessly obscure though if this is the case).

I don’t see anything that points directly to ‘producers’ as ‘commodities’. In fact he appears to be more concerned with stating that ‘stuff put on the market’ makes something a ‘commodity’ yet this is a little contrary due to other delineations he has set out previously - ‘use value’ and ‘labour value’.

I don’t really like the translation. Also, it may be worth noting that “commodity” is a poor translation imo. The German is ‘ware’ which is equivalent to Enlgish ‘ware’ (as in goods/wares). ‘Commodity’ is a French rooted perversion of the term that puts greater emphasis on ‘use’ so ironically ‘use value’ would be more fitting for ‘commodity’ and ‘ware value’ more fitting for ‘commodity value’.

It’s clear enough for me now to tread extremely cautiously as this is a text that has been purposefully/mistakenly mistranslated and sprouted several different political functions to suit the politics of the reader.

In short, it’s a bloody mess!

I am not sure about what you are pointing to in regards to the politics of the reader.
The observation I made does draw from other Marx writings than Capital. I will try to pull together statements that present that.
I am a working person who will do that when I can.
There is something curious about your approach that I won't give up on.

Thanks. It’s much appreciated.

In terms of politics I was just referring to its historical use for this or that cause in this or that country. The main thrust of my perspective is about the raising of aesthetic sensibilities through marketing aimed at groups and eventually filtering into marketing based on individuals.