Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Marxism #6 Alienation (Estrangement and Loneliness)

Caesercel

Caesercel

mentally crippled by lonely teen years
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Posts
25,044
Online time
1m 26s
So, what is Alienation? It's a state of estrangement, a feeling of disconnect that people experience. That is particularly endemic to Capitalism. But what does that mean exactly?

Humans are fundamentally a social species. We come together and work to produce stuff necessary for our lives and thus produce the life we live, socially. No lone tigers hunting in the forest here. In every system of production throughout history, from hunter gatherers to feudal agriculture, there are social relationships which create the necessary connections for people to come together and work. These relationships contain within them the reality of how people identify (their roles), how they see other people in relation to themselves and the particular division of labour involved. These can be exploitative/hierarchial or co-operative.

Under Capitalism though these social relationships, as far as the production process is concerned, no longer exist. Or rather, they are hidden from experience. Instead the connection between humans are mediated by the exchange of money and commodities in a market. And since money/commodity becomes the medium of social activity, actual social relationships no longer mediate production. This leads to Alienation.

Think about it like this. As a consumer, you are surrounded by 100s of commodities that you purchased from the market. But these are not just products that appeared magically on the shelf. They are a result of real work that real people did. The way they did it, in what conditions, the lives they live inside and outside work, their relationship with all the other people involved, leaves an imprint on how the commodity actually turns out and it's final price tag. But you don't experience any of that, infact you have zero connection to the actual people whose hands created the things you use and love. Except the fact that you paid for those things and hence own them, privately, in an alienated manner. So your relationship to those commodities is relegated to one of private ownership and you cannot experience any social aspect to them (they way you can experience, say, your grandmom's love in a sweater she herself knitted for you. A labour activity and it's product that are contingent on that relationship and hence carry it within themselves)

This goes the other way round too. The worker himself is socially alienated from the people he is producing for. The products of his labour are packaged and shipped off to be sold in markets to people he has no knowledge or control of. In effect the worker becomes alienated from the commodity he himself produces using his own hands. Instead of something that emanates from the worker's own being, the commodity becomes an alien force that exists over and above the worker. And makes the worker slave away for it's own existence. Sometimes the worker cannot even afford the very thing he creates. Consequently, the worker becomes alienated from his very own labour. He doesn't do that work because he actually wants to but because he needs to inorder to make a living. This leads to misery, as the work does not emanate from the worker's own being/free will, the worker does not feel like himself when working. He feels like a drone who can only become himself when he reaches home. The work is not a part of his life because he can only live as himself outside work. This is why you will seldom find a bunch of Chinese workers taking pride in the fact that they created the globally beloved iPhone.

So, as you can see Capitalism disconnects a man from both ends. It disconnects us from the people who produce for us and the people we produce for. Thus alienation is fundamentally a loss of community. It is only possible under Capitalism that a man can have zero friends, no family, zero girlfriends, can go to work and barely interact with anyone outside work stuff, come home, buy commodities and live a completely isolated life. An experience some of you may be familiar with.

Capitalism alienates worker from worker because instead of co-operating it expects them to compete for employment and promotions. It alienates capitalists from capitalists as they are in a constant struggle to expand into each other's markets. And it alienates workers from capitalists for obvious reasons we've already discussed in previous posts.
 
Last edited:
1766203086181c
 
Would a loli supplied to Mr. Trump be alienated from her own cunny after selling it for money?
The loli is her cunny, she becomes a traded commodity by being sold, you could make the argument that the loli being traded for her cunny would alienate her, but women are fundamentally not more than sex objects.
 
So, what is Alienation? It's a state of estrangement, a feeling of disconnect that people experience. That is particularly endemic to Capitalism. But what does that mean exactly?

Humans are fundamentally a social species. We come together and work to produce stuff necessary for our lives and thus produce the life we live, socially. No lone tigers hunting in the forest here. In every system of production throughout history, from hunter gatherers to feudal agriculture, there are social relationships which create the necessary connections for people to come together and work. These relationships contain within them the reality of how people identify (their roles), how they see other people in relation to themselves and the particular division of labour involved. These can be exploitative/hierarchial or co-operative.

Under Capitalism though these social relationships, as far as the production process is concerned, no longer exist. Or rather, they are hidden from experience. Instead the connection between humans are mediated by the exchange of money and commodities in a market. And since money/commodity becomes the medium of social activity, actual social relationships no longer mediate production. This leads to Alienation.

