Zhang Huaming: The Dilemma of Fetishism in the Digital Age and Its Solution strategies
We are currently situated in an era enveloped by the digital. Social media, e-commerce, algorithmic recommendations, smart devices... digital technology is penetrating every aspect of our lives with unprecedented depth and breadth. While people enjoy the immense convenience brought by digital technology, a new social phenomenon—digital fetishism—is unconsciously emerging. People are accustomed to regarding a platform’s intelligent recommendations as an "intimate confidant" and algorithms as "black boxes" capable of accurately predicting the future; virtual idols garner genuine affection and massive "tips," while tech-giant platforms construct structures of power akin to a "digital God." These digital products are originally the creations of human intellect and labor, yet they are conversely endowed with a mysterious, autonomous, and even dominant power that leads people into addiction, pursuit, and even worship. This superstition regarding digital symbols and their power obscures the real social power relations and labor processes behind them, constituting the fetishistic dilemma of the digital age.
To understand digital fetishism, one must first return to its theoretical source. Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism profoundly revealed the ideological illusion of the capitalist mode of production. In the first volume of Capital, Marx pointed out that the mysterious character of the commodity does not arise from its use-value, but rather from the "commodity form" itself. When the products of labor take the commodity form for exchange, the social relations between producers are expressed in a topsy-turvy way as relations between things. People bow down before the products of labor created by their own hands, subjected to their enslavement while remaining utterly unconscious of their social essence. Money and capital, as higher forms of the development of the commodity economy, further strengthen this fetishistic character, making capital appear as a sort of demonic entity capable of self-valorization, while the living wage labor and relations of exploitation behind it are thoroughly obscured. Marx’s critique was not aimed at negating the use-value or exchange value of commodities, but rather at penetrating the appearance of "things" to reveal the hidden social relations of production and class power structures. This critical methodology provides the fundamental guidance for our analysis of various new "idols" in the digital age.
In the digital era, the manifestations of fetishism are more diverse and complex, primarily reflected at the following three levels. First: data fetishism. Data is called the "oil of the New Era" and a "core productive factor," pursued frantically by many. However, according to the Marxist labor theory of value, the value of data does not exist naturally but originates from digital labor. Every click, every browse, every share, and every piece of content creation by a user is actually a form of invisible "digital labor." Every day, people produce raw data for platforms without compensation; the platforms, by collecting, processing, and analyzing this data, turn it into products that can be sold for money and into sources of profit. This relationship of exploitation is ingeniously concealed by "data worship." The exploitative relationship between the platform and the user is presented as an illusion of equal exchange between "free services" and "data provision."
Second: algorithm fetishism. Algorithms often wear the cloak of "absolute rationality" and "objectivity and fairness," receiving increasing emphasis. Whether in content recommendation, credit assessment, job screening, or market planning, their decision-making power is growing daily. We seem to have acquiesced to a new "scientific correctness," becoming accustomed to accepting algorithmic outputs without questioning or even thinking. But algorithms are not neutral technical tools; they are written by people and used by people, inevitably carrying the positions, preferences, and even the underlying capital intentions of their creators. The operation of algorithms relies on exploited data; therefore, so-called "intelligence" is often nothing more than the replication and amplification of existing biases. More alarmingly, a new power mechanism is quietly expanding via algorithms: platforms use them to finely manage the deliveries of couriers, guide user consumption, and even influence public opinion. Algorithm fetishism causes people to submit to the authority of technical rationality, abandoning critique and reflection on the power operations behind it.
Third: platform fetishism. Large-scale digital platforms are increasingly showing a trend toward "infrastructuralization." They are often viewed as so-called neutral "places" or "environments" providing public services; their convenience and efficiency create an illusion of being "free," which reinforces the platform's friendly and selfless public face. However, these platforms are in fact super-accumulation apparatuses of highly concentrated capital. Leveraging their monopolistic positions, they not only misappropriate the data labor generated by users' daily behavior without compensation but also implement implicit exploitation of small and medium producers on the platform (such as online shop owners, food delivery riders, and ride-hailing drivers), trapping them within "the system" through algorithmic management. Platform fetishism disguises the high concentration of capital and monopolistic power as technical progress and public services. It obscures the real relations of labor, allowing exploitation to operate continuously behind a smooth user experience and a seemingly neutral interface.
