Final answer:
James G. Carrier discusses how commodities transform into gifts through a change in social dynamics and obligations, not by changing the commodities themselves. His argument touches on the importance of reciprocal obligations in both historical societies and Stalinist propaganda.
Step-by-step explanation:
James G. Carrier argues that the transformation of commodities into gifts does not inherently change the nature of the objects but instead involves a change in human relationships and perceived obligations. In precapitalist societies, the circulation of goods through society relied more on gift exchange, redistribution, and debt rather than immediate barter or exchange. The pastoralist giving a goat to a gardener would be an example of such a gift, with the expectation of future reciprocity—however, this reciprocity is not immediate but rather may come at an unspecified later time, fostering an ongoing relationship of mutual obligation.
In a Stalinist context, this relationship was manipulated in propaganda, portraying Stalin's leadership as a benevolent gift that demanded spontaneous gratitude, thus creating a political economy of gifts and obligations. This framework suggests that while commodities are inert, the meaning ascribed to them by people, either through gifting or receiving, instills them with a sense of value beyond their material worth. This act of gifting engenders a sense of power and obligation that influences social and political structures.