<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size:
12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline ! important; float:
none;">"</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family:
Arial; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float:
none; ">The point worth repeating again and again is that, in
Marx's notion of fetishism, the place of the fetishist inversion
is not in what people think they are doing, but in their social
activity itself:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline ! important; float:
none;">a typical bourgeois subject is, in terms of his conscious
attitude, an utilitarian nominalist — it is in his social
activity, in exchange on the market, that he acts as if
commodities were not simple objects, but objects endowed with
special powers, full of "theological whimsies." In other words,
people are well aware how things really stand, they know very well
that the commodity-money is nothing but a reified form of the
appearance of social relations, i.e. that, beneath the "relations
between things," there are "relations between people" — the
paradox is that, in their social activity, they act as if they do
not know this, and follow the fetishist illusion. The fetishist
belief, the fetishist inversion, is displaced onto things, it is
embodied in what Marx calls "social relations between things."<br>
<br>
"<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; display: inline !important; float:
none; ">"So, when a critical Marxist encounters a bourgeois
subject immersed in commodity fetishism, the Marxist's reproach to
him is not "Commodity may seem to you a magical object endowed
with special powers, but it really is just a reified expression of
relations between people"; the actual Marxist's reproach is rather
"You may think that the commodity appears to you as a simple
embodiment of social relations (that, for example, money is just a
kind of voucher entitling you to a part of the social product),
but this is not how things really seem to you — in your social
reality, by means of your participation in social exchange, you
bear witness to the uncanny fact that a commodity really appears
to you as a magical object endowed with special powers"…</span><span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline ! important; float:
none;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> <br>
<br>
"<br>
<br>
</span></span><a
href="http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/the-interpassive-subject/">http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/the-interpassive-subject/</a><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>