“Establishing economic value requires the disvaluing of all other forms of social existence” (Esteva, 2010)

This article argues that hyper-consumerism or commodity fetishism is one of the key constitutive aspects of neoliberal capitalism. At the heart of commodity fetishism lies the devaluation of human-to-human connection, as it is commodities that mediate and structure social interactions and thereby effect social exclusion for those who can’t afford these commodities. This paper draws heavily from my own experiences and observations of the world around me.  We live in a society which has a very high degree of systemic solidarity due to a high division of labour and specialization but a very low degree of social integration. In this paper I shall use Karl Marx’s two concepts namely ‘Commodity Fetishism’ and ‘Alienation’ to explore the nature of social solidarity – or as Durkheim would call the bond that binds the individual to the society- in the context of the neoliberal capitalist society.

Marx (1867) has given several important concepts and theories to understand the specificities of capitalist society. Two of these concepts are Alienation and Commodity Fetishism.  Marx argued that the nature of the labour process under capitalism was such that it alienated the worker. Alienation entails estrangement and Marx (1844) argued that under capitalism this estrangement of the worker takes place at four levels – 1) estrangement from the products of his/her labour, 2) estrangement from the labour process, 3) estrangement from fellow workers and 4) estrangement from the self- from his or her nature.

Under capitalism, the capitalist owns the means of production whereas the worker owns nothing except their labour power. Thus, the worker is compelled to sell his/her labour power to the capitalist for a wage. Marx (1867) argues that under capitalism the worker is not paid the full value of the labour that he/she puts in and this unpaid  (surplus) value which is appropriated by the capitalist amounts to the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist. Since the capitalist owns the means of production such as land, machinery, tools, and raw materials, and the capitalist organises the production process, the products thus produced belong not to the worker who produces them but to the capitalist. This is the first aspect of the alienation experienced by the worker under capitalism wherein the worker doesn’t own the fruits of his labour (Marx, 1844, 1867). The worker is estranged from his/her creation due to a certain skewed structure of property rights (here the ownership of the means of production).

Further, the capitalist labour process entails a complex form of division of labour wherein the production process is broken down into several components/ stages and a particular worker is involved in only one of these stages, wherein he performs one of the operations among several operations that are performed (within that stage or across stages) to create a product. Marx (1867) argues that earlier the worker used to create the entire product on his own and thus had knowledge of the entire production process and also had control over the entire production process but under capitalism the worker not only loses knowledge of the production process and is thus deskilled but also loses his control over the production process. This loss forms the second kind of alienation a worker experiences under capitalism. The deskilling process also entails the worker losing his creative abilities under capitalism.

Marx (1844) argues that under capitalism the workers are pitted against each other in the competitive wage market. Also, the differentiation created among workers by capitalism such as white-collar workers and blue-collar workers further creates the illusion of difference of interest among the workers (what Marx calls false consciousness) and thus alienates workers from other workers.[i] Under this form of alienation, the worker is estranged from his fellow human species or fellow workers or from humanity.

Further, under capitalism, the worker is compelled to work for a means of subsistence that is for the wage. The impersonal forces of the market coerce the worker to take up jobs which he or she doesn’t like or enjoy or has the aptitude for, only to pay the bills and not starve! In effect, the worker works for the accumulation of capital or for enabling the making of profits by the capitalist. The labour of the worker, his/her mind and body are in service of the “blood-sucking” – as Marx says- capital which can only expand by sucking the blood and sweat of the worker. Marx called this “estranged labour”. The worker is estranged from his/her labour, his/her job, as he/she hates it, and finds no creative expression of his/her being in it. According to Marx, this self-estrangement is the fourth form of alienation that the worker experiences under capitalism.

Marx’s Concept of Alienation though is embedded in concrete materiality, it is essentially experienced as a socio-psychological state. Later in this paper, I shall argue that it is this very essence of the concept of Alienation that according to me is highly relevant in contemporary times of neoliberal capitalism- estrangement/ isolation from the self and of others which is the dehumanization of the larger humanity, of both the haves and the haves not. Harvey (2007) defines neoliberalism as a philosophy which argues in favour of bringing every realm of human action within the domain of the market. Neoliberalism is thus market fundamentalism. Further Harvey (2007) argues that the liberalism underpinning this philosophy is only for the economic elites. And hyper commodity fetishism and hyper-consumerism are some of the central features of a neoliberal capitalist society. According to Skotnicki (2020) “The illusions of commodity fetishism become associated with the intoxicating power of goods and consumerism. Consumers are enchanted by commodities” (Skotnicki, 2020: 365).

