The Missing Subject of the Social or the Fetish Character of the Commodity

Abstract

The fetish character of the commodity is essentially related to the case where the social properties that are nonexistent in the material world seem to be inherent in the material entities. Such a case is obviously not explicable in terms of the material world itself and arises from the social relations themselves. However, these social relations must be analyzed with reference to certain subjectivities through the mediation of which these relations are realized. How material entities seem to have some social properties in themselves cannot be explained if the subjectivities are not taken into account.

Keywords

• Commodity, Commodity Fetishism, Fetish Character of the Commodity, Subjectivity, Social Form, Value.

TOPLUMSALIN YİTİK ÖZNESİ YA DA METANIN FETİŞ KARAKTERİ

Öz

Metanın fetiş karakteri, özü itibariyle, maddi dünyada var olmayan toplumsal niteliklerin, maddi varlıklara içkinmiş gibi görünmesiyle ilgilidir. Böyle bir durumun, maddi dünyanın kendisiyle açıklanması mümkün olmayıp, bizzat toplumsal ilişkilerin kendisinden türediği açıktır. Ancak bu toplumsal ilişkilerin genel olarak değil, belirli bir öznellik dolayımında ele alınması zorunludur. Aksi takdirde maddi varlıkların belirli toplumsal biçimlere kendilerinde sahipmiş gibi görünmesi olgusunun açıklanması mümkün değildir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meta, Meta Fetişizmi, Metanın Fetiş Karakteri, Öznellik, Toplumsal Biçim, Değer.

References

1. Amariglio ve Callari (1989), “Marxian Value Theory and the Problem of the Subject: The Role of Commodity Fetishism”, Rethinking Marxism, Vol. 2, No. 3, s. 31-60.
2. Backhaus, Hans-Georg, “Between Philosophy and Science: Marxian Social Economy as Critical Theory”, Werner Bonefeld, Richard Gunn ve Kosmas Psychopedis (der.), Open Marxism: Volume I: Dialectics and History, Pluto Press, Londra, 1992 içinde s. 54-92.
3. Bilgi, Alaattin, Kapital: Özet ve Kılavuz, Yurt Kitap-Yayın, Ankara, 1992.
4. Carver, Terrell (1975), “Marx’s Commodity Fetishism”, Inquiry, 18:1, 39-63.
5. Cohen, G.A., Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence, Genişletilmiş 7. Baskı, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 2000.
6. Ehrbar, Hans, Annotations to Karl Marx’s Capital, 2010, http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~ehrbar/akmc.pdf, erişim tarihi 03.05.2014.
7. Geras, Norman, “Essence and Appearance: Aspects of Fetishism in Marx’s Capital, New Left Review, No. 65, s. 69-85.
8. Iacono, Alfonso Maurizio, The History and Theory of Fetishism, çev. V. Tchernichova ve M. Boria, Palgrava Macmillan, Hampshire, 2016.

9. Ilyenkov, Edvard Vasilyevich, The Ideal in Human Activity, Marxists Internet Archive, Pacifica, 2009.
10. Jappe, Anselm, “Sohn-Rethel and the Origin of ‘Real Abstraction’: A Critique of Production or a Critique of Circulation?”, Historical Materialism, vol. 21, no. 1, 2013, s. 3-14.
11. Knafo, Smauel, “The Fetishizing Subject of Marx’s Capital”, Capital&Class, vol. 26, no. 1, 2002, s. 145-175.
12. Marx, Karl, Capital: Critique of Political Economy, Volume I, çev. Ben Fowkes, Penguin, Londra, 1976.
13. Marx, Karl, Das Kapital, Volume I, Dördüncü Baskı, çev. Hans Ehrbar, http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~ehrbar/cap1.pdf, 1890, erişim tarihi 19.10.2016.
14. Marx, Karl, Kapital: Ekonomi Politiğin Eleştirisi¸1. Cilt, çev. Mehmet Selik ve Nail Satlıgan, Yordam, İstanbul, 2011.
15. Murray, Patrick, “The Necessity of Money: How Hegel Helped Marx Surpass Ricardo’s Theory of Value,” Fred Moseley (der.), Marx’s Method in Capital: A Reexamination, Humanities Press, New Jersey, 1993 içinde, s. 37-61.
16. Rubin, Isaac Illich, Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value, Black&Red, Detroit, 1972.
17. Schulz, Guido, “Marx’s Distinction Between the Fetish Character of the Commodity and Fetishism”, Marx & Philosophy Society Konferansına sunulan bildiri, 2011.
18. https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/assets/files/society/pdfs/schulz 2011.pdf; erişim tarihi: 14.02.2017.
19. Simmel, Georg, The Philosophy of Money, genişletilmiş 2. baskı, der. David Frisby, Routledge, Londra, 1990.