Abstract：Reification and abstraction are regarded as two classic perspectives in academic interpretations of the fetishism critique theory in Capital. However, it is argued that these two perspectives fail to fully explain why fetishism possesses objective social efficacy. Therefore, this research can be advanced by approaching the issue from the perspective of subjectification.Firstly, the “generation of the value subject” is revealed by Marx through the concept of “independence” in Capital. The essence of commodity fetishism is that the “commodity-thing”, as a value form, is made independent and rises to a “subject” that rules over society and laborers. Subsequently, Marx shifts his focus from the “generation of the value subject” to the “movement of the value subject” in his exploration of the issue of fetishism. For the subjectification movement of value, it is identified as the productive origin of fetishism’s acquisition of objective social power, while the reification and abstraction of human social relations and their reflection in consciousness are seen as the objective results of this movement.Secondly, the demonstration of the origin of fetishism is conducted by Marx through the transformations in the value form. The evolution of the value form from the “simple form”, “expanded form”, to the “general form” and “monetary form” ultimately shapes an inverted world of humans and things. Three concepts of “thing” are identified in the context of Capital: from “Gegenstand” (object-thing), “Ding” (abstract thing) to “Sache” (relation-thing). The changes in the use of these concepts imply the subjectification logic of fetishism. Commodities also become “things” (Sache) that engage in social relations and “self-activity” with themselves in addition to being made independent from the human object (Gegenstand) world, transforming from “human objectified products” into abstract “things” (Ding) that are “dissociated from human relations”.Finally, the production mechanism of the formation of the fetishistic nature is also revealed by Marx, which involves tracing the value form further back to abstract labor. With regard to the essence of fetishism, it is identified as the inversion of abstract labor into a self-active subject. Its self-activity is transformed into the subjectification movement of value when abstract labor is detached from the production process. From commodities to money and capital, it is a process of the continuous independence of the value subject on the one hand; and a process of the deepening development of the fetishistic nature on the other hand. From industrial capital, merchant capital to interest-bearing capital, the cyclical movement of the value subject is shown to continuously reproduce the ruling power of fetishism, and the mystery and inversion of capital are also shown to reach their peak. Different capital cycles are found to produce different social effects. The production (labor) fetishism is caused by the industrial capital cycle; the money worship is caused by the merchant capital cycle; the object of fetishism is no longer a specific object but becomes an abstract proliferation movement in interest-bearing capital.The interpretation of the fetishism critique theory in Capital is shown to effectively restore the social historicity of fetishism from the perspective of subjectification. In reality, capital is thought to exist only within the movement of things in the form of commodities and money, and the value subject is only possible in the movement of capital. In other words, the capital subject cannot ascend to a religious-like god to engage in pure self-activity, which is also the historical materialist methodology demonstrated by Marx’s fetishism critique theory in Capital.
王绍梁. 从主体化视角重思《资本论》的拜物教批判理论[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2026, 56(6): 61-71.
Wang Shaoliang. Rethinking the Fetishism Critique Theory in Capital from the Perspective of Subjectification. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2026, 56(6): 61-71.
2026, Vol. 56 
