ect (Tucker 319). As with his ideas on use-value, the role of labor and its division, and exchange-value, Marx also goes into great detail presenting the fetishistic aspect of his argument.
Marx's conclusion is that this process of production and exchange reduces human relations to an exchange of things which take on a transcendent (fetishistic) power greater than the power of the humans making and exchanging them. Humans in this process lose their humanness and essentially become things exchanging things, with the value of the exchanged things greater than the value of the human exchangers.
Marx's argument not only follows a clear, logical, convincing, step-by-step process, he also examines the capitalist as dispassionately as he studies a coat, recognizing that the capitalist is finally reduced by historical materialism to the status of a "thing" just as much as the worker is. Moving to Irigaray, the reader finds a lack of clarity and logic and the presence of a bitter hatred of men which profoundly undermine her argument.
Irigaray's conclusion is clear enough: men's relations are so paramount that they are, or might as well be, homosexual. Women in such a society become commodities used by men for economic and exchange purposes alone. Her argument seems to be the rageful expression of a commodity suddenly come to life in wailing protest against her (its) objectification. But how is she able to articulate this angry but
...