Philosophical and religious aspects of the commodity fetishism (based on the digital economy)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21847/2411-3093.2026.8110Keywords:
philosophy of money, commodity fetishism, disenchantment of the world, aura of art, sacred and profane, consumerism mythology, consumer culture, cargo cult, Web3, NFT, digital artAbstract
This article is devoted to a philosophical and religious analysis of the phenomenon of commodity fetishism in the digital economy. It draws on Georg Simmel's philosophy of money, Karl Marx's concept of commodity fetishism, Max Weber's idea of the “disenchantment of the world,” Mircea Eliade's dichotomy of the sacred and the profane, Walter Benjamin's concept of the “aura” of art, and critical approaches. Max Weber's concept of commodity fetishism, the idea of “disenchantment of the world,” Mircea Eliade's dichotomy of the sacred and the profane, Walter Benjamin's concept of the “aura” of art, as well as the critical approaches of Roland Barthes and Jean Baudrillard to the mythologies of mass culture, this article explores how market relations reproduce the structures of religious consciousness. It is demonstrated that the fetishization of goods in the digital environment is associated with the sacralization of value, which is based on a collective belief in the “magical” power of money, brands, and digital objects. Particular attention is paid to NFTs as a prime example of a digital fetish that combines economic, cultural, and quasi-religious dimensions. It is demonstrated that in 2020–2021, NFTs functioned as an economic, cultural, and technological fetish. Digital code and artificial scarcity endowed tokens with an “aura” of uniqueness and the promise of belonging to elite communities. At the same time, mass replication, speculative expectations, and imitation practices of cargo cult induced oversupply and a crisis of trust. Declining trade volumes and a sharp drop in prices demonstrate the process of demythologization. The magical status of the token is fading, and NFTs are returning to the status of an ordinary risky asset.
Downloads
References
Adorno, T. W., Horkheimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of enlight-enment. Stanford University Press.
Ante, L. (2021). The non-fungible token (NFT) market and its relationship with Bitcoin and Ethereum. Blockchain Research Lab Working Paper, 2021-03. https://doi.org/10.3390/fintech1030017
Baudrillard, J. (1996). The system of objects. Verso.
Baudrillard, J. (1995). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press.
Barthes, R. (2009). Mythologies. Vintage Publishing.
Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, J. F. (1989). The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: Theodi-cy on the Odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1086/209191
Benjamin, W. (2008). The work of art in the age of its tech-nological reproducibility. Harvard University Press.
Benjamin, W. (1996). Capitalism as Religion In: Selected writings (1913—1926). Vol 1. Cambridge, Ma; L.: Belk-nap Press of Harvard University Press, 1996. P. 288–291.
Bocquillon, Rémy & Loon, J. (2022). Symbolic misery and digital media: How NFTs reproduce culture industries. NECSUS European Journal of Media Studies. https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/19180
Dowling, M. (2022). Is non-fungible token pricing driven by cryptocurrencies? Finance Research Letters. Vol. 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102097
Eliade, M. (1987). The Sacred and The Profane: The Na-ture of Religion. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Graeber, D. (2011). Debt: The first 5,000 years. Melville House.
Marx, K. (2024). Capital: A critique of political economy. Vol. 1. Princeton University Press.
Mosco, V. (2004). The digital sublime: Myth, power, and cyberspace. MIT Press.
Simmel, G. (2005). The philosophy of money. Taylor & Francis e-Library. Retrieved from https://www.eddiejackson.net/web_documents/Philosophy%20of%20Money.pdf
Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Роман Воробей

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
1. Authors bear responsibility for the accuracy of facts, quotations, numbers and names used.
2. Manuscripts are not sent back.
3. The publisher does not always agree with the authors' opinion.
4. The authors reserve the right to authorship of the work and pass the first publication right of this work to the journal under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. This license allows others to distribute (copy) the published work for non-commercial purposes, provided there is mandatory attribution to its authors and a link to the first publication in our journal.
5. The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive work distribution in the form in which it has been published by the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.