Think about it like this. As a consumer, you are surrounded by 100s of commodities that you purchased from the market. But these are not just products that appeared magically on the shelf. They are a result of real work that real people did. The way they did it, in what conditions, the lives they live inside and outside work, their relationship with all the other people involved, leaves an imprint on how the commodity actually turns out and it's final price tag. But you don't experience any of that, infact you have zero connection to the actual people whose hands created the things you use and love. Except the fact that you paid for those things and hence own them, privately, in an alienated manner. So your relationship to those commodities is relegated to one of private ownership and you cannot experience any social aspect to them (they way you can experience, say, your grandmom's love in a sweater she herself knitted for you. A labour activity and it's product that are contingent on that relationship and hence carry it within themselves)

This goes the other way round too. The worker himself is socially alienated from the people he is producing for. The products of his labour are packaged and shipped off to be sold in markets to people he has no knowledge or control of. In effect the worker becomes alienated from the commodity he himself produces using his own hands. Instead of something that emanates from the worker's own being, the commodity becomes an alien force that exists over and above the worker. And makes the worker slave away for it's own existence. Sometimes the worker cannot even afford the very thing he creates. Consequently, the worker becomes alienated from his very own labour. He doesn't do that work because he actually wants to but because he needs to inorder to make a living. This leads to misery, as the work does not emanate from the worker's own being/free will, the worker does not feel like himself when working. He feels like a drone who can only become himself when he reaches home. The work is not a part of his life because he can only live as himself outside work. This is why you will seldom find a bunch of Chinese workers taking pride in the fact that they created the globally beloved iPhone.

So, as you can see Capitalism disconnects a man from both ends. It disconnects us from the people who produce for us and the people we produce for. Thus alienation is fundamentally a loss of community. It is only possible under Capitalism that a man can have zero friends, no family, zero girlfriends, can go to work and barely interact with anyone outside work stuff, come home, buy commodities and live a completely isolated life. An experience some of you may be familiar with.

Capitalism alienates worker from worker because instead of co-operating it expects them to compete for employment and promotions. It alienates capitalists from capitalists as they are in a constant struggle to expand into each other's markets. And it alienates workers from capitalists for obvious reasons we've already discussed in previous posts.
Thats dumb, it really shows Marx never worked a day in his life.
 
The loli is her cunny, l
I guess the boobs, ass and mouth just come for free with the package :feelshaha:

Thats dumb, it really shows Marx never worked a day in his life.
Idk, sounds pretty solid to me. It's observable that workers in typical 9-5, working for someone else, do not feel any attachement towards their actual work other than a means to an end. It's also observable that the limbs of society are disjointed (as Kalowski puts it) leading to hyper individualism in capitalist societies and a culture of "individual success" and myths of "self made billionares". Even though a single man cannot create a single matchstick by himself let alone a billion dollar empire. Also it should be impossible for a human being to even survive in the loner example I gave, but under capitalism he does. Because social productive activity is still taking place mediated via money (earning wages/buying stuff) so actual social relationships are not that necessary.

Capitalism creates this perception of the world as a bunch of disconnected/disjointed pure individuals making money deals with each other via pure self interest instead of people, as a society, coming together to work, live and thrive.

Also, Marx worked almost his whole life. dafuq was that about?
 
Last edited:
It's observable that workers in typical 9-5, working for someone else, do not feel any attachement towards their work other than a means to an end.
I work in a worker's cooperative, i.e. a company with no boss, where the workers own the means of production, and still feel the same. I don't like working, I only work to survive.
Also, Marx worked almost his whole life. dafuq was that about?
He was not a prolétaire, by his own definition.
He was a bourgeois LARPing as a revolutionary.
Fuck that jewish nigger.
 
I work in a worker's cooperative, i.e. a company with no boss, where the workers own the means of production, and still feel the same. I don't like working, I only work to survive.
Frankly, I don't understand how a worker cooperative works internally even though my job requires me to very sparsly deal with them on behalf of the Government. Something here can be said about how, in a way, everyone works to survive because without work humans would simply go extinct. So not liking work (on principle rather than a specific work in a specific condition) cannot be a universal paradigm because you might as well hate human life at that point. As for your specific situation, I cannot say much since it's your experience, except that we are all still living under the Capitalist paradigm.


