this is actually possibly the best possible explanation I've yet seen of Commodity Fetishism. His other explanation in The Sublime Object of Ideology is also very good.
2:47 Ideologie verkörpert sich im Handeln, nicht im Denken, und danach: wie etwas WIRKLICH erscheint, zeigt sich / verkörpert sich im Verhalten, an den Tätigkeiten/Aktivitäten, Reaktionen etc.; wie erscheint Geld wirklich? Ablesbar an den Aktivitäten einzelner Individuen und der Gesamtaktivität des Geldes als emergierte Intelligenz?! Gibt es diesen Unterschied zwischen Erscheinem und wirklichem Erscheinen, zwischen Denken und Ideologie/Handeln, zwischen bewusstem und unbewusstem bei Simmel?
Stated simply, is he just saying that it's not that things are not what they appear to be, but that ideology is not what it appears to be - or your ideology is not what you think your ideology is - your actual ideology can be revealed through your actions and interactions ?
@@anneallison6402 and Nietzsche madly broke down crying in front of a horse due to mental illness, which doesn't diminish the value of his works. Same with Althusser. He became mentally ill later in life, like Nietzsche, and it was after he wrote his main works on ideology
yes, ideology to theorists like Zizek and Louis Althusser (one of Zizek's inspirations) are like socio-symbolic rituals that we do every day, or they are at least manifested like that
He REALLY over complicates a simple thing here. All marx is saying is that we assign value to an object without knowing who made it ot any of the labor that goes into it. Therefore we assume it "Magical" in that it must therefore have value by itself.
That's precisely what Marx is not saying. Marx is saying that we think the object appears to be a simple product of social relations, but we do not really understand how it appears to us. If we examine the appearance we realise that it actually appears magical.
@@georgepantzikis7988I can’t believe people take this shit seriously. There has got to be a word for this… But you can’t even argue against it, there is always some insistence that it’s totally incomprehensible.
@@thedog5k Nothing about this is incomprehensible. In fact, it's pretty simple. Maybe your reading level is too low, or, and this is more likely, you're not trying to understand. I'll make it super simple for you and tell me if you still think it makes no sense. When we look at items being sold, we think that we see them in a calm, detached, objective way. However, this is not the case. We know it is not the case because, even if we say we look at them that way, we don't act as if they are simply material objects that fulfil human needs. Therefore, there is a difference between how we look at commodities and how we think we look at commodities. We think the way we look at them is objective, but it is not really objective.
@@georgepantzikis7988 Oh there we go, the classical response... " just read better bro". Very popular with snobby midwits. Maybe you should take that advice. Op said commodity fetishism is very simple. Then you "corrected" him, claiming Marx says we do not understand how it appears to us, and if we examine it, its "magical" (????) I'm saying that idea is ridiculous to take seriously. Because of the insistence that how an object appears to us is incomprehensible. Magic is essentially a fluffy word for what you cannot comprehend. That's why I used that word. It's like arguing metaphysics the same way a child plays action figures. How do you even have that conversation. Every time you say something you trump it with, " That's what you THINK you know!" brilliant! As far as your assumption goes. It's very presumptuous. I'm guessing its either just wrong or is entirely contingent on playing Mister Gotcha. As in even though I think its bullshit. I can legit critique the predicament I am in. Even though I don't think the way I am told I think!!! Some dude will tell me its how I think, because I am forced to participate, because I don't really have another choice. You set up a story where I am ignorant, and cannot NOT be ignorant. Thank god for you though? Are you ignorant too? Did the bearded man tell me exactly how I am supposed to perceive these commodities? Or is it just incomprehensible to me?
@@thedog5k So, will you engage with the simplified version of commodity fetishism that I presented or is throwing insults all you have to offer? I'll try again. 1) We think our view of commodities is an objective representation of the facts. 2) We are wrong. Our actions show that, despite not being immediately aware of it, we smuggle in some ideas that are not objective. These two points are commodity fetishism. The original comment I replied to explained commodity fetishism as "we think commodities have all these non-objective qualities, but in reality they are just the result of social relations." If you followed the two points I wrote above, you can see what is wrong with this statement. Marx is not saying that people believe commodities to be magical. His point is that people know they are not magical, yet they act as if they are.
