|
|
|
| Rethinking the Fetishism Critique Theory in Capital from the Perspective of Subjectification |
| Wang Shaoliang |
| School of Marxism / Research Center for Marxism Theory Innovation and Communication, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Reification and abstraction are regarded as two classic perspectives in academic interpretations of the fetishism critique theory in Capital. However, it is argued that these two perspectives fail to fully explain why fetishism possesses objective social efficacy. Therefore, this research can be advanced by approaching the issue from the perspective of subjectification.Firstly, the “generation of the value subject” is revealed by Marx through the concept of “independence” in Capital. The essence of commodity fetishism is that the “commodity-thing”, as a value form, is made independent and rises to a “subject” that rules over society and laborers. Subsequently, Marx shifts his focus from the “generation of the value subject” to the “movement of the value subject” in his exploration of the issue of fetishism. For the subjectification movement of value, it is identified as the productive origin of fetishism’s acquisition of objective social power, while the reification and abstraction of human social relations and their reflection in consciousness are seen as the objective results of this movement.Secondly, the demonstration of the origin of fetishism is conducted by Marx through the transformations in the value form. The evolution of the value form from the “simple form”, “expanded form”, to the “general form” and “monetary form” ultimately shapes an inverted world of humans and things. Three concepts of “thing” are identified in the context of Capital: from “Gegenstand” (object-thing), “Ding” (abstract thing) to “Sache” (relation-thing). The changes in the use of these concepts imply the subjectification logic of fetishism. Commodities also become “things” (Sache) that engage in social relations and “self-activity” with themselves in addition to being made independent from the human object (Gegenstand) world, transforming from “human objectified products” into abstract “things” (Ding) that are “dissociated from human relations”.Finally, the production mechanism of the formation of the fetishistic nature is also revealed by Marx, which involves tracing the value form further back to abstract labor. With regard to the essence of fetishism, it is identified as the inversion of abstract labor into a self-active subject. Its self-activity is transformed into the subjectification movement of value when abstract labor is detached from the production process. From commodities to money and capital, it is a process of the continuous independence of the value subject on the one hand; and a process of the deepening development of the fetishistic nature on the other hand. From industrial capital, merchant capital to interest-bearing capital, the cyclical movement of the value subject is shown to continuously reproduce the ruling power of fetishism, and the mystery and inversion of capital are also shown to reach their peak. Different capital cycles are found to produce different social effects. The production (labor) fetishism is caused by the industrial capital cycle; the money worship is caused by the merchant capital cycle; the object of fetishism is no longer a specific object but becomes an abstract proliferation movement in interest-bearing capital.The interpretation of the fetishism critique theory in Capital is shown to effectively restore the social historicity of fetishism from the perspective of subjectification. In reality, capital is thought to exist only within the movement of things in the form of commodities and money, and the value subject is only possible in the movement of capital. In other words, the capital subject cannot ascend to a religious-like god to engage in pure self-activity, which is also the historical materialist methodology demonstrated by Marx’s fetishism critique theory in Capital.
|
|
Received: 11 January 2025
|
|
|
|
1 苏］伊萨克·伊里奇·鲁宾：《马克思价值理论研究》，曹江川译，北京：中央编译出版社，2024年。
2 匈］卢卡奇：《历史与阶级意识：关于马克思主义辩证法的研究》，杜章智、任立、燕宏远译，北京：商务印书馆，1992年。
3 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，2002年。
4 德］阿克塞尔·霍耐特：《物化：承认理论探析》，罗名珍译，上海：华东师范大学出版社，2018年。
5 德］阿尔弗雷德·索恩-雷特尔：《脑力劳动与体力劳动：西方历史的认识论》，谢永康、侯振武译，南京：南京大学出版社，2015年。
6 英］克里斯多夫·约翰·阿瑟：《新辩证法与马克思的〈资本论〉》，高飞等译，北京：北京师范大学出版社，2018年。
7 加］莫伊舍·普殊同：《时间、劳动与社会统治：马克思的批判理论再阐释》，康凌译，北京：北京大学出版社，2019年。
8 唐正东：《马克思拜物教批判理论的辩证特性及其当代启示》，《哲学研究》2010年第7期，第3-9，128页。
9 冯波：《马克思拜物教批判中抽象与物化的关系》，《哲学研究》2021年第10期，第18-26，128页。
10 刘召峰：《马克思的拜物教概念考辨》，《南京大学学报（哲学·人文科学·社会科学版）》2012年第1期，第17-23页。
11 鲍金：《拜物教为什么是“客观的思维形式”？——抽象视阈中的马克思拜物教批判再阐释》，《马克思主义与现实》2013年第6期，第52-58页。
12 吴猛：《价值形式：马克思商品拜物教批判的理论定位》，《中国社会科学》2020年第4期，第27-45，204-205页。
13 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85-96，168页。
14 法］路易·阿尔都塞、［法］艾蒂安·巴里巴尔：《读〈资本论〉》第二版，李其庆、冯文光译，北京：中央编译出版社，2017年。
15 德］马克思：《资本论》第1卷，北京：人民出版社，2004年。
16 德］马克思：《资本论》第3卷，北京：人民出版社，2004年。
17 德］马克思：《1844年经济学哲学手稿》，北京：人民出版社，2014年。
18 Marx K. Engels F.， Marx/Engels Gesamtausgabe： II/10， Berlin： Dietz Verlag， 1991.
19 日］平子友长：《“物象化”与“物化”同黑格尔辩证法的联系》，李乾坤译，《马克思主义与现实》2012年第4期，第69-76页。
20 Marx K. Engels F.， Marx/Engels Gesamtausgabe： II/15， Berlin： Dietz Verlag， 2004.
21 加］罗伯特·阿尔布瑞顿：《政治经济学中的辩证法与解构》，李彬彬译，北京：北京师范大学出版社，2018年。
22 德］马克思：《政治经济学批判。第一分册》，见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31卷，北京：人民出版社，1998年。
23 德］马克思：《资本论》第1卷（法文版），见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43卷，北京：人民出版社，2016年。
24 德］米夏埃尔·海因里希：《政治经济学批判：马克思〈资本论〉导论》，张义修、房誉译，南京：南京大学出版社，2021年。
25 德］马克思：《资本论》第1卷（德文第1版），见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42卷，北京：人民出版社，2016年。
26 王绍梁：《马克思资本辩证法的“黑格尔因素”再辨——从〈巴黎手稿〉到〈资本论〉》，《哲学研究》2025年第5期，第31-47，171-172页。
27 德］马克思：《资本论》第2卷，北京：人民出版社，2004年。
28 德］鲁道夫·希法亭：《金融资本——资本主义最新发展的研究》，福民等译，北京：商务印书馆，1994年。
29 美］大卫·哈维：《跟大卫·哈维读〈资本论〉》，刘英译，上海：上海译文出版社，2014年。
30 德］马克思：《政治经济学批判（1861—1863年手稿）》，见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。 |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