But I would like to comment here that someone else is working (whether they like it or not) to provide you with the food you eat , the clothes you wear and your means of entertainment. Things that you may enjoy about your life. While you are providing wood, (or whatever it is that you do) to the people who need that positive change in life. I think this is the spirit socialism is going for when we talk about overcoming alienation. Finding fulfillment in giving something to your community and then the community helping to make you survive and thrive in return. Instead of just making money and buying stuff as an isolated entity.
.

He was not a prolétaire
And never claimed to be one. This entire line of judgement comes in to forms
1. He was not a worker so he has no right to speak about them. -
Which for one is ridiculous since any good researcher can comment on these topics without being a part of the process. He did believe though that class consciousness must emanate from the material conditions of the actual proletariat. And from there, I presume, it can become part of the general zeitgeist through ideology. So you don't have to be strictly proletariat to be class conscious. Plus, don't we have people like Donald Trump and his oligarch cronies, who never did a single day of proletarian work, deciding the fate of the working class in our system?

2. He never worked as in he lazed around his entire life-
Which is more of a moral judgement on his character than his actual work. And is even more ridiculous because it's blatantly untrue
 
Last edited:
So not liking working (on principle rather than a specific work in a specific condition)
I didnt specify that. Yeah I don't like working conditions, but can you blame it on capitalism ? As far as I know, there is no boss in my company.
If the problem is the working conditions, I don't see how communism solves that.
I think this is the spirit socialism is going for when we talk about overcoming alienation. Finding fulfillment in giving something to your community and then the community helping to make you survive and thrive in return. Instead of just making money and buying stuff as an isolated entity.
This can only be achieve in a small, homogeneous community.
Believing that billions of niggers will suddenly stop being violent retards and instead start working together is laughably delusional.
So you don't have to be strictly proletariat to be class conscious.
Then what's the point ? Will we have "class-conscious" bourgeois fight the révolution against réactionary prolétaires ?
Also, class theory is really outdated, most people in the Western world today are neither bourgeois nor prolétaires.
don't we have people like Donald Trump and his oligarch cronies, who never did a single day of proletarian work, deciding the fate of the working class in our system?
Trump is a rich jew like Marx so I hate them both. I don't know why you bring him up though.
is more of a moral judgement on his character than his actual work.
Nothing wrong with that. Its prefectly fine to judge people's lives before deciding whether to engage with their work or not.
You have to, with the worrying amount of content out there, you need to sort out what's worth looking into and what's not.
And is even more ridiculous because it's blatantly untrue
That's relative I guess, whatever.
 
Would a loli supplied to Mr. Trump be alienated from her own cunny after selling it for money?
Tbh, I think the answer is yes.

and as per your description, it was great - thank you comrade !
 
Being an incel NEET in a developed society is the ultimate form of alienation from the gattungswesen ideal
 
. Yeah I don't like working conditions, but can you blame it on capitalism ?
Maybe not? People can hate their work for a variety of reasons. Here Marx is talking about a phenomena that is specific to capitalist workplace (and society as a whole). And yet, I would say that generally speaking owning your means of production is still better than having a boss.
.
Believing that billions of niggers will suddenly stop being violent retards and instead start working together is laughably delusional.
Except billions of niggers already ARE doing that. We are already living in an interconnected global network of exchange. People are working together but of course they don't feel that way because of Alienation. The "working together" part is not coming from themselves but from the employer/master who brings them together. But they are clearly capable of working together.

Will we have "class-conscious" bourgeois fight the révolution against réactionary prolétaires ?
Lmao. The bourgeoisie already are doing that. They are very class-conscious, and they do commit to overt or covert warfare against the proletariat all the time. How else do they maintain their power?

.

Trump is a rich jew like Marx so I hate them both. I don't know why you bring him up though.
I presumed that your intention in pointing out that Marx wasn't a proletariat , was that he shouldn't speak for how the working class should organise. Except people like Donald Trump do exactly that, usually to the detriment of workers, and we accept it.

Otherwise why would you even bring up Marx not being a prole.
.

