In the latest discussions on Marx's critical theory of fetishism, Chinese scholars gave special attention to the relationship between fetishism (Fetischismus), reification (Versachlichung) and materialization (Verdinglichung). Many scholars pointed out that we should distinguish versachlichung from verdinglichung by the differences in their root forms Sache and Ding. In German, Sache and Ding are interchangeable and have basically the same meaning, except that the former is mostly used to refer to things while the latter to objects. In Capital, Marx did not deliberately distinguish Sache from Ding, nor did he distinguish versachlichung from verdinglichung. The fetishism of commodities, money and capital stemmed from the social character of labor ″manifesting itself″ in a perverted form. To analyze Marx's Critique of Fetishism, it is necessary for us to distinguish reification in general from the reification of production relations (die Versachlichung der Produktionsverhltnisse) and to distinguish materialization in general from the materialization of the social features of production (die Verdinglichung der gesellschaftlichen Produktionsbestimmungen), because only the reification of production relations and the materialization of the social features of production are inseparable from the fetishism of commodities, money and capital. The reification of production relations means that production relations manifest themselves as a relation between things; the materialization of the social features of production refers to the social characters of objects which are obtained in particular social relations and manifest themselves as their inherent properties in objects. The fetishism of capital is so complicated that it cannot be fully explained by the reification of production relations and the materialization of the social features of production. Marx's ″fetishistic conception″ refers to a kind of ″misdeem″, regarding the formal determinations of objects which are obtained in a particular social relation of production as their inherent properties in objects. It is neither people's ″worship″ of commodities, money and capital nor the ″fetishism″ of the school of psychoanalysis. This kind of ″misdeem″ is not directly related to the reification of production relations but to the materialization of the social features of production. Under the control of the fetishistic conception, the agents of capitalist production confuse the material content and social forms of production, abstract the unique capitalist mode of production, and eternalize the historical nature of the capitalist mode of production. It is necessary for us to make a clear distinction between the fetishism of commodities, money and capital, a kind of ″social existence″, and the fetishistic conception, a kind of ″social consciousness″. It is also important to make it clear that the former lays a realistic foundation for the latter. Marx revealed the secrets of commodities, money and capital, and was no longer trapped in the fetishistic conception. But the work of Marx cannot eliminate the manifestation mode in which the social character of labor embodies the objective character of the products themselves. Only when the production of commodities withers away, will the materialized mode of manifestation disappear.