Best Choice For Beginners!
Big Sign-Up Bonus!
Free Trading Education!
Free Demo Account!
Only For Experienced Traders!
What Is a Commodity?
A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other goods of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.
When they are traded on an exchange, commodities must also meet specified minimum standards, also known as a basis grade. They tend to change rapidly from year to year.
What’s a Commodity?
The basic idea is that there is little differentiation between a commodity coming from one producer and the same commodity from another producer. A barrel of oil is basically the same product, regardless of the producer.
By contrast, for electronics merchandise, the quality and features of a given product may be completely different depending on the producer. Some traditional examples of commodities include the following:
- Natural gas
More recently, the definition has expanded to include financial products, such as foreign currencies and indexes. Technological advances have also led to new types of commodities being exchanged in the marketplace. For example, cell phone minutes and bandwidth.
- A commodity is a basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type.
- Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services.
- Investors and traders can buy and sell commodities directly in the spot (cash) market or via derivatives such as futures and options.
- Owning commodities in a broader portfolio is encouraged as a diversifier and a hedge against inflation.
Commodities Buyers and Producers
The sale and purchase of commodities are usually carried out through futures contracts on exchanges that standardize the quantity and minimum quality of the commodity being traded. For example, the Chicago Board of Trade stipulates that one wheat contract is for 5,000 bushels and states what grades of wheat can be used to satisfy the contract.
There are two types of traders that trade commodity futures. The first are buyers and producers of commodities that use commodity futures contracts for the hedging purposes for which they were originally intended. These traders make or take delivery of the actual commodity when the futures contract expires. For example, the wheat farmer that plants a crop can hedge against the risk of losing money if the price of wheat falls before the crop is harvested. The farmer can sell wheat futures contracts when the crop is planted and guarantee a predetermined price for the wheat at the time it is harvested.
The second type of commodities trader is the speculator. These are traders who trade in the commodities markets for the sole purpose of profiting from the volatile price movements. These traders never intend to make or take delivery of the actual commodity when the futures contract expires.
Many of the futures markets are very liquid and have a high degree of daily range and volatility, making them very tempting markets for intraday traders. Many of the index futures are used by brokerages and portfolio managers to offset risk. Also, since commodities do not typically trade in tandem with equity and bond markets, some commodities can also be used effectively to diversify an investment portfolio.
Commodities as a Hedge for Inflation
Commodity prices typically rise when inflation accelerates, which is why investors often flock to them for their protection during times of increased inflation—particularly unexpected inflation. As the demand for goods and services increases, the price of goods and services rises, and commodities are what’s used to produce those goods and services. Because commodities prices often rise with inflation, this asset class can often serve as a hedge against the decreased buying power of the currency.
Commodity fetishism explained
In Karl Marx’s critique of political economy, commodity fetishism is the perception of certain relationships (especially production and exchange) not as relationships among people, but as social relationships among things (the money and commodities exchanged in market trade). As a form of reification, commodity fetishism transforms the intersubjective, abstract aspects of economic value into things that people believe have intrinsic value.  
The theory of commodity fetishism is presented in the first chapter of Das Kapital (English: Capital. Critique of Political Economy) (1867), at the conclusion of the analysis of the value-form of commodities, to explain that the social organization of labor is mediated through market exchange, the buying and the selling of commodities (goods and services). Hence, in a capitalist society, social relations between people—who makes what, who works for whom, the production-time for a commodity, et cetera—are perceived as social relations among objects; depending on the social function of the exchange, objects acquire a certain form (for example, if the function is to render possible exchange, the object acquires value; if its function is one of hiring a worker, then the object becomes capital)  . On the market, the commodities of each individual producer appear in a depersonalized form as separate exemplars of a given type of commodity regardless of who produced them, or where, or in which specific conditions  , thus obscuring the social relations of production.
