| HN Mirror

It's my "contention" that alienation is a term, very abstract, not a discrete thing that can have consequences.

I contend that in the early 19th century, the term made for good rhetoric. IE, you could use it to describe the world and convey ideas. If it hadn't been coined then, but someone coined it now, it would be weak rhetoric. An uncompelling abstraction that doesn't describe anything, convince anyone or explain anything... like a joke that needs to be explained. No one would give it any attention. It's not even wrong, it's just irrelevant. Marx was wrong about lots of things, right about other things. He was rarely irrelevant though, at least until his later years.

I'd also point you to the fact that this kind of mumbo jumbo is why an amazon union vote failed a few weeks ago. The corporate culture BS that amazon (the point of this article) is teaching in schools now makes more sense and has more meaning to workers than the marxist theology that this article is written in. The present is not on your side.

I'll finally contend that a young Karl Marx himself would not be writing or talking like this, or reading Jacobin. He had new ideas, that made sense in his time. He got those ideas by observing the world, not arcane language written by some 15th century philosopher. That's what conservatives do. It ain't radical.

Workers don't want to hear about their alienation. They want a raise, dignity, childcare and a stake in the game. They don't want to be surveilled, or fired by an email generated by an NN.

>> The term remains easy to understand

The term is 100% unintelligible.