I'm not to sure either actually but what I got from it is that me as a Marxist thinks i'm being "objective" when I realize that commodities are not mythical object endowed with a special value but just refined expressions of social relations but in reality this view is still being driven unconsciously by ideology and my actions still act as if commodities have a mythical quality. I'm still within this "stupidity" notion of ideology. If someone could help me out that would be appreciated. I'm still trying to grasp it
Smart dude, but I have a really hard time watching him. I swallow excessively in empathy and rub and sniff my nose like a coke addict trying to scratch that itch for him.
A cold or coked up? Anyways, a topic which would do wonders if it ever became part of mainstream narrative. Closest thing is women having shoe fetishes.
Hunh? Cars, guns, sports, every aspect of our consumption is directed by this principle. The entirety of the advertising industry and much of politics exploit this, and in turn reciprocates in policy to satiate and maintain market demand, which become cyclic.
this is actually possibly the best possible explanation I've yet seen of Commodity Fetishism. His other explanation in The Sublime Object of Ideology is also very good.
Yep. This is what made it click for me.
Zizek Rear View Mirror:
OBJECTS IN THE MIRROR MAY APPEAR MORE OR LESS IDEOLOGICAL THAN THEY REALLY MORE OR LESS APPEAR TO BE
and so on and so on
The object in the mirror? Hegel's refrigerator.
Ideology is what are you doing not what are you thinking
Everything is ideology. There is no escape!
GREAT segment man. Thanks
I thought I understood this concept, now I know that I didn't
I thought I understood this concept, now I know I do not
@@szamszatan As i said: he greatly overcomplicates it.
wow zizek is awesome
2:47 Ideologie verkörpert sich im Handeln, nicht im Denken, und danach: wie etwas WIRKLICH erscheint, zeigt sich / verkörpert sich im Verhalten, an den Tätigkeiten/Aktivitäten, Reaktionen etc.; wie erscheint Geld wirklich? Ablesbar an den Aktivitäten einzelner Individuen und der Gesamtaktivität des Geldes als emergierte Intelligenz?! Gibt es diesen Unterschied zwischen Erscheinem und wirklichem Erscheinen, zwischen Denken und Ideologie/Handeln, zwischen bewusstem und unbewusstem bei Simmel?
Stated simply, is he just saying that it's not that things are not what they appear to be, but that ideology is not what it appears to be - or your ideology is not what you think your ideology is - your actual ideology can be revealed through your actions and interactions ?
Yes. It is a very Althüsserian understanding of Ideology.
@@redstatesaint But didn't Althuser killed his wife?
@@anneallison6402 and Nietzsche madly broke down crying in front of a horse due to mental illness, which doesn't diminish the value of his works. Same with Althusser. He became mentally ill later in life, like Nietzsche, and it was after he wrote his main works on ideology
yes, ideology to theorists like Zizek and Louis Althusser (one of Zizek's inspirations) are like socio-symbolic rituals that we do every day, or they are at least manifested like that
What did he do with the chicken?
A lot of this seems to be influenced by "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" by Althusser
It’s easier for me to listen Zizek. I can’t avoid to look at his tics when I’m looking a video of him.
What expiation? He used difficult terminologies to define it. Why can't he be simple?
True
He REALLY over complicates a simple thing here.
All marx is saying is that we assign value to an object without knowing who made it ot any of the labor that goes into it. Therefore we assume it "Magical" in that it must therefore have value by itself.
That's precisely what Marx is not saying. Marx is saying that we think the object appears to be a simple product of social relations, but we do not really understand how it appears to us. If we examine the appearance we realise that it actually appears magical.
@@georgepantzikis7988I can’t believe people take this shit seriously.
There has got to be a word for this…
But you can’t even argue against it, there is always some insistence that it’s totally incomprehensible.