Marx explained the sociological concept underlying commodity fetishism thus:
Concept of fetishism
The theory of commodity fetishism (German: Warenfetischismus) originated from Karl Marx’s references to fetishes and fetishism in his analyses of religious superstition, and in the criticism of the beliefs of political economists.  Marx borrowed the concept of “fetishism” from The Cult of Fetish Gods (1760) by Charles de Brosses, which proposed a materialist theory of the origin of religion.   Moreover, in the 1840s, the philosophic discussion of fetishism by Auguste Comte, and Ludwig Feuerbach’s psychological interpretation of religion also influenced Marx’s development of commodity fetishism.  
Marx’s first mention of fetishism appeared in 1842, in his response to a newspaper article by Karl Heinrich Hermes, which defended the Prussian state on religious grounds.  Hermes agreed with the German philosopher Hegel in regarding fetishism as the crudest form of religion. Marx dismissed that argument, and Hermes’s definition of religion as that which elevates man “above sensuous appetites”. Instead, Marx said that fetishism is “the religion of sensuous appetites”, and that the fantasy of the appetites tricks the fetish worshipper into believing that an inanimate object will yield its natural character to gratify the desires of the worshipper. Therefore, the crude appetite of the fetish worshipper smashes the fetish when it ceases to be of service. 
The next mention of fetishism was in the 1842 Rheinische Zeitung newspaper articles about the “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood”, wherein Marx spoke of the Spanish fetishism of gold and the German fetishism of wood as commodities: 
In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx spoke of the European fetish of precious-metal money:
In the ethnological notebooks, he commented upon the archæological reportage of The Origin of Civilisation and the Primitive Condition of Man: Mental and Social conditions of Savages (1870), by John Lubbock.  In the Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy (Grundrisse, 1859), he criticized the statist, anti-socialist arguments of the French economist Frédéric Bastiat; and about fetishes and fetishism Marx said:
In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), Marx referred to A Discourse on the Rise, Progress, Peculiar Objects, and Importance of Political Economy (1825), by John Ramsay McCulloch, who said that “In its natural state, matter . is always destitute of value”, with which Marx concurred, saying that “this shows how high even a McCulloch stands above the fetishism of German ‘thinkers’ who assert that ‘material’, and half a dozen similar irrelevancies are elements of value”.
Furthermore, in the manuscript of “Results of the Immediate Process of Production” (ca. 1864), an appendix to Capital: Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1 (1867), Marx said that:
Hence did Karl Marx apply the concepts of fetish and fetishism, derived from economic and ethnologic studies, to the development of the theory of commodity fetishism, wherein an economic abstraction (value) is psychologically transformed (reified) into an object, which people choose to believe has an intrinsic value, in and of itself. 
In the critique of political economy
Marx proposed that in a society where independent, private producers trade their products with each other, of their own volition and initiative, and without much coordination of market exchange, the volumes of production and commercial activities are adjusted in accordance with the fluctuating values of the products (goods and services) as they are bought and sold, and in accordance with the fluctuations of supply and demand. Because their social coexistence, and its meaning, is expressed through market exchange (trade and transaction), people have no other relations with each other. Therefore, social relations are continually mediated and expressed with objects (commodities and money). How the traded commodities relate will depend upon the costs of production, which are reducible to quantities of human labour, although the worker has no control over what happens to the commodities that he or she produces. (See: Entfremdung, Marx’s theory of alienation)
Domination of things
The concept of the intrinsic value of commodities (goods and services) determines and dominates the economic (business) relationships among people, to the extent that buyers and sellers continually adjust their beliefs (financial expectations) about the value of things—either consciously or unconsciously—to the proportionate price changes (market-value) of the commodities over which buyers and sellers believe they have no true control. That psychologic perception transforms the trading-value of a commodity into an independent entity (an object), to the degree that the social value of the goods and services appears to be a natural property of the commodity, itself. Thence objectified, the market appears as if self-regulated (by fluctuating supply and demand) because, in pursuit of profit, the consumers of the products ceased to perceive the human co-operation among capitalists that is the true engine of the market where commodities are bought and sold; such is the domination of things in the market.
