3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation >Karl Marx's theory of alienation descr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation >Karl Marx's theory of alienation describes the separation and estrangement of people from their work, their wider world, their human nature, and their selves. Alienation is a consequence of the division of labour in a capitalist society, wherein a human being's life is lived as a mechanistic part of a social class.[1]

skyyler 2y ago
One of my favourite things about internet forums is watching people re-invent Marxist theory by being mad at the current state of things. It's been like this for a while now. I think I even saw someone in a conservative subreddit suggest that everyone should work on a farm for a few years after college before they get real jobs. I'm still unable to determine if this was a troll or if a well-meaning conservative actually reinvented Mao's Down to the Countryside movement.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  My favorite was some comment on Reddit or other observing how often people had to resort to paying medical bills via GoFundMe. They had the idea to create one large pool of money in order to pay the medical bills of all citizens. It is often hard to tell trolling from genuine incompetence.
- a_bonobo 2y ago
  While that may be classic Marxist stuff, modern philosophers like Byung-Chul Han give a great twist on the whole thing in a digital age, I should've linked to his works too, especially for the self-optimising HN crowd. Just quoting from Wikipedia: >Han argues that subjects become self-exploiters: "Today, everyone is an auto-exploiting labourer in his or her own enterprise. People are now master and slave in one. Even class struggle has transformed into an inner struggle against oneself."[12] The individual has become what Han calls "the achievement-subject"; the individual does not believe they are subjugated "subjects" but rather "projects: Always refashioning and reinventing ourselves" which "amounts to a form of compulsion and constraint—indeed, to a "more efficient kind of subjectivation and subjugation." As a project deeming itself free of external and alien limitations, the "I" subjugates itself to internal limitations and self-constraints, which are taking the form of compulsive achievement and optimization.[13]
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Marx doesn't make any real sense in modern times because of his obsession on class divides. In contemporary society there's no real difference between a capitalist and a worker. This is true even in his own terms since we all literally own one of the most valuable 'means of production' - a computer. Obviously I'm in no way saying that there aren't invisible classes in society, but that these don't define our possibilities in ways at all comparable to the early 19th century. People also seem to try to shoe horn him into every topic, even when it really doesn't fit. For instance this issue is not one about some group of melancholy workers being alienated from the product, but 'capitalists' who have become so detached from their product that they are left looking at things through a sort of compression lens that leaves them with a deeply distorted view of reality. Even with your example - I agree that learning 'life skills' is extremely important for a solid development, but Mao wasn't doing that - he was effectively exiling people to rural areas, largely to replenish populations after massive famines that were created by his other harebrained schemes.
  - skyyler 2y ago
    I want to focus on something you said here: >In contemporary society there's no real difference between a capitalist and a worker. The difference is access to capital. Just like it was 150 years ago. Workers don't have enough holdings to sustain themselves without selling their body. Capitalists have enough holdings to not have to sell their body and can instead put their money to work through various means like entrepreneurship. Also, I didn't even bring up the Down to the Countryside program as a good aspect of Mao... But since you brought it up, I figured I'd mention that his "harebrained schemes" doubled the life expectancy in China rather quickly. Like all world leaders I've studied, he did great things, and he did horrible things.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      I wrote a lengthier post, but in writing it I realized there's a simple way to cut to the heart of this issue. Many workers in various fields (tech, legal, medicine, and more) now tend to make substantially more money than many business owners, and often for far less hours worked. In this world how does the notion of capitalist vs worker make any sense? Let alone with the stereotypes Marx depended upon for his arguments?
- Seattle3503 2y ago
  I'm not sure why you think I was unaware of Marx.

skyyler 2y ago

One of my favourite things about internet forums is watching people re-invent Marxist theory by being mad at the current state of things. It's been like this for a while now. I think I even saw someone in a conservative subreddit suggest that everyone should work on a farm for a few years after college before they get real jobs. I'm still unable to determine if this was a troll or if a well-meaning conservative actually reinvented Mao's Down to the Countryside movement.

silverquiet 2y ago
My favorite was some comment on Reddit or other observing how often people had to resort to paying medical bills via GoFundMe. They had the idea to create one large pool of money in order to pay the medical bills of all citizens. It is often hard to tell trolling from genuine incompetence.
a_bonobo 2y ago
While that may be classic Marxist stuff, modern philosophers like Byung-Chul Han give a great twist on the whole thing in a digital age, I should've linked to his works too, especially for the self-optimising HN crowd. Just quoting from Wikipedia: >Han argues that subjects become self-exploiters: "Today, everyone is an auto-exploiting labourer in his or her own enterprise. People are now master and slave in one. Even class struggle has transformed into an inner struggle against oneself."[12] The individual has become what Han calls "the achievement-subject"; the individual does not believe they are subjugated "subjects" but rather "projects: Always refashioning and reinventing ourselves" which "amounts to a form of compulsion and constraint—indeed, to a "more efficient kind of subjectivation and subjugation." As a project deeming itself free of external and alien limitations, the "I" subjugates itself to internal limitations and self-constraints, which are taking the form of compulsive achievement and optimization.[13]
somenameforme 2y ago
Marx doesn't make any real sense in modern times because of his obsession on class divides. In contemporary society there's no real difference between a capitalist and a worker. This is true even in his own terms since we all literally own one of the most valuable 'means of production' - a computer. Obviously I'm in no way saying that there aren't invisible classes in society, but that these don't define our possibilities in ways at all comparable to the early 19th century. People also seem to try to shoe horn him into every topic, even when it really doesn't fit. For instance this issue is not one about some group of melancholy workers being alienated from the product, but 'capitalists' who have become so detached from their product that they are left looking at things through a sort of compression lens that leaves them with a deeply distorted view of reality. Even with your example - I agree that learning 'life skills' is extremely important for a solid development, but Mao wasn't doing that - he was effectively exiling people to rural areas, largely to replenish populations after massive famines that were created by his other harebrained schemes.
- skyyler 2y ago
  I want to focus on something you said here: >In contemporary society there's no real difference between a capitalist and a worker. The difference is access to capital. Just like it was 150 years ago. Workers don't have enough holdings to sustain themselves without selling their body. Capitalists have enough holdings to not have to sell their body and can instead put their money to work through various means like entrepreneurship. Also, I didn't even bring up the Down to the Countryside program as a good aspect of Mao... But since you brought it up, I figured I'd mention that his "harebrained schemes" doubled the life expectancy in China rather quickly. Like all world leaders I've studied, he did great things, and he did horrible things.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    I wrote a lengthier post, but in writing it I realized there's a simple way to cut to the heart of this issue. Many workers in various fields (tech, legal, medicine, and more) now tend to make substantially more money than many business owners, and often for far less hours worked. In this world how does the notion of capitalist vs worker make any sense? Let alone with the stereotypes Marx depended upon for his arguments?
Seattle3503 2y ago
I'm not sure why you think I was unaware of Marx.