Nothing wrong with that. Its prefectly fine to judge people's lives before deciding whether to engage with their work or not.
I mean sure, why not. I don't necessarily agree but whatever. The problem is that this judgemental framing of Marx as a lazy non worker is obviously incorrect. He got exiled from 3 countries for his activism, wrote extensively on the topics of his era as a journalist and wrote more high quality works than most scholars even today.

Also, class theory is really outdated, most people in the Western world today are neither bourgeois nor prolétaires.
I guess in some ways you could say that. But a lot of class analysis still rings true. Corporations still exist. Most of private means of production are still in the hands of a minority. There is still a dominant class lording over everyone else. The capitalist relations are still there.
 
I would say that generally speaking owning your means of production is still better than having a boss.
Maybe. Maybe not. Its subjective.
Except billions of niggers already ARE doing that.
They only do so when they are forced to. Otherwise they just stab random people.
Schizophrenic muzzniggers killed many people close to my family in terrorist attacks, but surely you will tell me "Its not their fault, the capitalists forced them to do so!"
Lmao. The bourgeoisie already are doing that. They are very class-conscious, and they do commit to overt or covert warfare against the proletariat all the time. How else do they maintain their power?
I think you might have reading comprehension problem. Read that again.
was that he shouldn't speak for how the working class should organise
Indeed, that faggot knew nothing and should have shut the fuck up.
Except people like Donald Trump do exactly that, usually to the detriment of workers, and we accept it.
Speak for yourself faggot, I dont give a shit about what Don Zion says.
wrote extensively on the topics of his era as a journalist and wrote more high quality works than most scholars even today.
Is that supposed to be impressive ?
Many users here write quality posts about important topics.
But a lot of class analysis still rings true. Corporations still exist. Most of private means of production are still in the hands of a minority. There is still a dominant class lording over everyone else. The capitalist relations are still there.
Marxists are really dogmatic people, keep repeating the same things again and again.
Go speard your bolchevik faggotry on reddit, I'm sure they will love it over there.
 
Maybe. Maybe not. Its subjective.
it's not a matter of opinion. All other things being equal, you will earn less when working under a boss and you will have less freedom in your work.

They only do so when they are forced to.
Let's take this argument to it's logical conclusion. This would mean that without a dominant class holding the whip, the populace would just descend into barbarity and chaos. And everyone would starve and die. I find this hard to believe and sounds more like self made dominant class fan fiction to me. Something that Elon Musk would write in a fantasy setting.

Schizophrenic muzzniggers killed many people close to my family in terrorist attacks, but surely you will tell me "Its not their fault, the capitalists forced them to do so!"
That shouldn't be a condemnation of humanity as a whole. Do you seriously think that it's the upper class that is keeping everyone from going apeshit like this? Is it because there is some ontological "superiority" in the upper class or is it because hierarchy is inherent to human nature? (take your pick of right wing koolaid)
I think you might have reading comprehension problem. Read that again.
You asked if class conscious bourgeois will fight a war against revolutionary proletariat. I only pointed out that they already do that to further their class interest. How is this hard to understand for you? When workers in US striked for the 8 hour day, the business class in some cities armed the police with their own money to break the strikes. The US war Machine is quite literally a fighting arm of the military industrial complex. And it has actively suppressed social movements all over the planet. You can't get more "class warfare" than this. Every socialist revolution fought a war against the established systems. Class conscious bourgeois do fight and they fight HARD.

.

Speak for yourself faggot, I dont give a shit about what Don Zion says.
Be that as it may, it's still a weak argument.

.

Is that supposed to be impressive ?
Many users here write quality posts about important topics.
Yes? His legacy and impact speaks for itself. Comparing it to "quality posts" from users here is interesting considering this place has, for lack of a less offensive term, a rather milquetoast discourse on social topics even by the standards of internet forums. Even 4chan is miles ahead when it comes to intelligent thought provoking content. And that place is a rotting shithole.


.

Marxists are really dogmatic people, keep repeating the same things again and again.
What a strange thing to say. Calling it "dogmatic" without even considering the point at hand is rather ironic, isn't it? So do you believe that we don't live in a world with dominant classes? Or do you believe that capitalist employer/employee relationships do not exist? Or that wage labour is no longer a thing in society? What's the "dogma" here?