The value of a commodity originates from the human being’s intellectual and perceptual capacity to consciously (subjectively) ascribe a relative value (importance) to a commodity, the goods and services manufactured by the labour of a worker. Therefore, in the course of the economic transactions (buying and selling) that constitute market exchange, people ascribe subjective values to the commodities (goods and services), which the buyers and the sellers then perceive as objective values, the market-exchange prices that people will pay for the commodities.
Naturalisation of market behaviour
In a capitalist society, the human perception that “the market” is an independent, sentient entity, is how buyers, sellers, and producers naturalise market exchange (the human choices and decisions that constitute commerce) as a series of “natural phenomena . that . happen of their own accord”. Such were the political-economy arguments of the economists whom Karl Marx criticized when they spoke of the “natural equilibria” of markets, as if the price (value) of a commodity were independent of the volition and initiative of the capitalist producers, buyers, and sellers of commodities.
In the 18th century, the Scottish social philosopher and political economist Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776) proposed that the “truck, barter, and exchange” activities of the market were corresponding economic representations of human nature, that is, the buying and selling of commodities were activities intrinsic to the market, and thus are the “natural behaviour” of the market. Hence, Smith proposed that a market economy was a self-regulating entity that “naturally” tended towards economic equilibrium, wherein the relative prices (the value) of a commodity ensured that the buyers and sellers obtained what they wanted for and from their goods and services. 
In the 19th century, Karl Marx contradicted the artifice of Adam Smith’s “naturalisation of the market’s behaviour” as a politico-ideologic apology—by and for the capitalists—which allowed human economic choices and decisions to be misrepresented as fixed “facts of life”, rather than as the human actions that resulted from the will of the producers, the buyers, and the sellers of the commodities traded at market. Such “immutable economic laws” are what Capital: Critique of Political Economy (1867) revealed about the functioning of the capitalist mode of production, how goods and services (commodities) are circulated among a society; and thus explain the psychological phenomenon of commodity fetishism, which ascribes an independent, objective value and reality to a thing that has no inherent value—other than the value given to it by the producer, the seller, and the buyer of the commodity.
In a capitalist economy, a character mask (Charaktermaske) is the functional role with which a man or a woman relates and is related to in a society composed of stratified social classes, especially in relationships and market-exchange transactions; thus, in the course of buying and selling, the commodities (goods and services) usually appear other than they are, because they are masked (obscured) by the role-playing of the buyer and the seller. Moreover, because the capitalist economy of a class society is an intrinsically contradictory system, the masking of the true socio-economic character of the transaction is an integral feature of its function and operation as market exchange. In the course of business competition among themselves, buyers, sellers, and producers cannot do business (compete) without obscurity—confidentiality and secrecy—thus the necessity of the character masks that obscure true economic motive.
Central to the Marxist critique of political economy is the obscurantism of the juridical labour contract, between the worker and the capitalist, that masks the true, exploitive nature of their economic relationship—that the worker does not sell his and her labour, but that the worker sells individual labour power, the human capacity to perform work and manufacture commodities (goods and services) that yield a profit to the producer. The work contract is the mask that obscures the economic exploitation of the difference between the wages paid for the labour of the worker, and the new value created by the labour of the worker.
Marx thus established that in a capitalist society the creation of wealth is based upon “the paid and unpaid portions of labour [that] are inseparably mixed up with each other, and the nature of the whole transaction is completely masked by the intervention of a contract, and the pay received at the end of the week”; and that:   
Opacity of economic relations
The primary valuation of the trading-value of goods and services (commodities) is expressed as money-prices. The buyers and the sellers determine and establish the economic and financial relationships; and afterwards compare the prices in and the price trends of the market. Moreover, because of the masking of true economic motive, neither the buyer, nor the seller, nor the producer perceive and understand every human labour-activity required to deliver the commodities (goods and services), nor do they perceive the workers whose labour facilitated the purchase of commodities. The economic results of such collective human labour are expressed as the values and the prices of the commodities; the value-relations between the amount of human labour and the value of the supplied commodity.