Digital fetishism has not moved beyond Marx’s critical framework; it has merely evolved the "commodity–money–capital" fetishistic chain into a new form of "data–algorithm–platform capital." Its core remains the use of relations between things to conceal exploitative and controlling social relations between people. We must persist in using the methods of Marxist critique of political economy to "demystify" digital fetishism. Through Marxist theory, we must profoundly reveal the exploitative essence of digital labor and recognize that the so-called value of data actually originates from the digital labor of users. The process of platform capital’s possession and capitalization of data is, in essence, a hidden act of exploitation that does not pay an equivalent [1]. We must base ourselves on the theory of the Marxist labor theory of value, incorporating the new labor form of "digital labor" into our analytical framework to reveal the logic of the production and distribution of surplus value in the digital age. Simultaneously, we must shatter the myth of "technological neutrality." Algorithms and platforms have never been purely neutral tools; from their inception, they have been embedded with the logic of capital and specific ideological preferences. An algorithm is not an objective "God’s eye"; it is a product constructed by the interweaving of specific social relations and technical conditions.
An important prerequisite for the maintenance of digital fetishism is that hundreds of millions of users are unable to realize they are "laborers." When users realize their online activities are value-creating labor, it becomes possible for them to transform from passive "consumers" or "users" into active "digital laborers," thereby raising questions about labor rights, data ownership, and profit distribution. We must reaffirm the subjective status of the human being. Any technology is a product of human activity and should serve the free and well-rounded development of the individual, rather than reducing people to appendages of data, slaves to algorithms, or people trapped by platforms. The ultimate concern of Marxism is to achieve human liberation; the final goal of critiquing digital fetishism is to break digital alienation and rebuild human sovereignty over technology.
The ultimate orientation of Marxism is the transformation of the relations of production. After disenchantment and awakening, there must be realistic institutional designs to replace existing exploitative structures. First, promote the exploration of public ownership of data. As a key means of production, the private monopoly of data is the economic basis of digital fetishism. We can explore the establishment of mechanisms such as public data pools and data trusts to ensure that, under the premise of protecting individual privacy, the benefits generated by data are shared by society, weakening the monopolistic power of platform capital at its root. Second, we must strengthen algorithmic regulation, making algorithmic operations more transparent and their responsibilities traceable. We can promote the establishment of independent algorithmic auditing mechanisms to conduct regular inspections and supervision of those algorithms that directly affect public interest, ensuring they are fair, compliant, and do not cross "red lines" [2]. We must protect the rights and interests of digital laborers; for the vast groups of "online-contracted workers" and digital gig workers, their status as laborers should be clearly identified so they can receive reasonable income and enjoy social security. Simultaneously, ordinary users should have more of a voice regarding their own data and even share in the benefits of data usage. Third, promote the socialization of platforms. Explore the public-oriented reform of giant digital platforms, allowing these platforms—originally monopolized by capital—to gradually transform into social infrastructure like water and electricity, managed through collective social participation. This is not to negate digital technology, but to reshape the operational logic behind the technology, preventing it from serving only capital and ensuring it truly serves the people, assisting in everyone’s freer and more well-rounded development.
Digital fetishism can be described as a new form of commodity fetishism in the digital age. By means of data, algorithms, and internet platforms, it forms a "digital labyrinth" more dazzling than the commodity world of the past, concealing the real labor and exploitative relations behind it. By means of Marx’s method of the critique of fetishism, one can see through the lie of "technological neutrality" in digital capitalism. Resolving the dilemma of digital fetishism is not about opposing technology or resisting digital civilization, but about penetrating the mist of "things"—as Marx did—to see clearly the real relations between people behind them, and applying this understanding to transform the world. This requires us not only to uphold and develop the critical spirit of Marxism in theory but also to substantively explore paths out of the digital dilemma in our lives. Breaking the blind worship of digital technology depends on returning technology to human control, making it serve the well-rounded development of people rather than being monopolized by platforms and capital. Our goal should be to build a people-centered digital governance model—letting technology truly serve every individual, promoting the common welfare of society and the genuine liberation of humanity.