.
Go speard your bolchevik faggotry on reddit, I'm sure they will love it over there.
Bolshevism is a different ballgame altogether. I haven't read much on it. And I don't think reddit needs to hear all this.
 
it's not a matter of opinion. All other things being equal, you will earn less when working under a boss and you will have less freedom in your work.
Owning the means of production is responsabilities and additional work. Some people dont want that, so yes, it is a matter of opinion.
Let's take this argument to it's logical conclusion. This would mean that without a dominant class holding the whip, the populace would just descend into barbarity and chaos. And everyone would starve and die. I find this hard to believe and sounds more like self made dominant class fan fiction to me. Something that Elon Musk would write in a fantasy setting.
Thats not what I mean though.
My point was that not everyone is equal.
We can have our communist utopia once we get rid of all brown people. Until then, fuck off.
That shouldn't be a condemnation of humanity as a whole
Not humanity has a whole though.
Stop putting words into my mouth.
But if just half of humanity is sane rational workers, and the other half is violent niggers, do expect the good half to keep trying collaborate with the other, despite countless failed attempts ?
Since you dont understand, I will spell it clearly:
Your socialist commune must be very selective if it wants to survive and thrive. We cant allow everyone in. In other words, socialism is only acceptable when combined with exclusion.
1144te4mriaa1

The right to discriminate is necessary for survival and prosperity.
is it because hierarchy is inherent to human nature?
Nigga... do you know which forum you are on ?
You asked if class conscious bourgeois will fight a war against revolutionary proletariat
No. Thats not what I asked. Once again, read it. Do you have dyslexia ?
So do you believe that we don't live in a world with dominant classes?
The definition of social is intentionally very vague, so it's hard to seriously argue for or agaisnt it.
And I don't think reddit needs to hear all this.
Why not ? Arent you supposed to spread your religion ? To prepare the seemigly never coming workers révolution ?
 
Owning the means of production is responsabilities and additional work. Some people dont want that, so yes, it is a matter of opinion.
Responsibilities or additional work can always be spread across the work force. Or more people can be hired to take it up. The boss does not make extra money for additional work or responsibilities. He makes extra money by the virtue of owning the means of production and nothing more. So it's always objectively better to own in yourself and not let that extra cash go.

And yes, freedom over your work comes with certain responsibility but it's still better to have that power in your hands. It's not like the work you do will become redundant to society if your boss stops existing.


My point was that not everyone is equal.
Well that could mean two things. Either there is an ontological hierarchy on which people are not equal. A concept you may find hard to justify. Or people are not equal materially, and they SHOULD BE. Which would bring you closer to what Marx is saying.
.
We can have our communist utopia once we get rid of all brown people. Until then, fuck off.
I'll entertain this as best as I can. What do you exactly mean by "get rid of all brown people". What does that entail?

Your socialist commune must be very selective if it wants to survive and thrive. We cant allow everyone in. In other words, socialism is only acceptable when combined with exclusion.
View attachment 1619881
The right to discriminate is necessary for survival and prosperity.
The only people I can imagine who must be excluded from a socialist commune are reactionaries who wish to leech off of other people's surplus by claiming exclusive rights to means of productions, by divine providence or private property law. Because what's the point otherwise? Besides that, whenever I see any substantially large group of people (let's say brown people as you mentioned before) , it's all just workers who are no more or less violent or a anti-social than any other group in their material position.

No. Thats not what I asked. Once again, read it. Do you have dyslexia ?
Will we have "class-conscious" bourgeois fight the révolution against réactionary prolétaires ?
Here it is. What's the point of lying? You are asking if a class conscious bourgeois will fight the revolution, as if they haven't already done that with full force whenever a worker's revolution actually occured in history.

Arent you supposed to spread your religion ?
The framing here never ceases to amaze me. It's funny how these objective observations about Capitalism are construed as a "religion" or "ideology" that is supposed to be "preached" to the masses. Meanwhile the actually dominant class ideology/religion that has been shoved down your plebian throat since you were born goes unquestioned as the "natural state" of how things should be. A religious myth of class and/or racial superiority that exclusively benefits the capitalist class over everyone else.
 
