The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America - autonomous ...

124 Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America
is in this wail, rather than in the aspirations of classes about to take
power, that the wellsprings of human freedom lie (1967:505). Not
all historical materialists are aware of that.
To read things in this way, as though they were sacred texts, is
also to indulge in a sort of magic, which we can call "precapitalist
fetishism." It is to strive for a unification of experience otherwise
unobtainable. It is the stubborn compulsion to see things and persons
as reciprocally interwoven to the point at which things are
meaningful because they embody interpersonal relationships even
when (in an age without magic) those relationships lie concealed behind
a reified exterior.
Concerning exchange in precapitalist societies, Mauss asks in his
essay "The Gift," What force is there in the item exchanged that
makes reciprocity so compelling? "This bond created by things," he
replied, "is in fact a bond between persons, since the thing itself is a
person or pertains to a person." And he elaborates on this apparent
confusion of persons with things: "In this system of ideas one gives
away what in reality is part of one's nature and essence, while to receive
something is to receive part of someone's spiritual essence"
(1967:10).
The practice of the modern market system strives to deny this
metaphysics of persons and things reflected in social exchange and
to replace the type of fetishism indicated by Mauss with the commodity
fetishism of capitalism as interpreted by Marx. The former
type of fetishism derives from the antiquated notion of reciprocity,
the metaphysical depths of which are suggested by Mauss and the
keynote of which lies in the unity felt to exist between persons and
the things that they produce and exchange. The latter type of fetishism,
commodity fetishism, derives from the alienation between persons
and the things that they produce and exchange. Codified in law
as much as in everyday practice, this alienation results in the phenomenology
of the commodity as a self-enclosed entity, dominant
over its creators, autonomous, and alive with its own power.
The fate of the peasant who is caught in the commercialization of
agriculture, particularly where this involves large agribusiness production,
is to bear witness to the clash between these two forms of
fetishism. The belief in the proletarian devil contract, as well as
other instances of fetishism is the outcome of this clash. The devil
is more than a symbol of the new economy: he mediates the opposed
meanings and sentiments that the development of this economy
engenders. For if the peasant or use-value outlook were superseded
by market culture, there would be no basis for fabulations like