Marx's Critique Of Political Economy In Das Kapital

Dan Corotti Kanya

ANTH266

Clare Sammells

Short answer and Essay

Commodity Fetishism

In his critique of political economy in Das Kapital, Marx comes up with the concept of commodity fetishism. First of all, he defines commodity as any object that through its qualities satisfies the needs and wants of an individual and that is acquired by means of exchange. This is a pretty straightforward definition, but the concept gets more complicated as we start talking about fetishism(Page 320, Capital). When we think about this word, we think of the primitive belief that godly powers can reside in inanimate things. Marx used this word to describe the magical value that commodities seem to have in a capitalist economy. Normally, he states, one would think

For example, Graeber, in the chapter 5 (Page 108) of his book Debt, takes Marx’s analysis in an argument that is very reminiscent to the one Mauss highlights in his study The Gift, chapter 1. They both conclude that economic transactions first emerged as social exchanges in which the central purpose was not to buy or sell goods but rather to foster relations between people—be it celebrating marriages, avoiding conflicts, , negotiating treaties, or establishing fatherhood. In addition, in his study of the Kula ring, Malinowski reaches a very similar conclusion when he considers that all the valuables that he has studied are non-use items traded uniquely for the purpose of enhancing one 's social status and prestige. Also, in the Spirits of Capitalism readings, we are able to see the situation of Malaysian and Indian factories’ female workers whose spirit possessions are an evident signal of rebellion against becoming commodities of capitalism. This is just another example that goes in line with Marx’s political economic views as to how an increasing abstraction of labor would lead to an increase in the exploitation of the workers of capitalism(Page 337,

As we can read in Mcelwee’s article Bargain for billionaires, philanthropy, or the love of humanity habitually promoted through generous donations of money to good causes, has proven to be a very ineffective way to help the poor. Philanthrocapitalism is supposed to be a better way of doing philanthropy, which mirrors the way that business is done in the capitalist world. Rather than writing checks, entrepreneurs want to follow a hands-on approach by bringing ideas to scale through investing their time and energy. Considering that the dream of believing that charity works is profoundly unrealistic, we might ask ourselves is philanthrocapitalism an actual improvement? This is the issue that Mcelwee gets at in his article when he points out that the ultimate reason for charity is not to help the poor. He supports this main argument by providing examples of how most donations are aimed to religious or cultural endeavours, evade taxes, and raise status. He also explains how philanthropy is morally wrong, since in order to be able to give away money you first have to take it