4 ms·

My early education was, in fact, was quite steeped in such terms. I'm a apostate, not an infidel. Anyway, my point wasn't a criticism of the content, or anythi

My early education was, in fact, was quite steeped in such terms. I'm a apostate, not an infidel. Anyway, my point wasn't a criticism of the content, or anything really. Just pointing out that its clunky and verbose sounding, to my rusty old ears.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Fair enough. But I haven't seen anyone describe these sorts of concepts in any other terms other than cloying cute folksy-funny stump speeches that tend to obfuscate things as much as they make them more accessible. The relationships between labor and capital are not obvious to the naked eye, and are subject to a lot of different kinds of analysis. Trying to describe them with language from outside the field can end up missing the critical points.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  I'd say that this type of jargonized writing makes articles extremely unaccessible. It would be pretty hard to understand without some pretty substantial roots in marxist, or social science literature. Ironically, that means most people working at an amazon warehouse wouldn't understand what it's trying to say. Re: The relationships between labor and capital are not obvious. Parts of that relationship are pretty damn obvious: people work for the owners of companies. The only accessible part of this article quotes another article describing (in plain, un-jargonized english) about a local high school that teaches Amazon corporate culture, with financial sponsorship by amazon. Without that part, no one would have a hope of deciphering what the hell Amazon as “the major working-class space of suburban and exurban socialization,” whether or not I had spent my teenage years as a member of a red lace youth group. This style of writing tells you more about the author than the thing they're writing about, and its totally meaningless to the uninitiated. Once you get used to it, you see every particular as derivative of the greater, abstract truth with no space for novel or dissident interpretations. That's not my opinion, it's George Orwell's, a lifelong socialist. This isn't a criticism of Marx. It is a criticism of Marxism. 200 years ago, "alienation from the product of labour" meant something when he used it. It described a process that was taking place att. If you're "analysing" Amazon's influence on towns where they are the biggest employer, it means nothing. It certainly means nothing to workers.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    what language would you use to describe the concept of "alienation from the product of labor" today, here in 2021, if the intended audience is the workforce of an amazon fulfillment center?
    - dalbasal 5y ago
      I wouldn't. The idea wasn't abstract in the 1830s. It meant the difference between having a loom in your house and working at a mill. We could debate the importance of this, but we'd be starting by talking about an actual thing that is happening in the world. You could talk to a mill worker about it and it described their life. You can't think of relevant ways of describing alienation, because the thing you are trying to describe isn't happening now. It happened hundreds of years ago. All that's left is a psycho-economic abstraction and a history lesson. Say I coin a term to describe the digitisation of workplaces, WFH, and such. Call it "workplace etherealisation." We can use that in "analysis" of labour-capital dynamics. In 200 years, "workplace etherealisation" and our analysis probably won't mean anything anymore. Or rather, it will be a trivial, clunky way of describing the world from the perspective of past people. That was my initial point. This article isn't written to have meaning to amazon workers, or readers beyond a particular circle. It's written to have meaning "in-theory," deep inside abstract theories that the author is interested in for abstract treasons that have nothing to do with workers. It's mastabatory.
      - prince781 5y ago
        Alienation isn't a historical event. It's a term that describes how a human being, in the present, relates to the things he creates. The concept is simple: Most people today are put in the unusual position (anthropologically speaking) of creating things they do not themselves sell. From this flows a lot of consequences for social conflict, politics, mental health, etc, something we should try to understand.
        dalbasal 5y ago
        Alienation is/was a term coined at a particular time. It was easy to understand at that time, because it was related to changes in the world that were happening. You didn't have to be a marxist to use it in a sentence. Today it is still used, because it's part of abstract theory, to which other abstract theory relates, in ways that are entirely meaningless outside of this theory. What's the non-alienated version of an amazon worker, a door-to-door salesman? >> From this flows a lot of consequences for social conflict, politics, mental health, etc. Whether or not this was ever true, it was at least a legible statement 200 years ago. Today, it's a completely meaningless, mumbling piety.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Fair enough. But I haven't seen anyone describe these sorts of concepts in any other terms other than cloying cute folksy-funny stump speeches that tend to obfuscate things as much as they make them more accessible. The relationships between labor and capital are not obvious to the naked eye, and are subject to a lot of different kinds of analysis. Trying to describe them with language from outside the field can end up missing the critical points.

dalbasal 5y ago
I'd say that this type of jargonized writing makes articles extremely unaccessible. It would be pretty hard to understand without some pretty substantial roots in marxist, or social science literature. Ironically, that means most people working at an amazon warehouse wouldn't understand what it's trying to say. Re: The relationships between labor and capital are not obvious. Parts of that relationship are pretty damn obvious: people work for the owners of companies. The only accessible part of this article quotes another article describing (in plain, un-jargonized english) about a local high school that teaches Amazon corporate culture, with financial sponsorship by amazon. Without that part, no one would have a hope of deciphering what the hell Amazon as “the major working-class space of suburban and exurban socialization,” whether or not I had spent my teenage years as a member of a red lace youth group. This style of writing tells you more about the author than the thing they're writing about, and its totally meaningless to the uninitiated. Once you get used to it, you see every particular as derivative of the greater, abstract truth with no space for novel or dissident interpretations. That's not my opinion, it's George Orwell's, a lifelong socialist. This isn't a criticism of Marx. It is a criticism of Marxism. 200 years ago, "alienation from the product of labour" meant something when he used it. It described a process that was taking place att. If you're "analysing" Amazon's influence on towns where they are the biggest employer, it means nothing. It certainly means nothing to workers.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  what language would you use to describe the concept of "alienation from the product of labor" today, here in 2021, if the intended audience is the workforce of an amazon fulfillment center?
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    I wouldn't. The idea wasn't abstract in the 1830s. It meant the difference between having a loom in your house and working at a mill. We could debate the importance of this, but we'd be starting by talking about an actual thing that is happening in the world. You could talk to a mill worker about it and it described their life. You can't think of relevant ways of describing alienation, because the thing you are trying to describe isn't happening now. It happened hundreds of years ago. All that's left is a psycho-economic abstraction and a history lesson. Say I coin a term to describe the digitisation of workplaces, WFH, and such. Call it "workplace etherealisation." We can use that in "analysis" of labour-capital dynamics. In 200 years, "workplace etherealisation" and our analysis probably won't mean anything anymore. Or rather, it will be a trivial, clunky way of describing the world from the perspective of past people. That was my initial point. This article isn't written to have meaning to amazon workers, or readers beyond a particular circle. It's written to have meaning "in-theory," deep inside abstract theories that the author is interested in for abstract treasons that have nothing to do with workers. It's mastabatory.
    - prince781 5y ago
      Alienation isn't a historical event. It's a term that describes how a human being, in the present, relates to the things he creates. The concept is simple: Most people today are put in the unusual position (anthropologically speaking) of creating things they do not themselves sell. From this flows a lot of consequences for social conflict, politics, mental health, etc, something we should try to understand.
      - dalbasal 5y ago
        Alienation is/was a term coined at a particular time. It was easy to understand at that time, because it was related to changes in the world that were happening. You didn't have to be a marxist to use it in a sentence. Today it is still used, because it's part of abstract theory, to which other abstract theory relates, in ways that are entirely meaningless outside of this theory. What's the non-alienated version of an amazon worker, a door-to-door salesman? >> From this flows a lot of consequences for social conflict, politics, mental health, etc. Whether or not this was ever true, it was at least a legible statement 200 years ago. Today, it's a completely meaningless, mumbling piety.