Since the 19th century, when Karl Marx presented the theory of commodity fetishism, in Section 4, “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret thereof”, of the first chapter of Capital: Critique of Political Economy (1867), the constituent concepts of the theory, and their sociologic and economic explanations, have proved intellectually fertile propositions that permit the application of the theory (interpretation, development, adaptation) to the study, examination, and analysis of other cultural aspects of the political economy of capitalism, such as:
The theory of sexual fetishism, which Alfred Binet presented in the essay Le fétichisme dans l’amour: la vie psychique des micro-organismes, l’intensité des images mentales, etc. (Fetishism in Love: the Psychic Life of Micro-organisms, the Intensity of Mental Images, etc., 1887), was applied to interpret commodity fetishism as types of sexually-charged economic relationships, between a person and a commodity (goods and services), as in the case of advertising, which is a commercial enterprise that ascribes human qualities (values) to a commodity, to persuade the buyer to purchase the advertised goods and services. 
In the 19th and in the 21st centuries, Thorstein Veblen (The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, 1899) and Alain de Botton (Status Anxiety, 2004) respectively developed the social status (prestige) relationship between the producer of consumer goods and the aspirations to prestige of the consumer. To avoid the status anxiety of not being of or belonging to “the right social class”, the consumer establishes a personal identity (social, economic, cultural) that is defined and expressed by the commodities (goods and services) that he or she buys, owns, and uses; the domination of things that communicate the “correct signals” of social prestige, of belonging. (See: Conspicuous consumption.)
In History and Class Consciousness (1923), György Lukács started from the theory of commodity fetishism for his development of reification (the psychological transformation of an abstraction into a concrete object) as the principal obstacle to class consciousness. About which Lukács said: “Just as the capitalist system continuously produces and reproduces itself economically on higher levels, the structure of reification progressively sinks more deeply, more fatefully, and more definitively into the consciousness of Man”—hence, commodification pervaded every conscious human activity, as the growth of capitalism commodified every sphere of human activity into a product that can be bought and sold in the market.  (See: Verdinglichung, Marx’s theory of reification.)
Commodity fetishism is theoretically central to the Frankfurt School philosophy, especially in the work of the sociologist Theodor W. Adorno, which describes how the forms of commerce invade the human psyche; how commerce casts a person into a role not of his or her making; and how commercial forces affect the development of the psyche. In the book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), Adorno and Max Horkheimer presented the Theory of the Culture Industry to describe how the human imagination (artistic, spiritual, intellectual activity) becomes commodified when subordinated to the “natural commercial laws” of the market.
To the consumer, the cultural goods and services sold in the market appear to offer the promise of a richly developed and creative individuality, yet the inherent commodification severely restricts and stunts the human psyche, so that the man and the woman consumer has little “time for myself”, because of the continual personification of cultural roles over which he and she exercise little control. In personifying such cultural identities, the person is a passive consumer, not the active creator, of his or her life; the promised life of individualistic creativity is incompatible with the collectivist, commercial norms of bourgeois culture.
In the study From Commodity Fetishism to Commodity Narcissism (2020) the investigators applied the Marxist theory of commodity fetishism to psychologically analyse the economic behaviour (buying and selling) of the contemporary consumer. With the concept of commodity narcissism, the psychologists Stephen Dunne and Robert Cluley proposed that consumers who claim to be ethically concerned about the manufacturing origin of commodities, nonetheless behaved as if ignorant of the exploitative labour conditions under which the workers produced the goods and services, bought by the “concerned consumer”; that, within the culture of consumerism, narcissistic men and women have established shopping (economic consumption) as a socially acceptable way to express aggression.  Researchers find no evidence that a greater manufacturing base can spur economic growth, while improving government effectiveness and regulation quality are more promising for facilitating economic growth. 
