Works of Karl Marx and Georg Simmel Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Works of Karl Marx and Georg Simmel - Essay ExampleThe questionable commodity fetishism, as Marx (1976) tell us, is the fact that a definite kind relation between custody themselves assumes here, for the, the fantastic form of a relation between things, or to the producers the social relations between their private labours appear as material relations between persons and social relations between things. (p. 165) This concept was conceived wherein humans are the authoritative actors whose social relationality was obscured in the reified commodity form. (Brah & Coombes 2000, p. 116)The concept of autonomy of objective culture, on the other hand, is Simmels photo of the prevalence of monetary relations in modern society. Here, he is suggesting that, paradoxically, it is the fact that notes empowers us that accounts for the fragmentation of subjective life and that monetary freedom is abstract and devoid of substance because it becomes alive and valuable solo through universe in corporated into the substance of real social relations. (Dodd 1999, p. 38) This principle by Simmel is, in a flair, an extension of Marxs commodity fetishism to cultural production in line with the idea that objective culture exists in an autonomous realm that follows an immanent developmental logic. Here, the commodity, gold and capital - with money as the stark(a) fetish of money making more money - appear in such a way that they are immediately present on the surface of the bourgeois society save their immediate being is pure semblance. (Simmel 200p, p. xxvi)The comparison of the commodity fetishism and autonomy of objective culture is best illustrated in Marx and Simmels talk of on money, the aesthetic sphere and freedom.On MoneyA common ground between Marx and Simmel is their vast discourse on money and its topics on culture. Marx utilized the Shakespearian theme of money in Timon of Athens wherein it was said that money is an unnatural power which converts the morally b ad into the morally good, the antisocial becomes social and that the ugly becomes beautiful. In Shakespeares Timon of Athens, Timon talked about his goldThus much of this will make black, white foul, reasonableWrong, right base, noble old, young coward, valiantThou common whore of mankind, that puttst oddsAmong the rout of nations. (Timon of Athens moment 4, scene 3)Marx adopted this and elaborated more in his effort to illustrate that money is an alien metier - one that conceals the true value of labor and that it takes upon itself and its possessor qualities that are external to man. To quoteThat which money stinkpot create for me, that for which I can pay (i.e., what money can buy)- that I, the possessor of the money, am. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. The properties of money are the properties and essential powers of me - its possessor. Thus what I am and what I am able of is in no way determined by my individuality. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness, its power of repulsion, is destroyed by money. I - according to my individual nature - am lame, but money gives me twenty legs, therefore I am not lame. I am wicked, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid man but people honour money, and therefore also its possessor. (cited in