@@thedog5k Nothing about this is incomprehensible. In fact, it's pretty simple. Maybe your reading level is too low, or, and this is more likely, you're not trying to understand. I'll make it super simple for you and tell me if you still think it makes no sense. When we look at items being sold, we think that we see them in a calm, detached, objective way. However, this is not the case. We know it is not the case because, even if we say we look at them that way, we don't act as if they are simply material objects that fulfil human needs. Therefore, there is a difference between how we look at commodities and how we think we look at commodities. We think the way we look at them is objective, but it is not really objective.
@@georgepantzikis7988 Oh there we go, the classical response... " just read better bro". Very popular with snobby midwits.
Maybe you should take that advice. Op said commodity fetishism is very simple.
Then you "corrected" him, claiming Marx says we do not understand how it appears to us, and if we examine it, its "magical" (????)
I'm saying that idea is ridiculous to take seriously. Because of the insistence that how an object appears to us is incomprehensible.
Magic is essentially a fluffy word for what you cannot comprehend. That's why I used that word. It's like arguing metaphysics the same way a child plays action figures. How do you even have that conversation. Every time you say something you trump it with, " That's what you THINK you know!" brilliant!
As far as your assumption goes. It's very presumptuous. I'm guessing its either just wrong or is entirely contingent on playing Mister Gotcha. As in even though I think its bullshit. I can legit critique the predicament I am in. Even though I don't think the way I am told I think!!! Some dude will tell me its how I think, because I am forced to participate, because I don't really have another choice.
You set up a story where I am ignorant, and cannot NOT be ignorant. Thank god for you though? Are you ignorant too? Did the bearded man tell me exactly how I am supposed to perceive these commodities? Or is it just incomprehensible to me?
@@thedog5k So, will you engage with the simplified version of commodity fetishism that I presented or is throwing insults all you have to offer? I'll try again.
1) We think our view of commodities is an objective representation of the facts.
2) We are wrong. Our actions show that, despite not being immediately aware of it, we smuggle in some ideas that are not objective.
These two points are commodity fetishism. The original comment I replied to explained commodity fetishism as "we think commodities have all these non-objective qualities, but in reality they are just the result of social relations." If you followed the two points I wrote above, you can see what is wrong with this statement. Marx is not saying that people believe commodities to be magical. His point is that people know they are not magical, yet they act as if they are.
real
REALLY
Like Arendt, the delivery of his thoughts have a hard time keeping up with the flow of his sweet connection of ideas.
What's the difference between 'the stupidity' notion of ideology and the real one? They look the same.
I'm not to sure either actually but what I got from it is that me as a Marxist thinks i'm being "objective" when I realize that commodities are not mythical object endowed with a special value but just refined expressions of social relations but in reality this view is still being driven unconsciously by ideology and my actions still act as if commodities have a mythical quality. I'm still within this "stupidity" notion of ideology.
If someone could help me out that would be appreciated. I'm still trying to grasp it
this is mindfuck no way anybody understood what he said
see the replies to beatles123 for an explanation. it's not that complicated, his accent and tempo of voice makes it more confusing lol
censor magical realism
Smart dude, but I have a really hard time watching him. I swallow excessively in empathy and rub and sniff my nose like a coke addict trying to scratch that itch for him.
what do you mean by swallowing excessively ? Just curious
kokoyu birak
Koko zizeki biraksin
Adam hasta (Tourette)
The reason why he's a Marxist: Marx's views on Bathing really spoke to him.
mans is high off the blow
Errr...............I was doing OK until the start of his second sentence
i get you point but he is too exited
A cold or coked up? Anyways, a topic which would do wonders if it ever became part of mainstream narrative. Closest thing is women having shoe fetishes.
he has a neurological tic afaik
Hunh? Cars, guns, sports, every aspect of our consumption is directed by this principle. The entirety of the advertising industry and much of politics exploit this, and in turn reciprocates in policy to satiate and maintain market demand, which become cyclic.