In The Society of the Spectacle (1967), Guy Debord presented the theory of “le spectacle“—the systematic conflation of advanced capitalism, the mass communications media, and a government amenable to exploiting those factors. The spectacle transforms human relations into objectified relations among images, and vice versa; the exemplar spectacle is television, the communications medium wherein people passively allow (cultural) representations of themselves to become the active agents of their beliefs. The spectacle is the form that society assumes when the Arts, the instruments of cultural production, have been commodified as commercial activities that render an aesthetic value into a commercial value (a commodity). Whereby artistic expression then is shaped by the person’s ability to sell it as a commodity, that is, as artistic goods and services.
Capitalism reorganises personal consumption to conform to the commercial principles of market exchange; commodity fetishism transforms a cultural commodity into a product with an economic “life of its own” that is independent of the volition and initiative of the artist, the producer of the commodity. What Karl Marx critically anticipated in the 19th century, with “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret thereof”, Guy Debord interpreted and developed for the 20th century—that in modern society, the psychologic intimacies of intersubjectivity and personal self-relation are commodified into discrete “experiences” that can be bought and sold. The Society of the Spectacle is the ultimate form of social alienation that occurs when a person views his or her being (self) as a commodity that can be bought and sold, because he or she regards every human relation as a (potential) business transaction. (See: Entfremdung, Marx’s theory of alienation)
Jean Baudrillard applied commodity fetishism to explain the subjective feelings of men and women towards consumer goods in the “realm of circulation”; that is, the cultural mystique (mystification) that advertising ascribed to the commodities (goods and services) in order to encourage the buyer to purchase the goods and services as aids to the construction of his and her cultural identity. In the book For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (1972), Baudrillard developed the semiotic theory of “the Sign” (sign value) as a development of Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism and of the exchange value vs. use value dichotomy of capitalism.
In the 21st century, the political economy of capitalism reified the abstract objects that are information and knowledge into the tangible commodities of intellectual property, which are produced by and derived from the labours of the intellectual and the white collar workers.
The economist Michael Perelman critically examined the belief systems from which arose intellectual property rights, the field of law that commodified knowledge and information. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis critically reviewed the belief systems of the theory of human capital.  Knowledge, as the philosophic means to a better life, is contrasted with capitalist knowledge (as commodity and capital), produced to generate income and profit. Such commodification detaches knowledge and information from the (user) person, because, as intellectual property, they are independent, economic entities.
Knowledge: authentic and counterfeit
In Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991), the Marxist theorist Fredric Jameson linked the reification of information and knowledge to the post-modern distinction between authentic knowledge (experience) and counterfeit knowledge (vicarious experience), which usually is acquired through the mass communications media. In Critique of Commodity Aesthetics: Appearance, Sexuality and Advertising in Capitalist Society (1986), the philosopher Wolfgang Fritz Haug presents a “critique of commodity aesthetics” that examines how human needs and desires are manipulated and reshaped for commercial gain. 
Financial risk management
The sociologists Frank Furedi and Ulrich Beck studied the development of commodified types of knowledge in the business culture of “risk prevention” in the management of money. The Post–World War II economic expansion (ca. 1945–73) created very much money (capital and savings), while the dominant bourgeois ideology of money favoured the risk-management philosophy of the managers of investment funds and financial assets. From such administration of investment money, manipulated to create new capital, arose the preoccupation with risk calculations, which subsequently was followed by the “economic science” of risk prevention management.  In light of which, the commodification of money as “financial investment funds” allows an ordinary person to pose as a rich person, as an economic risk-taker able to risk losing money invested to the market. Hence, the fetishization of financial risk as “a sum of money” is a reification that distorts the social perception of the true nature of financial risk, as experienced by ordinary people.  Moreover, the valuation of financial risk is susceptible to ideological bias; that contemporary fortunes are achieved from the insight of experts in financial management, who study the relationship between “known” and “unknown” economic factors, by which human fears about money can be manipulated and exploited.
