I restarted reading the non-main stream economics' groups, that is to say, as you may well easily guess Marxian stream.
Since the age of 20, when I read their works, the focal point has not changed at all.
Is Thingification-Reification conquarable?
Austrlian group sees only the object outside and analyze it completely forgetting the value (whatever that means) put into the items produced and their basic idea is price setting between A and B by their preference.
Whereas, Marxians, some (or many) still persist in only the labor theory of value
To me, personally, since according to the Thingification-Reification, the relationship between men appears as a state of exchange of things-commodities. So that to me, connecting the labor theory of value to the thingfied objects, which is namely the price, is mandatory and nobody was able to succeed in this.
Now I started reading Lukacs, who took this problem one of the most important philosophical issues.
Then I hit upon an another problem again. As well as Marx, Lukacs follows the same idea, that is, from the above,
Before tackling the problem itself we must be quite clear in our minds that commodity fetishism is a specific problem of our age, the age of modern capitalism.
Marx says same thing. Is this fetishsm, to the commodities, a truly peculiar characteristic, only after the industrial revolution?
I always had the same question in my mind since the age of 20. If I take the origin of the industrial revolution back to the John Key's flying shuttle, then, are we not able to say people prior to him, people in common, under the feudal system or not, did not have any fetishism to commodites?
Even in The Merchant Of Venice, Shylock or Bassanio or Antonio whoever, are almost always talking about money and valuables???
Can somebody refute this their (Marxians') idea that the fetishism to commodities started only especially after the industrial revolution?
I've been always (for more than 10 years) doubtful about it.