The Fetishism Dilemma in the Digital Age and Its Solution

We are 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 also unconsciously emerging. People habitually regard the platform’s intelligent recommendations as “intimate confidants,” view algorithms as “black boxes” capable of accurately predicting the future, virtual idols reap genuine emotions and huge monetary tips, and tech giant platforms construct a power edifice 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, even dominating power, causing people to become obsessed, pursue, and even worship them. This superstition regarding digital symbols and their power obscures the real social power relations and labor processes behind them, constituting the fetishism dilemma of the digital age.

我们正处于一个被数字包裹的时代。社交媒体、电子商务、算法推荐、智能设备……数字技术正以前所未有的深度和广度渗透到我们生活的方方面面。人们在享受数字技术所带来的巨大便利的同时，一种新的社会现象——数字拜物教也在不自觉地产生。人们习惯于将平台的智能推荐视为“贴心知己”，将算法视作能精准预测未来的“黑匣子”，虚拟偶像收获着真实的情感与巨额打赏，科技巨头平台则构筑起宛若“数字上帝”般的权力大厦。这些数字产物本是人类智力与劳动的创造物，却反过来被赋予一种神秘、自主甚至主宰性的力量，令人沉迷、追逐乃至崇拜。这种对数字符号及其力量的迷信遮蔽了其背后真实的社会权力关系与劳动过程，构成数字时代的拜物困境。

To understand digital fetishism, one must first return to its theoretical source. Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism profoundly reveals the ideological illusion of the capitalist mode of production. In Volume I of *Capital*, Marx points out that the mysterious character of the commodity does not originate from its use-value, but from the “commodity form” itself. When the products of labor take the commodity form for exchange, the social relations between producers are inverted and manifested as relations between things. People prostrate themselves before the products of their own labor, enslaved by them, yet utterly unaware 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 magical entity capable of self-expansion, while the living wage-labor and exploitation relations behind it are completely obscured. Marx’s critique does not aim to negate the use-value or exchange-value of commodities, but to penetrate the appearance of “things” and reveal the concealed social relations of production and class power structures. This critical methodology provides the fundamental guidance for our analysis of the various new “fetishes” of the digital age.

要理解数字拜物教，必先回到其理论源头。马克思的商品拜物教理论深刻揭示了资本主义生产方式的意识形态幻象。马克思在《资本论》第一卷中指出，商品的神秘性质并非来源于其使用价值，而是源于“商品形式”本身。当劳动产品采取商品形式进行交换时，生产者之间的社会关系就被颠倒地表现为物与物的关系。人们拜倒在自己亲手创造的劳动产品之下，受其奴役，却对其社会本质浑然不觉。货币和资本作为商品经济发展的更高形式，进一步强化了这种拜物教性质，使得资本仿佛成为一种可以自行增殖的魔物，而其背后活生生的雇佣劳动与剥削关系则被彻底遮蔽了。马克思的批判并非旨在否定商品的使用价值或交换价值，而是要穿透“物”的表象，揭示被掩盖的社会生产关系和阶级权力结构。这一批判性方法论为我们分析数字时代的各种新“物神”提供了根本遵循。

In the digital age, the manifestations of fetishism are more diverse and complex, primarily reflected in the following three levels. First, data fetishism. Data is called the “oil of the new era” and a “core factor of production,” fervently pursued by many. But in fact, according to the Marxist labor theory of value, the value of data does not exist naturally; it originates from digital labor. Every click, every browse, every share, every content creation by users is actually a form of invisible “digital labor.” People produce raw data for platforms for free every day, while platforms collect, process, and analyze this data, turning it into sellable products and sources of profit. This exploitative relationship is cleverly concealed by “data worship.” The exploitative relationship between platforms and users appears as an illusion of equal exchange between “free service” and “data provision.”