The cultural critics Georg Simmel and Walter Benjamin examined and described the fetishes and fetishism of Art, by means of which “artistic” commodities are produced for sale in the market, and how commodification determines and establishes the value of the artistic commodities (goods and services) derived from legitimate Art; for example, the selling of an artist’s personal effects as “artistic fetishes”.
In the field of law, the Soviet scholar Evgeny Pashukanis (The General Theory of Law and Marxism, 1924), the Austrian politician Karl Renner, the German political scientist Franz Leopold Neumann, the British socialist writer China Miéville, the labour-law attorney Marc Linder, and the American legal philosopher Duncan Kennedy (The Role of Law in Economic Theory: Essays on the Fetishism of Commodities, 1985) have respectively explored the applications of commodity fetishism in their contemporary legal systems, and reported that the reification of legal forms misrepresents social relations.  
The Marxist theory of commodity fetishism is criticised from the perspectives of:
In the book In Praise of Commercial Culture (2000), the libertarian economist Tyler Cowen said that, despite the cultural tendency to fetishes and fetishism, the human fetishization of commodities (goods and services) is an instance of anthropomorphism (ascribing personal characteristics to animals and objects), and not a philosophic feature particular to the economics of capitalism or to the collective psychology of a capitalist society. People usually can distinguish between commercial valuations (commodities) and cultural valuations (objets d’art), if not, quotidian life would be very difficult, because people would be unable to agree upon the value and the valuation of an object; thus, if the market did not exist, it would have been impossible for the popular masses to have access to cultural objects. 
In the essay “Capitalism as Religion” (1921), Walter Benjamin said that whether or not people treat capitalism as a religion was a moot subject, because “One can behold in capitalism a religion, that is to say, capitalism essentially serves to satisfy the same worries, anguish, and disquiet formerly answered by so-called religion.” That the religion of capitalism is manifest in four tenets:
(i) “Capitalism is a purely cultic religion, perhaps the most extreme that ever existed”
(ii) “The permanence of the cult”
(iii) “Capitalism is probably the first instance of a cult that creates guilt, not atonement”
(iv) “God must be hidden from it, and may be addressed only when guilt is at its zenith”.  
In Portrait of a Marxist as a Young Nun, Professor Helena Sheehan said that the analogy between commodity fetishism and religion is mistaken, because people do not worship money and commodities in the spiritual sense, by attributing to them supernatural powers. Human psychological beliefs about the value-relationships inherent to commodity fetishism are not religious beliefs, and do not possess the characteristics of spiritual beliefs. The proof of this interpretation lies in the possibility of a person’s being a religious believer, despite being aware of commodity fetishism, and being critical of its manifestations; toppling the Golden Calf might be integral to one’s religiousness, and such iconoclasm would lead to opposing all manifestations of idolatry. 
- Simple living
Marxist theories pertinent to the theory of commodity fetishism
Post-Marxist theories derived from the theory of commodity fetishism
- Essays of Marx’s Theory of Value by Isaak Illich Rubin
- History and Class Consciousness, “Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat” (theories of class consciousness and of reification) by Geörg Lukács
- The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord (full text)
- The System of Objects by Jean Baudrillard
- Neomaterialism by Joshua Simon
- Book: Sandel, Michael . Michael Sandel . What money can’t buy : the moral limits of markets . Farrar, Straus and Giroux . New York . 2020 . 9780374203030 .
- Book: Bottomore, Tom . A Dictionary of Marxist thought . Blackwell Reference . Oxford, UK Cambridge, Mass . 1991 . 9780631180821 .
- Book: Debord, Guy . The Society of the Spectacle . Soul Bay Press . Eastbourne . 2009 . 9780955955334 . The Society of the Spectacle .
- Book: Fine, Ben . Marx’s Capital . Pluto Press . London & New York . 2020 . 978-0745330167 .
