Zhu Linlin: From the Critique of Religion to the Critique of Fetishism

Marx's theoretical system is often simplified to a critique of political economy; however, its deep logic is actually rooted in a more fundamental philosophy—namely, the method of critique. The evolutionary trajectory of this method is embodied in Marx's transition from his early critique of religion to his mature critique of commodity fetishism. These two are not isolated from each other but possess a profound continuity and interconnectedness. The critique of religion serves as the starting point and paradigm of this critical journey, while the critique of fetishism is its endpoint and highest achievement; in a certain sense, the critique of fetishism is the radicalization of the critique of religion.

Marx’s path of critique began in the realm of religion, influenced both by the atmosphere of the era and his close association with the Young Hegelians ^[1]. In the specific historical environment of Germany in the 1840s, the critique of religion was a roundabout but radical form of political critique. The historical background of the young Marx coincided with the splitting of the Hegelian school and the rise of the Young Hegelians, placing him within a dense atmosphere of religious critique. Figures such as Bruno Bauer viewed the critique of religion as the core task of human liberation, believing that human freedom could be achieved simply by exposing the illusory nature of religion. Marx accepted this agenda of the times but quickly transcended the limitations of the Young Hegelians. In his 1843 "Introduction to the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right," he put forward the famous thesis that "the critique of religion is the prerequisite of all critique." This can be described as Marx's manifesto for his critique of religion. The core of Marx’s critique of religion lies in revealing its essence as alienation. In his view, religion is not merely a simple error or deception, but a product of the alienation of essential human powers. He pointed out that religion is a "reversed world-consciousness" because it reflects a "reversed world." Humans exist in a state of oppression and servitude, yet they construct a perfect and omnipotent God through faith. This is both an illusory compensation for real suffering and a perceived way out within an illusion. Precisely for this reason, religion becomes the "opium of the people"; it alleviates pain but also paralyzes the people's will to resist. Religion provides illusory happiness, making people content with their current state of servitude, thereby maintaining the reversed world that produces the suffering. Marx believed that only by abolishing religion could the people's happiness be realized. It is based on this understanding that Marx's critique of religion necessarily led to a critique of the real world—to a critique of the mundane world.

In On the Jewish Question, Marx extended the critique of religion to the political level. He pointed out that the bourgeois revolution seemingly liberated man from religion, but in reality, it did not achieve true liberation; it instead caused man to live a dual identity: as a "public person" and a "private person." In the political state, man becomes an abstract existence, nominally free and equal; yet once back in civil society ^[2], man returns to being a selfish individual driven by interests. This rupture itself is a form of alienation—politics appears to become a new layer of mist, concealing the inequalities that actually exist.

Marx discovered that the modern state itself becomes an alienating force. Just as humans externalize their own essential powers to God in religion, they externalize their collective essence to the state in the political sphere. The state appears to be the representative of universal interests, but in fact, it is merely a "night-watchman" ^[3] maintaining bourgeois private property. This political alienation is isomorphic with religious alienation; just as religion is the alienation of the human essence in the sacred realm, the state is the alienation of human life in the political realm. Both are an "abstraction" and an illusory resolution of real social contradictions.

It is noteworthy that during this period, Marx had already begun to extend the reach of his critique into the economic field. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, he proposed the theory of "alienated labor." Marx discovered that in capitalist economic life, a process isomorphic to religious alienation occurs. The more wealth the worker produces, the poorer he himself becomes; the more value he creates in commodities, the more he loses his own value. The product of his labor confronts him as something alien, as a powerful object independent of him. This is just like the God to whom man prays, who eventually becomes an external force that oppresses man.

The theory of alienated labor is the key bridge connecting the critique of religion and the critique of fetishism. It demonstrates that not only in the sacred realm but also in the secular realm of production, the creations of man are transforming into abstract forces hostile to man. Marx shifted from the critique of the "heavenly kingdom" to the dissection of "civil society." At this point, Marx had grasped the core of the problem—the rule of the "abstract" over the "concrete"—but he had not yet revealed, in the scientific form of political economy, how this abstraction is inevitably generated within modern relations of production. This is precisely the task that the critique of fetishism was to complete.

With the deepening of his research into political economy, Marx systematically proposed the theory of fetishism in the Manuscripts of 1857–1858 (Grundrisse) and Capital, marking the final maturity and completion of his critical theory. The critique of fetishism appears to be an entirely new theoretical creation, but in fact, it possesses a deep internal connection with the early critique of religion; it is the deepening and concretization of the latter in the field of economics. Marx distinguished three forms of fetishism: commodity fetishism, money fetishism, and capital fetishism. Commodity fetishism is the foundational form, making people believe that the value of commodities is an inherent natural attribute of the things themselves rather than the congelation of abstract human labor. Money fetishism goes a step further, making metallic money or paper currency appear inherently endowed with the magic power to purchase all commodities, obscuring the essence of money as a social relation serving as the universal equivalent. Capital fetishism is the final developed form, making capital appear to possess a mysterious ability for self-valorization, concealing the fact that surplus value originates from the unpaid appropriation of the worker’s surplus labor. The general formula of capital, M—C—M' (money—commodity—more money), creates an "automatic fetishism," as if money were "by nature capable of adding to its own value, or at least, that it possesses this property as long as it is lent out."

Fetishism and religion share a structural similarity: both involve the creations of man turning back to dominate man, and both are reversed reflections of social relations in consciousness. Yet fetishism is more fundamental and concealed than religion, because it is not a pure ideological illusion, but an illusion possessed by the objective social forms themselves. Fetishism is not a subjective delusion but an objective illusion, rooted directly in the specific nature of the capitalist mode of production. There exists a certain adaptability between religious forms and socio-economic structures, and fetishism is precisely the "secular religion" of capitalist society. Marx’s critique of the phenomenon of fetishism can be seen as an extension of his early critique of religion. In the critique of religion, his focus was on the relationship between God and man, whereas in the critique of fetishism, he extended this analysis to the relationship between capital and man. This continuity in thought method reflects the coherence of Marx's philosophical thinking. He believed that both religion and capitalist society are forms of alienation within human society; only by revealing these alienations can the critique of social reality and the pursuit of human liberation be realized.

Marx’s critique of religion, gradually extending to the critique of commodity fetishism, is threaded through by a profound main line of thought: he persisted in using the critical method of historical materialism to ask where those "abstract existences" that stand above man—whether God, value, or capital—actually come from. In Marx’s view, these seemingly natural existences are not actually innate, but are rooted in concrete human historical practice and social relations. More importantly, he further pointed out how these abstractions created by human hands gradually obscure their own origins and turn back to become alien forces that dominate and rule over man. The philosophical revolution achieved by Marx was not the establishment of some new philosophical system, but the opening of a continuous critique. The purpose of this critique is to expose all ideologies that disguise the social relations of a specific historical stage as an "eternal natural order"—regardless of whether they wear sacred robes or appear in a secular guise. From this perspective, the critique of religion is only the starting point; the theory of commodity fetishism is the pinnacle of this critique. It reminds us that modern people must not only liberate themselves from the shackles of "God" but also awaken from the servitude to "things" of their own creation. Ultimately, the weapon of critique must be transformed into the critique of weapons—that is, by transforming the relations of production themselves that continuously produce various forms of "fetishism," true human liberation can be realized and a society no longer ruled by any abstract forces can be established. This is not only a thread in the history of ideas, but a profound diagnosis and critical manifesto regarding the existential condition of our era that remains relevant today.