Material, Ideology, Labor

Commodity fetishism is one of the classic problems of the Marxist philosophy and literary theory. Western theorists read and criticize commodity fetishism from the different dimensions. And they also develop the theory based on Marx. This article selects and analyzes the academic works about commodity fetishism of several important western Marxist theorists, who were born in the early 20th century to the 50s of the 20th century. On the basis of studying these works, this article shows how the western Marxists understand and criticize commodity fetishism. Overall, their reading of commodity fetishism is mainly reflected in three dimensions such as object, ideology and labor. But in no way means that the three dimensions are split for the same theorist and in many cases, the different dimensions are overlapping. The purpose of this paper is to further understand the theory of commodity fetishism on the basis of the western theorists. According to the idea, this article was divided into seven parts:The introduction part undertakes the overall summary to the theory of Marx’s commodity fetishism and the other theorists who the article involves. On this basis, this article also explores the Chinese and western academic history on the discussion of the problem of commodity fetishism. From the academic history, the main controversial issues on two major problems:1、Does the commodity fetishism belong to the category of social existence or still belong to the category of the concept of consciousness;2、 Does commodity fetishism belongs to the theory of alienation tradition or belong to the historical materialism. And western Marxism theorists read commodity fetishism from three dimensions such as object, ideology and labor.The first chapter explores Marx’s analysis of commodity and commodity fetishism. That Marx’s analysis of commodity and commodity fetishism starts the basic path of commodity and fetishism. It has great space for theoretical explanation as a theoretical matrix that provides theoretical source for subsequent commodity and fetishism criticism.The second chapter selected the reading of commodity fetishism by George Lukacs, Adorno, Benjamin and Lowenthal who are members of the Frankfurt School. Overall, their critical path is similar. They are influenced by Hegelian dialectics. From the perspective of dualism, subject and object are dichotomized. Objectification and objectification consciousness are dichotomized. The members of the Frankfurt School think that the critique of ideology can bring changes in aesthetic field to Change the social status quo and achieve the purpose of salvation. It is obviously an aesthetic utopia. However, their critical spirit and critical position are worth for laudable that they criticize cultural industry and the negative impact of the development of science and technology. In addition, the criticism of the objectification consciousness by Lukacs is established on the basis of Taylorism and Ford system. Therefore, Lukacs also criticizes the negative influence of this kind of labor model.The third chapter analyzes the reading of Marx’s commodity and commodity fetishism by Louis Althusser from the point of view of philosophy. Althusser thinks that Marx’s Das capital founds the historical materialism and dialectical materialism. At the same time, Althusser opposes the way of reading from the perspective of humanitarian. And Althusser elaborates the mechanism of reproduction of production relations by a new ideological theory which actually solves the problem why commodity fetishism can always exist in the capitalist society.In the fourth chapter, Zizek points out that the analysis of commodity form by Marx provides a matrix for the analysis of all forms. At the same time, combined with Lacan’s psychoanalysis, Zizek develops a set of ideological theory on the basis of Marx’s commodity fetishism that criticizes and supplements the theory of ideology of Althusser. On the basis of the theory, Zizek criticizes various ideological phenomenon in modern society.In the fifth chapter, it analyzes spectacle fetishism from Guy Debord and signification fetishism from Baudrillard. The criticism for spectacle fetishism and signification fetishism is closely related with media development, picture era and consumption society nowadays that further develops the theory of commodity fetishism from Marx. But their theories also have many problems which make them denounced by the researchers.In the last part of the article, it summarizes the full text and points out the three dimensions such as object, ideology and labor from which western theorists read Marx’s commodity fetishism. And there are also many important theorists that have not been involved in this paper. They read Marx’s commodity fetishism in various different ways. Due to the restriction of the paper length and the ability of the author, the paper just presents the current appearance. But there is no denying that it is typical that the theorists read Marx’s commodity fetishism from object, ideology and labor. Although it is the tip of the iceberg, their reading generally shows how the entire western Marxists think about the problems of commodity fetishism and how their theories develop.