- Book: Harvey, David . David Harvey (geographer)
. David Harvey (geographer) . A companion to Marx’s Capital . Verso . London New York . 2020 . 978-1844673599 .
- Book: Lukács, György . History and Class Consciousness : studies in Marxist dialectics . MIT Press . Cambridge, Mass . 1971 . 9780262620208 .
- Book: Marx, Karl . Capital :Volume 1: A critique of political economy . Penguin Books in association with New Left Review . London New York, N.Y . 1981 . 9780140445688 .
- Book: Douglas, Mary . The world of goods : towards an anthropology of consumption : with a new introduction . Routledge . London New York . 1996 . 9780415130479 .
- Capital, Chapter 1, Section 4 – The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof
- All of Chapter One – Marx’s logical presentation
- (Isaac Rubin’s commentary on Marx)
- “The Reality behind Commodity Fetishism”
- David Harvey, Reading Marx’s Capital, Reading Marx’s Capital – Class 2, Chapters 1–2, The Commodity (video lecture)
- Biene Baumeister,Die Marxsche Kritik des Fetischismus (outline in German)
- Understanding Capitalism Part IV: Capitalism, Culture and Society
Notes and References
- Book: Marx, Karl. Capital Volume One. Progress Publishers. 1887. Moscow. “A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour.”.
- [Isaak Illich Rubin]
- Book: Roubine, Isaak I.. Essais sur la théorie de la valeur de Marx. Syllepse. 2009. 978-2-84950-218-1. Paris. 55.
- Book: Rubin, Isaak Illich. Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value. Black and Red. 1972. Detroit.
- The various references in the ‘Wood Theft’ articles to idols, animal masks, workship of animals, and fetishes, reflect Marx’s systematic study (1841–42) of primitive religion. The notebooks indicate that Marx was especially interested in the concept of fetishism — its nature, its origins, and the difference between ancient and modern forms of fetishism. (MEGA, Vol . 1, Part 2 p. 115ff) — Erica . Sherover . The Virtue of Poverty: Marx’s Transformation of Hegel’s Concept of the Poor . Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory . 3 . 1 . 1979 . 53–66 .
- Book: Du culte des dieux fétiches ou Parallèle de l’ancienne religion de l’Égypte avec la religion actuelle de Nigritie ([Reprod.]) |language=fr |website=Gallica.bnf.fr |date=2007-10-15 |accessdate=2020-01-03].
- The German translation was Uber den Dienst der fetischengotter oder Vergleichung der alten religion Egyptians mit den heutigen Religion Nigritiens. Ubersetzt von Christian Brandanus Hermann Pistorius. Berlin, Stralsund: Gottlieb August Lange, 1785. For a study of the conceptual origin of fetishism, see: William Pietz, “The problem of the fetish, I”, Res 9 (Spring 1985), pp. 5–17; “The problem of the fetish, II: The origin of the fetish”, Res 13 (Spring 1987), pp. 23–45; “The problem of the fetish, III: Bosman’s Guinea and the enlightenment theory of fetishism”, Res 16 (Autumn 1988), pp. 105–123.
- Web site: Philosophy3.p65 . Socserv.mcmaster.ca . 2020-01-03.
- Book: Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity. MSAC Philosophy Group. 2008. 978-1-56543-102-7. Eliot. George. George Eliot. https://web.archive.org/web/20200614122658/http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/
poseaj/deus/papers/essence8.pdf. 2020-06-14. dead.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Commodity fetishism”.
A commodity is a basic good that is most often used as input in the production of some other goods or services. Commodities are highly fungible; very little difference exists between a commodity from one producer and the same commodity from another. Thus, commodities are said to be interchangeable.
Commodities are categorized into various classes and subclasses. The major classes of commodities are energy, metals, agricultural produce and livestock.
Energy fuels is required to heat our homes, light our streets, drive our vehicles and power our factories. Approximately 36% of the world’s energy supply comes from crude oil, which is refined to produce other energy products such as gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, and kerosene. Coal and natural gas are the other two major sources of energy, followed by nuclear and renewable energy.