Moving now to Commodity Fetishism. Marx (1867) argued that capitalism is a system of generalised commodity production. Marx distinguished a product from a commodity by elucidating that a product is a good that only has a use value whereas a commodity has both- use value and an exchange value. Thus, commodities are products that are produced to be sold on the market. Marx (1867) argues that there is the fetishization of commodities under capitalism which is because under capitalism products acquire exchange value, that is products are sold in the realm of exchange, that is in the market, for a price. Marx (1867) argued that it is this connection of the product to its money form that results in the fetishization of the commodity. By fetishization of commodities, Marx (1867) is trying to say that once a product under capitalism becomes a commodity and acquires a value in the form of price, these commodities are put on display in stores and showrooms for sale with their respective price tags, the real source of value of these commodities that is labour gets completely invisibilized, the exploitation of workers underpinning the creation of these commodities gets completely invisibilized and all that the buyers associate the commodity with is its price such that the commodities have a value inherently by themselves without any labour expended to produce them. Another facet is that commodities are seen under capitalism as something magical, and mystical. The advertisements of these commodities bring that to the fore. For example, the (racist) advertisement of the cream ‘Fair and Lovely’ (falsely) posits this cream as a solution to the dark skin colour! Diamonds are marketed as a must-have for every woman, as a woman’s best friend!

There exist innumerable examples where commodities are presented with magical qualities in advertisements or by salesmen.  

I argue that under neoliberal capitalism, commodity fetishism has acquired a whole new (insane) level. The result is the alienation of people from their true human selves and others. Commodity fetishism (as explained above) essentially entails a certain way of viewing commodities by their buyers, a view which is divorced from the true source of value of the commodities, which is the embodied labour and, thus lacks discernment of the underlying labour process/exploitation of the labour, and this view also looks at commodities as having some mystical, magical qualities, some fantastical powers such that the use value of these commodities takes a back seat.

In 1991 and the following years, India embraced the world of neoliberal capitalism by undertaking the LPG- Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization- “reforms” wherein the Indian economy was restructured on the free-market principle and government controls over several sectors of the Indian economy were removed or significantly brought down Ahluwalia, 2002). The barriers to import were also considerably removed and India allowed foreign multinational players to enter Indian markets in partnership with Indian retailers. As a result, several foreign players opened their stores in India (Jain and Bajaj, 2016).

India was introduced to several foreign branded goods like Nike, Ford, Coca-Cola, and Levis, to name a few. Over the years India increasingly loosened its foreign investment controls and allowed different foreign brands to enter Indian markets. For example, luxury brands like Gucci, Prada, Armani etc opened their stores in different Indian cities like Bombay and Delhi (Kmaneck, 2023). With the coming of these foreign brands, came the mall culture in India. With the coming of these brands and a growing, aspirational middle class– alongside the poor becoming poorer and a growing underclass as a result of these neoliberal policies, anyway, – came the mall culture. Today shopping malls like the DLF Emporio and Ambience Mall in Delhi are the visual hallmarks of neoliberal capitalism in India (like elsewhere in the world). Aggressive advertisements of these commodities, using film stars as the face of these brands, a culture of consumerism was promoted through mass media.

Foreign branded goods came to be seen as a symbol of high class and fine taste. Today the possession of extremely expensive brands like an Apple Phone, a Gucci bag, a Prada jacket etc is seen as a marker of being elite. Consider the example of the Apple mobile phone, if someone possesses it, automatically we think that this person is rich. The point I am trying to make is that, today more than ever before the possession of expensive commodities has become the basis for feeling good about oneself and the yardstick for commanding social prestige. Today, people are deriving their sense of self and their self-worth from commodities. In this context, commodities are not at all about their use value or their quality. A mobile phone is a mobile phone and most smartphones have more or less similar features but why then one want to possess only an Apple phone?  Similarly, a handbag is a handbag but why a Gucci handbag which costs lakhs of rupees is what most people would aspire for?

The money in one’s pocket has become the most important determinant of the amount of social prestige one can enjoy and the possession of certain highly expensive commodities has become the basis on which people are perceived and judged. It doesn’t matter whether a person is communal or secular, casteist or non-casteist, racist or non-racist, all that matters for that person to command social respect is the car he or she drives, the phone he or she carries, and so on. In the evaluation of that person, his/her thoughts and actions don’t matter, his/her intellect doesn’t matter, his/her life story doesn’t matter, and all that matters is the possession of expensive, foreign-branded commodities. Social respect is increasingly divorced from the nature and qualities of a person. In such a context, the way or the means through which those commodities are acquired is also discounted. This way of perceiving and ranking people is essentially dehumanizing. It also puts undue pressure on people who lack social, economic or cultural capital to be able to possess such commodities.  This has become the dominant way of judging and evaluating a person under Neoliberal Capitalism.  Visually, it’s like a respect-worthy human being is an ensemble of highly prized commodities! In this context, commodity fetishism creates boundaries between people by solidifying class-based distinctions. I feel that judging people in this manner makes one shallow, it deteriorates one’s intellect and alienates people from others and from their human self.

