4 ms·

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

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.
      - prince781 5y ago
        The term remains easy to understand. Whether you agree/disagree with it is a separate matter. > What's the non-alienated version of an amazon worker? An Amazon worker that can exclusively determine who gets to be on the board of directors. >> 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. Is your contention that alienation is _not_ one source (among many) of social conflict? Certainly history is not on your side here.
        dalbasal 5y ago
        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.

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.
    - prince781 5y ago
      The term remains easy to understand. Whether you agree/disagree with it is a separate matter. > What's the non-alienated version of an amazon worker? An Amazon worker that can exclusively determine who gets to be on the board of directors. >> 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. Is your contention that alienation is _not_ one source (among many) of social conflict? Certainly history is not on your side here.
      - dalbasal 5y ago
        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.