Everyone has explained how anticapitalist sentiment is Incorporated into commodities through their fetishistic dimension, as in how purchasing certain things carries certain connotations of activism or anti-capitalism (if I buy the starbucks cup, it helps coffee farmers In Brazil or whatever) but I think Mark Fisher was more concerned with interpassivity. Allow me to give an even more zizekian example than the starbucks cup that has nothing to do with anti-capitalism: the sitcom laugh track. The laugh track in a sitcom is not just to represent when you're supposed to laugh, it performs the laughing for you. The whole point is that when you finish watching a sitcom you still feel good about it even though it wasn't that funny. The show took care of the laughter part already, so you feel like it was funny by proxy, through some vicarious means you feel satisfied.

There's real insidious part is that movies like WALL-E perform anti-capitalism for you as well, watching WALL-E allows you, for an instant, to feel like you did some real activism by proxy. The dress at the met gala allows you to partake on that interpassive aspect, AOC is performing anti-capitalism for you, provided you vote for her, she will continue performing anti-capitalism for you. Commodity fetishism is, I believe, something innate to the commodity form so it's inevitable, your brain incorporates the fetishistic qualities subconsciously, so if you consume like Beyond Meat or Starbucks coffee because it makes your brain feel good through some moralistic implication, it's a bit whatever, we all do that with all commodities. The real danger is interpassivity consuming actual social initiative, feeling rather satisfied because someone out there is doing the activism in your stead.