Commodity equivalence remains nonthinkable even after labor-theory explanation

Evidence

My sense is that for Marx also, the positing of equivalence remains in that sense nonthinkable, even though it can also be explained (the labor theory of value) in structural and historical ways different from and surely superior to the rather mythic “explanations,” in terms of sheer fear and weakness, of Rousseau or Adorno. There is thus a sense in which the Marxian analysis of equivalence is fully compatible with DeMan’s rhetorical account: seeing this primal metaphorical violence, by which two commodities are decreed to be “the same,” in terms of the linguistic function of the trope itself is surely a welcome enrichment of Marx’s schema. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 516

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies ‘metaphoric identification’/‘primal metaphorical violence’: the positing of two commodities as the same is itself a trope, and Marx and DeMan converge here.
• XREF: This is the rhetorical/linguistic reading of commodity fetishism that feeds Jameson’s broader argument about the cultural logic of capitalism — the core of the chapter. — connects to: Credit money and commodity-backed money stand in structural antagonism — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 1658; Socially necessary labor time makes disparate commodities commensurable — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1443; Exchange value is measured by what a commodity trades for, not by its price — Yanis Varoufakis, Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism, 786