Writer: Harsh Mehta
Editor: Vyakhya Vashishth
Illustrator: Sanjana Mathur
I’m pretty sure that at this point, the people who read my articles know me and what I stand for. A bit, atleast. It’s time for me to be a bit more shameless and blatant about it this time. Remember Marx? Funny bearded Santa looking man who’s usually portrayed with red laser eyes and a bass-boosted Soviet anthem? Well, it turns out that he was actually an incredibly influential philosopher and economist. Who would've guessed? Well, I’d like to talk about some Marxist ideas in this article, particularly alienation and commodity fetishism.
You might be wondering, what even are those things? Well, alienation from the means of production refers to the disconnection that individuals feel from the work they do and the products they produce. This can occur when the ownership of the means of production, such as factories and tools, is in the hands of a small group of capitalists, rather than being collectively owned by the workers themselves. Think of the difference between having autonomy in your life, and working on assembling products you want to, versus a soulless factory assembly line. Marx believed that this alienation leads to a number of negative consequences for individuals, including the adoption of commodity consumption as a personality. When people experience prolonged alienation from their labour, they may begin to view their labour as a means to an end, just a tool to make money, rather than a role they play in society for personal fulfilment.
As a result, people may seek fulfilment and identity through the consumption of commodities, rather than through their work. They may begin to define themselves through the brands and products they own, rather than through their skills and abilities. This phenomenon is known as commodity fetishism, where individuals begin to attribute value and meaning to things that are not inherently valuable or meaningful. They may begin to see their possessions as a reflection of their own worth and status, rather than as simply things that they own. In modern day late-stage capitalism, this is plain to see everywhere we go, be it social media or real life. Influencers like David Dobrik, the Paul Brothers and even the most subscribed-to YouTube channel, Mr Beast, all have their personalities and content extremely centred around their excessive wealth.
Brands like Louis Vuitton, Supreme, Balenciaga, etc. all exist because of commodity fetishisation. Their brand names only hold such value because of them postulating that their products, that otherwise seem like normal everyday products are dozens, maybe even hundreds of times as valuable as their common counterparts. All because of that brand name. Ownership of these luxury items will be a statement, a showcase of your financial capabilities, and the perception of other people seeing you as rich is just that valuable. You’ll be seen as desirable, likeable, employable, only if you have that air of consumerism about you. These are the conditions that have led to the world’s current richest man being the owner of luxury brands like Louis Vuitton.
The rise of consumer culture in capitalist societies has only further perpetuated this phenomenon. Advertising and marketing campaigns often use images of happy, successful people to sell products, perpetuating the idea that owning certain things can bring happiness and fulfilment. However, this is a false promise. The constant need to acquire new things to maintain a sense of identity and fulfilment is ultimately unfulfilling and can lead to feelings of emptiness and dissatisfaction.
Comments