Acharya Prashant responds to a question about Karl Marx's concept of 'commodity fetishism' from 'Das Kapital'. The questioner asks how to reconcile the spiritual advice of focusing on the 'use-value' of things with the inherent exploitation in their 'exchange-value' and production process. Acharya Prashant clarifies that spirituality is not concerned only with 'use-value'. He gives the example of animal flesh, which has a use-value but is not advocated by spirituality. Instead, spirituality encourages knowing the origin of everything one consumes, from the food on one's plate to the rare earth minerals in a mobile phone. He further distinguishes the spiritual definition of 'use' from Marx's. While Marx defines 'use-value' as something that fulfills a desire, Vedanta would not consider something useful merely for that reason. For Vedanta, the only truly useful thing is understanding or realization. To attain this, one must be conscious of the totality of what one uses. This includes knowing the components of a product, the taxation and foreign policies involved, and where the money used to purchase it goes. This principle extends to career choices; one must be aware of what their labor contributes to, who the shareholders are, and how they utilize their profits. He gives an example of one's hard work funding a shareholder's lavish lifestyle, questioning the true output of such labor. Acharya Prashant asserts that what is needed is not 'class consciousness' as Marx proposed, but simply 'consciousness'. He argues that identifying with any class or group hinders true consciousness. He encourages the audience to use modern technology, like the internet, to research the origins of everything they consume, from their clothes to their food, to understand the entire chain of production and its implications. This total knowledge is the right use of technology and a path to liberation. He concludes by stating that this deep inquiry is what he himself practiced, which led him to leave a bureaucratic career, as he realized his work would be a small part of a larger system he had no control over.