Karl Marx, in his 1867 work “Capital: Critique of Political Economy” or “Das Kapital” introduced the term “commodity fetishism” as part of his criticism of capitalism. This concept illustrates the distorted relationship individuals have with commodities in a capitalist economic system in which social relationships between people are obscured and appear instead as economic relationships between things. It has specifically explained the perceived value of goods beyond their practical use and how it now describes modern consumer culture.
Understanding Commodity Fetishism: Description from Karl Marx and Later Theories and Modern Applications in the Modern Critique of Capitalism
Explanation According to Karl Marx
Marx, in the first volume of Das Kapital, presented the concept of commodity fetishism to explain how the social organization of labor manifests in the buying and selling of commodities like food and clothing. This means these commodities are imbued with social power and value that seem to exist independently of the human labor that produced them.
The labor and social relationships behind the production of commodities are hidden in a capitalist system. The exchange value or price overshadows use value or practical utility. For example, when an individual purchases a shirt, the buyer does not see the workers in a factory who made it or the conditions they work under. They only see the price tag and the brand.
Marx borrowed the term “fetish” from anthropology and religion to underscore the fact that a fetish is a particular item or idea believed to have supernatural powers. He argued that commodities are often treated in capitalism as if they possess power on their own. However, in reality, that power comes from human labor or laborer efforts and social relations.
The aforementioned further suggests that commodities, as products of human labor, appear to have an intrinsic value or life and value of their own that are independent of the particular human labor, including labor conditions, and social relations that created them. The following are the important aspects of commodity fetishism according to Marxist philosophy:
• Social Relations Disguised: Commodity fetishism obscures the definite social relations involved in production and exchange. It specifically presents these relations as being between things or commodities.
• Misinterpretation of Value: This fetishism then leads to a misunderstanding of how value is created. It suggests that value is inherent in the particular commodity itself and not from the labor and social interactions that produce it.
• Exchange Value Emphasis: Capitalism often emphasizes the exchange value or price of commodities more than their use value or practical utility. This reinforces the idea that value is inherent in commodities.
Expansion by Later Theorists and Critics
Several Marxist and non-Marxist thinkers have adapted and expanded the concept of commodity fetishism. For example, in the 1932 work “History and Class Consciousness, Hungarian Marxist György Lukács expanded it into the concept of reification that argues that human relationships have become objectified and people have become commodities.
Frankfurt School Philosophers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer built on Marx and Lukács to critique mass culture in capitalist societies. Specifically, in “Dialectic of Enlightenment,” which was published in 1947, they argued that mass-produced cultural goods like books, music, and film are commodified and stripped of genuine human creativity.
Moreover, in his 1967 work “The Society of the Spectacle,” French Marxist theorist, philosopher, and filmmaker Guy-Ernest Debord argued that commodity fetishism had evolved into a society dominated by images. The “spectacle” is the mediated world of advertising, media, and consumer culture where social life is experienced through representations.
Commodities are no longer just goods according to Debord. They have become experiences and symbols. People relate more to the image of a product than the product itself. He called this “the fetishism of the image” to mark an extension of the concept of commodity fetishism and its application in mass media and modern business and marketing practices.
Applications in the Modern Critique of Capitalism
Commodity fetishism remains relevant in the overall globalized economy of today. It helps explain why consumers often do not think about labor conditions like sweatshops and child labor. It also explores why marketing and branding can obscure the reality of production or how value is disconnected from material needs and tied to abstract market forces.
Nevertheless, in the modern world, it is more pervasive and complex than in the time of Marx and earlier theorists. Note that Marx was concerned with how labor was hidden in the value of goods. Modern applications center on explaining how consumer culture not only obscures labor but also turns nearly everything into commodities. Take note of the following:
• Branding and Lifestyle Commodification: A sneaker is more than footwear today. A particular brand like Nike represents being athletic while Lululemon showcases having a higher socioeconomic status. Brands turn identity into a purchasable commodity by urging consumers to choose brands not for practical utility but for expression.
• Social Media and Influencer Culture: Platforms like Instagram and TikTok have created a culture where people curate themselves as commodities through personal branding. These individuals, often called influencers, turn their lifestyle, appearance, and personal struggles into marketable content. Followers engage with a spectacle of authenticity.
• Ethical and Sustainable Consumerism: Some companies market their products as “fair trade” or “sustainable” to appeal to ethical consumers. These labels often function as moral signifiers more than substantive reforms. Consumers feel they have done something ethical with each purchase without changing the underlying structures of exploitation.
• Fast Fashion and Planned Obsolescence: Fast-fashion brands like Zara and Shein sell clothing items that are designed to be worn a few times and discarded. The low prices and trendiness mask exploitative practices. Some smartphone manufacturers produce units with no regard for long-term overall operating systems and security support.
• Widespread Consumer Electronics Appeal: Devices like the iPhone and MacBook are often revered for their design, status, and brand reputation. Their global supply chains, use of rare earth minerals, and labor conditions in factories are rarely considered by users. The fetishization of tech makes gadgets seem like products of innovation and genius.
FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES
- Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. 1947. Dialectic of Enlightenment. ISBN: 0-8047-3633-2
- Debord, G. E. 1967. The Society of Spectacle. Buchet-Chastel. ISBN: 0-942299-79-5
- Lukács. G. 1923. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Malik-Verlag and The Merlin Press. ISBN: 0-262-62020-0
- Mark, K. 1867. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Verlag Von Otto Meisner
- Prychitko, D. L. 2004. “The Nature and Significance of Marx’s: Capital: A Critique of Political Economy.” Econlib. The Library of Economics and Liberty. Available online