|
|
|
| Materialized Reality, Social Cognition and Behavioral Logic in the Commodity World: Comparative Analysis of Marx’s and Some Later Researchers’ Critique of Fetishism |
| Liu Zhaofeng |
| School of Marxism, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In order to deepen the study of the critical theory of fetishism, it is necessary to make a comparative analysis of Marx’s and Lukacs, Baudrillard, Hiromatsu Wataru, Zizek’s related discussions.Marx’s fetishism theory and Lukacs’ critique of reification have different applicable scope and critical direction. Marx believes that all commodity production (not just the capitalist commodity production) has the nature of fetishism, while Lukacs regards commodity fetishism as a unique problem of modern capitalism, thus narrowing the historical period during which Marx’s critique of fetishism applies. Marx limits the object of fetishism criticism to the materialization of social relations under the condition of commodity economy, while Lukacs also incorporates technological progress itself into the critical object of reification theory in History and Class Consciousness.The relationship between people is manifested as the relationship between things, which is the objective social reality, that is, “materialized reality”. In the face of materialized reality, some people can see through (with critical consciousness of reification), while others are trapped (captured by reification consciousness). In the context of Marx’s Das Kapital and its manuscripts, Versachlichung refers to the problem of how social relations express themselves as the form of presentation (which belongs to materialized reality), rather than the cognitive problem of how the parties understand this kind of representation. Hiromatsu Wataru interprets the objective social existence of Versachlichung as people’s misidentification. In fact, there is no difference between “us” as intellectual censors and “them” as parties, the difference lies only in our minds and theirs.In Critique of Symbolic Political Economy, Baudrillard’s criticism of Marx’s fetishism theory, which ignore the essential difference in research perspective between Marx and the Psychoanalytic school, cannot be established. Marx’s criticism of fetishism contains a sober consciousness of historicity, which Baudrillard lacks. Capital fetishism does not come from use value itself, but from the unique social form obtained by use value in capitalist production relations. When Baudrillard uses the concept of use value fetishism, he confuses use value with the use value already in the capitalist relations of production.The objective appearance of the social characteristics of labor and the objective form in which the determination of the magnitude of the values takes place, cannot be eliminated by Marx’s scientific discovery. In other words, even if we see through the real operation of the materialized reality, we cannot make this materialized reality dissolve itself. In the developed stage of commodity economy, people live in reversed relations, not in distorted consciousness. What governs how people act (how to do) is not the theoretical consciousness (know or don’t know) that can be seen through, but the realistic and objective social relations. Based on the inconsistency between knowing and doing, Zizek’s criticism of classical ideological criticism overestimates the degree of people’s consciousness confronted with the false consciousness and misunderstands people’s behavioral logic.Through comparative analysis, we can draw a general conclusion that in terms of the critical study of fetishism, to carefully study Marx’s Das Kapital is the primary work.
|
|
Received: 04 February 2023
|
|
|
|
1 匈］卢卡奇： 《历史与阶级意识》，杜章智等译，北京：商务印书馆，1999年。
2 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。
3 日］广松涉： 《资本论的哲学》，邓习议译，南京：南京大学出版社，2013年。
4 日］广松涉： 《唯物史观的原像》，邓习议译，南京：南京大学出版社，2009年。
5 日］广松涉： 《物象化论的构图》，彭曦、庄倩译，南京：南京大学出版社，2009年。
6 法］鲍德里亚： 《符号政治经济学批判》，夏莹译，南京：南京大学出版社，2015 年。
7 刘召峰： 《Fetischismus及相关词在马克思著作中的话语变迁》，《现代哲学》2017年第1期，第9-16页。
8 吴琼： 《拜物教/恋物癖：一个概念的谱系学考察》，《马克思主义与现实》2014年第3期，第88-99页。
9 夏莹： 《马克思拜物教理论的双重内涵及其在西方马克思主义中的演化路径》，《马克思主义与现实》2014年第2期，第22-27页。
10 刘召峰： 《物象化、物化与马克思的拜物教批判》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2018年第1期，第35-48页。
11 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯全集》第32卷，北京：人民出版社，1998年。
12 刘森林： 《物、物化、物象化：马克思物论的新认识》，《高校理论战线》2012年第7期，第14-20页。
13 刘森林： 《物象化与物化：马克思物化理论的再思考》，《哲学研究》2013年第1期，第12-19页。
14 罗纲： 《社会关系的无意识与不作为——卢卡奇对Verdinglichung与Versachlichung的区分》，《哲学动态》2012年第10期，第23-28页。
15 斯洛文尼亚］斯拉沃热·齐泽克： 《意识形态的崇高客体》，季广茂译，北京：中央编译出版社，2014年。
16 斯洛文尼亚］斯拉沃热·齐泽克： 《意识形态的崇高客体》，季广茂译，北京：中央编译出版社，2002年。
17 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯文集》第7卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。
18 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯全集》第37卷，北京：人民出版社，2019年。
19 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。
20 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯全集》第35卷，北京：人民出版社，2013年。
21 刘召峰： 《马克思拜物教批判的三重指向与历史性自觉》，《马克思主义研究》2019年第4期，第85-96页。
22 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译： 《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，北京：人民出版社，2009年。 |
|
|
|
2023, Vol. 53 