在数字时代，拜物教的表现形式更为多元和复杂，主要体现在以下三个层面。第一，数据拜物教。数据被称为“新时代的石油”和“核心生产要素”，被不少人狂热追捧。但事实上，根据马克思主义的劳动价值论，数据的价值并非天然存在，而是来源于数字劳动。用户的每一次点击、每一次浏览、每一条分享、每一次内容创作，其实都是在进行一种看不见的“数字劳动”。人们每天都在无偿为平台生产原始数据，平台则通过收集、加工和分析这些数据，把它们变成可以卖钱的产品、变成利润的来源。这种剥削关系被“数据崇拜”巧妙地遮掩了。平台与用户之间的剥削关系呈现为一种“免费服务”与“数据提供”的平等交换假象。

Second, algorithm fetishism. Algorithms, often cloaked in the guise of “absolute rationality” and “objective fairness,” are increasingly valued. Whether in content recommendation, credit evaluation, job screening, or market planning, their decision-making power is growing. We seem to tacitly accept a new kind of “scientific correctness,” habitually 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 capital intentions of their writers. The operation of algorithms depends on exploited data, so what is called “intelligence” is often nothing more than the replication and amplification of existing biases. More worthy of vigilance is that a new power mechanism is quietly expanding with the help of algorithms: platforms use it to meticulously manage delivery riders’ routes, guide users’ consumption, and even influence public opinion. Algorithm fetishism makes people submit to the authority of technical rationality, abandoning critique and reflection on the power operations behind it.

第二，算法拜物教。算法常常披着“绝对理性”与“客观公正”的外衣，越来越受到重视。无论是内容推荐、信用评估，还是求职筛选、市场策划，其决策权日益增大。我们仿佛默许了一种新的“科学正确”，习惯于接受算法的输出，不再质疑，甚至不再思考。但算法并非中立的技术工具，它由人编写，也为人所用，不可避免地携带编写者的立场、偏好，甚至其背后的资本意图。算法的运作依赖于被剥削而来的数据，因此所谓的“智能”，很多时候不过是对已有偏见的复制和放大。更值得警惕的是，一种新的权力机制正在借助算法悄然扩张：平台通过它精细地管理骑手的配送、引导用户的消费，甚至影响公众的意见。算法拜物教使人们屈从于技术理性的权威，放弃了对其背后权力运作的批判和反思。

Third, platform fetishism. Large digital platforms are increasingly showing a tendency toward “infrastructuralization.” They are often regarded as neutral “spaces” or “environments” providing public services, and their convenience and efficiency create an illusion of “free” service, also reinforcing the platform’s friendly and selfless public face. However, these platforms are in fact super-accumulation devices where capital is highly concentrated. Relying on their monopolistic position, they not only appropriate the data labor generated by users’ daily behaviors without compensation, but also impose hidden exploitation on small and medium-sized producers on the platform (such as online shop owners, delivery riders, ride-hailing drivers, etc.), trapping them in the “system” through algorithmic management. Platform fetishism disguises the high concentration of capital and monopolistic power as technological progress and public service. It obscures the real relations of labor, allowing exploitation to continue operating behind smooth user experiences and seemingly neutral interfaces.

第三，平台拜物教。大型数字平台正日益呈现出某种“基础设施化”的趋向。它们往往被视作提供公共服务的所谓中立“场所”或“环境”，其便捷与高效营造出某种“免费”的假象，也强化了平台友好而无私的公共面孔。然而，这些平台实则是资本高度集中的超级积累装置。凭借垄断性地位，它们不仅无偿占有用户日常行为产生的数据劳动，更对平台上的中小生产者（如网店店主、外卖骑手、网约车司机等）实施着隐性剥削，通过算法管理将他们困在“系统”之中。平台拜物教将资本的高度集中和垄断性权力伪装成技术进步和公共服务。它遮蔽了劳动的真实关系，使剥削在流畅的用户体验与看似中立的界面背后持续运作。