Precious metals and industrial metals (also known as base metals) form the two subclasses of metals. Gold, silver and platinum are considered precious metals. Major industrial metals include copper, aluminum, zinc, nickel, lead, tin and palladium.
Agricultural produce were the first commodities to be traded and today, they remain the most important as their main product is food – a basic human need. Commodities produced from agriculture is wide ranging with multiple subclasses that include grains, oilseeds and fiber.
The major livestock commodities traded today are related to hogs and cattles. They are lean hogs, pork bellies, live cattles and feeder cattles. The demand for livestock commodities tends to rise along with economic prosperity since meat products are generally more expensive.
One can speculate in commodity prices by trading commodity derivatives such as options and futures via regulated commodity exchanges.
You May Also Like
Buying Straddles into Earnings
Buying straddles is a great way to play earnings. Many a times, stock price gap up or down following the quarterly earnings report but often, the direction of the movement can be unpredictable. For instance, a sell off can occur even though the earnings report is good if investors had expected great results. [Read on. ]
Writing Puts to Purchase Stocks
If you are very bullish on a particular stock for the long term and is looking to purchase the stock but feels that it is slightly overvalued at the moment, then you may want to consider writing put options on the stock as a means to acquire it at a discount. [Read on. ]
What are Binary Options and How to Trade Them?
Also known as digital options, binary options belong to a special class of exotic options in which the option trader speculate purely on the direction of the underlying within a relatively short period of time. [Read on. ]
Investing in Growth Stocks using LEAPSÂ® options
If you are investing the Peter Lynch style, trying to predict the next multi-bagger, then you would want to find out more about LEAPSÂ® and why I consider them to be a great option for investing in the next MicrosoftÂ®. [Read on. ]
Best Choice For Beginners!
Big Sign-Up Bonus!
Free Trading Education!
Free Demo Account!
Only For Experienced Traders!
Effect of Dividends on Option Pricing
Cash dividends issued by stocks have big impact on their option prices. This is because the underlying stock price is expected to drop by the dividend amount on the ex-dividend date. [Read on. ]
Bull Call Spread: An Alternative to the Covered Call
As an alternative to writing covered calls, one can enter a bull call spread for a similar profit potential but with significantly less capital requirement. In place of holding the underlying stock in the covered call strategy, the alternative. [Read on. ]
Dividend Capture using Covered Calls
Some stocks pay generous dividends every quarter. You qualify for the dividend if you are holding on the shares before the ex-dividend date. [Read on. ]
Leverage using Calls, Not Margin Calls
To achieve higher returns in the stock market, besides doing more homework on the companies you wish to buy, it is often necessary to take on higher risk. A most common way to do that is to buy stocks on margin. [Read on. ]
Day Trading using Options
Day trading options can be a successful, profitable strategy but there are a couple of things you need to know before you use start using options for day trading. [Read on. ]
What is the Put Call Ratio and How to Use It
Learn about the put call ratio, the way it is derived and how it can be used as a contrarian indicator. [Read on. ]
Understanding Put-Call Parity
Put-call parity is an important principle in options pricing first identified by Hans Stoll in his paper, The Relation Between Put and Call Prices, in 1969. It states that the premium of a call option implies a certain fair price for the corresponding put option having the same strike price and expiration date, and vice versa. [Read on. ]
Understanding the Greeks
In options trading, you may notice the use of certain greek alphabets like delta or gamma when describing risks associated with various positions. They are known as “the greeks”. [Read on. ]
Valuing Common Stock using Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
Since the value of stock options depends on the price of the underlying stock, it is useful to calculate the fair value of the stock by using a technique known as discounted cash flow. [Read on. ]
Best Choice For Beginners!
Big Sign-Up Bonus!
Free Trading Education!
Free Demo Account!
Only For Experienced Traders!