I don't get what you mean. It wasn't until the 19th century that it envelopped basically the entire globe. Things like the scramble for Africa, opium wars, Manifest Destiny, etc
Primary vs Hegemonic
how would you define commodity fetishism
Def would recommend reading the passage about it directly from Capital but this is the best explanation of it imo

Def would recommend reading the passage about it directly from Capital but this is the best explanation of it imo
!https://youtu.be/SsFC3FuuRVwreading sublime object rn
how long has capitalism been the hegemonic system/mode of production of the world?
UK: Late 1700s, early 1800s
European core, USA: Mid 1800s
Rest of world: late 1800s, early 1900s
Incredible things are happening in China
Huawei Technologies (HWT.UL) paid out dividends totalling 61.404 billion yuan ($9.65 billion) to current and retired workers in its employee shareholder scheme, according to a filing with the Shanghai Clearing House.
Some 131,507 current and former workers are involved in the shareholder scheme, according to the company's 2021 annual report released last week. read more The company is private and wholly owned by its employees, it said.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/huawei-pays-out-965-bln-dividends-current-retired-staff-2022-04-05/
The filing, published on Saturday, does not break down the dividend distribution.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZXNaXS6dxNM
Ron Paul bit is just made up
Whats the song?
how would you define commodity fetishism
A fetish means giving something a meaning that it doesn't have physically. For example, a totem pole is just a piece of wood, but as a religious fetish, it becomes an object of worship.
Commodity fetishism means regarding the commodity in a way that is not justified just physically. The social relations give these pieces of metal, wood and so on a higher meaning than their mere physicality.
This is hard to understand for many people, because the status-quo is fetishist. The status quo is that these commodities always had special meanings to us
A dollar bill is just a piece of cotton. Yet we give it a higher meaning.
A Ferrari is a status symbol, but we rarely regard it just as a normal piece of metal and plastic with a motor engine, it becomes bigger than its parts - we see it as a valuable status symbol, even an expression of a lifestyle, we fantasize. Social relations between humans can become expressed via commodities this way (e.g.: pulling up in a foreign changes your social relation to the hoes via this object alone through commodity fetishism).
The question is why and how this happens. It has to do with the labor time involved to make these products, with the way society and class is set up, with supply and demand, with marketing, with ideology and so on...
A fetish means giving something a meaning that it doesn't have physically. For example, a totem pole is just a piece of wood, but as a religious fetish, it becomes an object of worship.
Commodity fetishism means regarding the commodity in a way that is not justified just physically. The social relations give these pieces of metal, wood and so on a higher meaning than their mere physicality.
This is hard to understand for many people, because the status-quo is fetishist. The status quo is that these commodities always had special meanings to us
A dollar bill is just a piece of cotton. Yet we give it a higher meaning.
A Ferrari is a status symbol, but we rarely regard it just as a normal piece of metal and plastic with a motor engine, it becomes bigger than its parts - we see it as a valuable status symbol, even an expression of a lifestyle, we fantasize. Social relations between humans can become expressed via commodities this way (e.g.: pulling up in a foreign changes your social relation to the hoes via this object alone through commodity fetishism).
The question is why and how this happens. It has to do with the labor time involved to make these products, with the way society and class is set up, with supply and demand, with marketing, with ideology and so on...
eg money is a commodity used to transact goods and services, it was invented to solve double coincidence of wants in a barter economy, it is just a tool we have to represent social relations of labour time and production costs of one commodity to another, but the fetishism comes in the idea that money has value "in itself" as opposed to just being a placeholder of value from any one commodity to another, giving it some sort of metaphysical value it doesn't actually have within itself.
The king knows he is a king only because he has subjects, but the subjects think they serve him because he is a king...
eg money is a commodity used to transact goods and services, it was invented to solve double coincidence of wants in a barter economy, it is just a tool we have to represent social relations of labour time and production costs of one commodity to another, but the fetishism comes in the idea that money has value "in itself" as opposed to just being a placeholder of value from any one commodity to another, giving it some sort of metaphysical value it doesn't actually have within itself.
The king knows he is a king only because he has subjects, but the subjects think they serve him because he is a king...