Thus, under Neoliberal Capitalism, we are living in a world of commodities wherein commodities are ruling us. Humans have become the slave of consumerism. Further, most of these foreign-branded commodities are manufactured in third-world countries in what is known as sweatshops, where workers are paid below a living wage and are made to work under inhumane conditions, such as long working hours without any breaks wherein even going to washroom is not allowed, they are made to work in hazardous buildings which can collapse any moment – example is the collapse of Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh[ii]-, there is harassment of female workers by the male managers etc.[iii]

Sadly, in this hyper, mindless consumerist society, no one cares about where their foreign branded goods are manufactured, under what conditions, what wages are the workers paid, if any forests were cut to manufacture these goods etc! People’s consciousness is completely alienated from the process of the production of these commodities. In Neoliberal Capitalism, consumerism has become the new opiate of the masses- of the middle and the upper classes. Their consciousness is completely depoliticised. Han (2017) captures this so well by his argument that Neoliberalism turns citizens into consumers wherein the former gives in to the passivity of the latter such that these citizens turned consumers have no interest in political issues and neither can participate in political action.

As a result of this hyper-fetishization of commodities, human life has been placed in the service of commodities. Today, people find no pleasure in reading, in cultivating their minds, in polishing their intellect, all they think about is I want this car, that phone and so on. Commodity fetishism doesn’t allow people to think beyond their selfish desires and greed. People continuously run after money to acquire socially respected (expensive) commodities but don’t think about using that money to help someone in need like paying a poor or a needy person’s hospital bill or financing the education of a poor child or gifting a bicycle to their domestic help who walks kilometres on foot to make it to their employer’s home.

Thus, commodity fetishism under Neoliberal Capitalism has acquired a pervasive, hyper form. A form that erodes empathy and alienates people from -what Marx (1844) called – “their species being”. It is not just the worker who is alienated but under this hyper form of commodity fetishism where everyone is coerced to run after socially respected commodities and to judge people based on their possession of or lack of these commodities, every person suffers from the socio-psychological state wherein he/she- or they- is disconnected not just from their human self but are also disconnected from others. In such a world, commodities and the monetary value of these commodities decide the moral worth of an individual.

What reigns supreme then is commodities and their monetary value and sadly, what is lost is empathy/humanity which is the human-to-human connection.

References:

Ahluwalia, Montek S. 2002. “Economic Reforms in India Since 1991: Has Gradualism Worked?.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 16(3): 67-88.

Archer, Margaret. 1996. “Social integration and system integration: developing the distinction.” Sociology. 30(4): 679-699.

Chowdhury, Suman. 2019. “Study of Deprivation on Female Garments Workers in Bangladesh: A Case Study of Chittagong City Corporation.” Social Change. 9(1): 14-28.

Chua, Jasmin. 2021. “Sweatpants Sales are Booming, But the Workers Who Make Them are Earning Even Less”. Vox. 22 February, 2021.

Durkheim, Emile. 1973. Emile Durkheim on Morality and Society. University of Chicago Press.

Estava, Gustavo. 2010. Development in The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power edited by Wolfgang Sachs. Pp. 1-23. New York: Zed Books.

Han, Byung-Chul. 2017. Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power. Verso Books.

Harvey, David. 2007. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

Jain, Jinesh and Ashish Bajaj. 2016. Economic Reforms in India. ACADEMICIA: An International Multidisciplinary Research Journal. 6(3): 1-9.

Kelly, Annie. 2013. Bangladesh’s Garment Workers Face Exploitation, but Is it Slavery?. The Guardian. 16 May, 2013.

Kmaneck, Roshneesh. 2023. Upper Crust: Why is India Becoming the New Darling of the Luxury Brands Across the Globe. First Post. 12 May, 2023.

Marx, Karl. 2016. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 in Social Theory Re-Wired edited by Wesley Longhofer and Daniel Winchester. Pp. 152-158. Routledge.

Marx, Karl. 1867. Capital: Volume One. Courier Dover Publications.

Skotnicki, Tad. 2020. Commodity Fetishism as Semblance. Sociological Theory. 38.4: 362-377.

Young, Sarah. 2020. Fashion Revolution Week: What was the Rana Plaza Disaster and Why Did it Happen. Independent. 23 April, 2020.

[i] Marx developed his concept of alienation first in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, and later Marx elaborated on this concept in his magnum opus Capital (volume I) which was published in 1867.

[ii]  See, Young (2002); Paton (2023)

[iii] See, Kelly (2013); Chowdhury (2019); Chua (2021)

***

Chahat Walia has done her M.Phil from the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Currently, she is pursuing her second MA in Sociology from the Department of Sociology, University of Hyderabad.