Digital fetishism does not transcend Marx’s critical framework; it merely evolves the fetishism chain of “commodity—money—capital” into the new form of “data—algorithm—platform capital,” the core of which remains the concealment of exploitative and controlling social relations between people through relations between things. It is necessary to persist in applying the critical method of Marxist political economy to “demystify” digital fetishism. Through Marxist theory, the exploitative nature of digital labor must be profoundly revealed; it must be recognized that so-called data value actually originates from users’ digital labor, and the platform capital’s process of appropriating and capitalizing data is essentially a hidden act of exploitation without paying an equivalent. We must base ourselves on the Marxist labor theory of value, incorporate the new form of labor, “digital labor,” into the analytical framework, and reveal the logic of the production and distribution of surplus value in the digital age. At the same time, the myth of “technological neutrality” must be broken. Algorithms and platforms have never been purely neutral tools; from the moment of their birth, they are inscribed with the logic of capital and specific ideological preferences. Algorithms are not an objective “eye of God”; they are a product of the interweaving of specific social relations and technical conditions.

数字拜物教并未超越马克思的批判框架，它只是将“商品—货币—资本”的拜物教链条，演进为“数据—算法—平台资本”的新形态，其核心依然是用物与物之间的关系掩盖人与人之间的剥削性和控制性社会关系。必须坚持运用马克思主义政治经济学批判方法，对数字拜物教进行“去神秘化”。要通过马克思主义理论，深刻揭示数字劳动的剥削本质，要认识到所谓的数据价值，其实源于用户的数字劳动，平台资本对数据的占有和资本化过程，本质上是一种隐蔽的、不支付等价物的剥削行为。我们要立足于马克思主义劳动价值论的理论，将“数字劳动”这一新型劳动形态纳入分析范畴，揭示剩余价值在数字时代的生产与分配逻辑。同时，要打破“技术中立”的神话。算法和平台从来不是纯粹中立的工具，它们从诞生之初就镶刻着资本逻辑和特定意识形态偏好。算法并非客观的“上帝之眼”，它是特定社会关系和技术条件相互交织构建的产物。

An important prerequisite for the maintenance of digital fetishism is that hundreds of millions of users are unable to realize that they are “laborers.” When users realize that their online activities are labor that creates value, it becomes possible for them to transform from passive “consumers” and “users” into active “digital laborers,” and then to question issues of labor rights, data ownership, and profit distribution. The subjective position of humanity must be reaffirmed. Any technology is a product of human activity and should serve the free and comprehensive development of humanity, not reduce people to appendages of data, slaves of algorithms, and prisoners of platforms. The ultimate concern of Marxism is the realization of human emancipation; the ultimate goal of critiquing digital fetishism is to break digital alienation and rebuild humanity’s dominance over technology.

数字拜物教得以维持的一个重要前提是亿万用户无法意识到自己是“劳动者”。当用户意识到自己的在线活动是创造价值的劳动时，便有可能从被动的“消费者”“用户”转变为积极的“数字劳动者”，进而追问劳动权益、数据所有权和利润分配等问题。要重申人的主体性地位。任何技术都是人类活动的产物，理应服务于人的自由全面发展，而非使人沦为数据的附庸、算法的奴隶和平台的困民。马克思主义的终极关怀是实现人的解放，批判数字拜物教的最终目的是打破数字异化，重建人对技术的主导权。