Right on
But then there is the caveat that money really is a special object, that it really does influence our social relations - but this speciality, this fetish dimension, appears very natural to us. A relation being social doesn't mean it isn't real, it just means it is influenced a lot by society, ideology, the entire "superstructure" of our lives. Since these social relations are not eternal (unlike the laws of physics), they can change and with it our perception of the commodities, and with it, our relations amongst us humans.
When British money was first introduced to West Africa, it had no meaning and people didn't wanna take it. It was just a useless piece of paper. People already were farming amongst themselves and did some trade on the side. Money had little meaning, especially foreign money.
The Queen then forced Africans at gunpoint to pay taxes - now this piece of paper suddenly embodies the real-life act of colonialism, and it becomes an expression of this relation. Now, they are forced into wage-labor, slavery and indentured servitude, and the commodity "British Pounds" becomes an expression of this.
In a future socialist society, if for example money can be abolished domestically via labor vouchers, these pieces of paper will no longer have the social meaning they once had and just be paper-certificates you need for your vacation abroad. They will once again be useless at home.
Right on
But then there is the caveat that money really is a special object, that it really does influence our social relations - but this speciality, this fetish dimension, appears very natural to us. A relation being social doesn't mean it isn't real, it just means it is influenced a lot by society, ideology, the entire "superstructure" of our lives. Since these social relations are not eternal (unlike the laws of physics), they can change and with it our perception of the commodities, and with it, our relations amongst us humans.
When British money was first introduced to West Africa, it had no meaning and people didn't wanna take it. It was just a useless piece of paper. People already were farming amongst themselves and did some trade on the side. Money had little meaning, especially foreign money.
The Queen then forced Africans at gunpoint to pay taxes - now this piece of paper suddenly embodies the real-life act of colonialism, and it becomes an expression of this relation. Now, they are forced into wage-labor, slavery and indentured servitude, and the commodity "British Pounds" becomes an expression of this.
In a future socialist society, if for example money can be abolished domestically via labor vouchers, these pieces of paper will no longer have the social meaning they once had and just be paper-certificates you need for your vacation abroad. They will once again be useless at home.
The Queen then forced Africans at gunpoint to pay taxes - now this piece of paper suddenly embodies the real-life act of colonialism, and it becomes an expression of this relation.
THIS is pure ideology
The Queen then forced Africans at gunpoint to pay taxes - now this piece of paper suddenly embodies the real-life act of colonialism, and it becomes an expression of this relation.
THIS is pure ideology
Wym king
Tankie now means... criticizing Japanese Imperialism
https://twitter.com/OliverJia1014/status/1511638152481411076Whoever is responsible for letting blue checkmark libs discover the word tankie needs a good ol struggle session fr
Hey the last japanese PM was in a far right imperialist cult, his party's mission is to rewrite the Japanese constitution, they still deny war crimes, and they're already rewriting japanese history in schools , but if you say anything you're Stalinist sorry I don't make the rules
reading sublime object rn
hmmm i was reading it before but i stopped don’t have much experience with lacan so it was tough for me
Wym king
The metaphysical idea of money and capital dictated the physical reality of violence, PURE ideology
hmmm i was reading it before but i stopped don’t have much experience with lacan so it was tough for me
i been watching some lectures from zizek on lacan to give me a little background on his interpretation of him but lacan is also notoriously oblique so im just gonna try to go at my own pace and google lots
i been watching some lectures from zizek on lacan to give me a little background on his interpretation of him but lacan is also notoriously oblique so im just gonna try to go at my own pace and google lots
i was talking to my coworker who is also a philosophy professor and he was telling me about how zizek is a lacanian but is a different interpretation of lacan than most lacanians fall under.
so id keep that in mind that zizek operates w some sense of negation of negation when he calls himself a lacanian
i was talking to my coworker who is also a philosophy professor and he was telling me about how zizek is a lacanian but is a different interpretation of lacan than most lacanians fall under.
so id keep that in mind that zizek operates w some sense of negation of negation when he calls himself a lacanian
reading lacan through marx through lacan through hegel through marx through hegel
I f*** with that but thinking of the revisionist topic thats deeply important to gonazalist is something I never really vibe with due to it leading to sectarian actions, also I never really understood what made Gonzalo Thought the "true proletarian ideology"
Gonzalo is the one who synthesized Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, plus made contributions of his own such as the idea of great leadership that we believe are universal. That's why we uphold Gonzalo and defend him.