The ultimate orientation of Marxism is the transformation of relations of production. After disenchantment and awakening, there must be a realistic institutional design to replace the existing exploitative structure. First, promote exploration of public ownership of data. As a key means of production, the private monopoly of data is the economic base of digital fetishism. Mechanisms such as public data pools and data trusts can be explored to ensure that, on the premise of protecting personal privacy, the benefits generated by data are shared by society, thereby weakening the monopolistic power of platform capital at its root. Second, strengthen algorithm supervision to make algorithm operation more transparent and accountability traceable. An independent algorithm auditing mechanism can be established to conduct regular inspections and supervision of algorithms that directly affect the public interest, ensuring they are fair, compliant, and do not cross red lines. The rights and interests of digital workers must be protected. For the vast number of "online gig workers" and the digital gig workforce, their status as workers should be clearly recognized, enabling them to receive reasonable income and enjoy social security. At the same time, ordinary users should also have more say over their data and even share in the benefits of data use. Third, promote the socialization of platforms. Explore public-oriented reform of giant digital platforms, gradually transforming these platforms, originally monopolized by capital, into social infrastructure like water and electricity, managed through social participation. This is not to negate digital technology, but to reshape the logic of operation behind the technology, so that it does not serve only capital, but truly serves people, helping each individual develop more freely and comprehensively.

马克思主义的最终指向是生产关系的变革。祛魅和觉醒之后，必须有现实的制度设计来替代现有的剥削性结构。其一，推动数据公有制探索。数据作为关键生产资料，其私人垄断是数字拜物教的经济基础。可探索建立公共数据池、数据信托等机制，在保障个人隐私的前提下使数据产生的收益由社会共享，从根源上削弱平台资本的垄断性权力。其二，要加强算法监管，让算法运行更透明、责任可追溯。可以推动建立独立的算法审计机制，对那些直接影响公众利益的算法做定期检查和监督，确保它们公平合规，不踩红线。要保护好数字劳动者的权益，对于广大“网约工”和数字零工群体，应该明确认定他们的劳动者身份，让他们也能拿到合理的收入、享有社保。同时，普通用户也应对自己的数据有更多话语权，甚至分享数据使用的收益。其三，推动平台走向社会化。探索对巨型数字平台进行公共化改革，让这些本来被资本垄断的平台，逐渐转变成像水电一样的社会基础设施，由社会共同参与管理。这不是要否定数字技术，而是要重塑技术背后的运行逻辑，不让它只为资本服务，而要让它真正为人服务，助力每个人更自由、更全面地发展。

Digital fetishism can be said to be a new form of commodity fetishism in the digital age. By means of data, algorithms, and internet platforms, it forms a "digital labyrinth" even more dazzling than the past world of commodities, concealing the real labor and exploitation relations behind it. Using Marx's method of fetishism critique, the lie of "technological neutrality" in digital capitalism can be seen through. Solving the dilemma of digital fetishism does not mean opposing technology or resisting digital civilization, but rather, like Marx, penetrating the fog of "things" to see the real relations between people behind them, and using 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 practically explore paths out of the digital dilemma in real life. Breaking the blind worship of digital technology, the key is to return technology to human control, making it serve the comprehensive development of people, rather than being monopolized by platforms and capital. Our goal should be to build a people-centered model of digital governance—making technology truly serve every individual, promoting the common well-being of society and the genuine liberation of people.

数字拜物教可以说是商品拜物教在数字时代的新形态。它借助数据、算法和互联网平台，形成一个比过去商品世界更令人眼花缭乱的“数字迷境”，把背后真实的劳动和剥削关系掩盖了起来。借助马克思的拜物教批判方法，可以看穿数字资本主义“技术中立”谎言。破解数字拜物教困境，不是要反对技术、抵制数字文明，而是要像马克思那样穿透“物”的迷雾，看清其背后真实的人与人之间的关系，并运用这种认识去改造世界。这就要求我们不仅在理论上坚持和发展马克思主义的批判精神，还要实实在在地在生活中去探索走出数字困境的路径。打破对数字技术的盲目崇拜，关键是要让技术回归人的控制，让它为人的全面发展服务，而不是被平台和资本垄断。我们的目标应该是建设一种以人为本的数字治理模式——让技术真正服务于每一个人，促进社会的共同福祉和人的真正解放。

(The author is a researcher at the Research Base for Marxist Theory and Contemporary Practice, Donghua University)

（作者系东华大学马克思主义理论与当代实践研究基地研究员）