Last edited:
and not let that extra cash go
Not to defend rich people but that "extra cash" is isually reinvested by capitalists, unlike poor people ho most often keep that money in the bank and do nothing with it.
Im not justifying rich people getting that money but it certainly help development, if poor people had that money they would not reinvest it as much, their collectively owned company would be much less performant.
Not to say Im against it but its important to aknowledge.
Either there is an ontological hierarchy on which people are not equal. A concept you may find hard to justify. Or people are not equal materially, and they SHOULD BE. Which would bring you closer to what Marx is saying.
Will marxism make me grow taller dumbass ?
I'll entertain this as best as I can. What do you exactly mean by "get rid of all brown people". What does that entail?
A society is based only on trust if there is no hierarchy and authority. Europe was a lot more high-trust when it was fully white.
Multiracial society almost always become low-trust, unless they are ruled with a lot of authority and restrictions.
You can blame poverty or socioeconomic factors or whatever but it still true, I dont trust black people, from experience.
whenever I see any substantially large group of people (let's say brown people as you mentioned before) , it's all just workers who are no more or less violent or a anti-social than any other group in their material position.
You are delusional or lying if you think all poor people are the same and some arent leeches and/or violent.
Here it is. What's the point of lying? You are asking if a class conscious bourgeois will fight the revolution, as if they haven't already done that with full force whenever a worker's revolution actually occured in history.
Man... I gave you 3 chance and you still dont get it. You are illiterate. I doubt you actually read Marx if you cant understand such a basic sentence.
It's funny how these objective observations about Capitalism are construed as a "religion" or "ideology" that is supposed to be "preached" to the masses.
No. Criticism of capitalism is fine.
Im not capitalist either anyway.
Its marxism/communism that is basically a religion now.
 
Being an incel NEET in a developed society is the ultimate form of alienation from the gattungswesen ideal
Pretty much. All your needs are satisfied by some impersonal mechanism or technology
 
but that "extra cash" is isually reinvested by capitalists, unlike poor people ho most often keep that money in the bank and do nothing with it.
Capitalists don't just reinvest their extra cash, they reinvest poor peoples savings as well by taking loans from banks. And when their gambles don't pan out, the economy tanks leading to everyone's savings drying up via inflation. So , it's not like poor people's money is not getting invested. It is and they bear the losses but take nothing from the profits.

Also most investment comes from already existing Capital and not the personal earnings of the Capitalists (as far as anything bigger than petty burgeious is concerned)

Will marxism make me grow taller dumbass ?
By "materially" I mean having access to the productive output of other people's labour for your own material needs (translated to money in our current market system). No one can change their height but heightism does not need to exist in society.

.
You can blame poverty or socioeconomic factors or whatever
Infact I do. High trust society is directly linked to having your basic needs easily met. IF socialism achieves that using the technological abundance we have available today, then we can have a high trust society irrespective of it's member's ethnicity (which to me is wholly irrelevant). We need socialism to achieve high trust societies, not the other way round.

You are delusional or lying if you think all poor people are the same and some arent leeches and/or violent.
Sure SOME anti-social elements are ever present everywhere. But I don't see how this helps your overall point about making the social commune exclusionary to certain entire communities.

.

Man... I gave you 3 chance and you still dont get it. You are illiterate. I doubt you actually read Marx if you cant understand such a basic sentence.
If your sentence means something other than what it literally conveys then you can elab. That's not how language works but oh well.

.
Its marxism/communism that is basically a religion now.
Meaningless dismissal. I'd rather have people tackle the ideas instead of getting stuck on tags and punchlines.
 
Last edited:
Capitalists don't just reinvest their extra cash, they reinvest poor peoples savings as well by taking loans from banks. And when their gambles don't pan out, the economy tanks leading to everyone's savings drying up via inflation. So , it's not like poor people's money is not getting invested. It is and they bear the losses but take nothing from the profits.

Also most investment comes from already existing Capital and not the personal earnings of the Capitalists (as far as anything bigger than petty burgeious is concerned)
I agree

but heightism does not need to exist in society.
:bluepill:

Infact I do. High trust society is directly linked to having your basic needs easily met. IF socialism achieves that using the technological abundance we have available today, then we can have a high trust society irrespective of it's member's ethnicity (which to me is wholly irrelevant). We need socialism to achieve high trust societies, not the other way round.
1619395276721


using the technological abundance we have available today
Delusional post-scarcity fantasy.
There will never be adundance, not is it desirable.

We need socialism to achieve high trust societies, not the other way round.
Can you prove that claim ?
As far as I know we had much higher trust societies long before Marx.

Sure SOME anti-social elements are ever present everywhere
And what should we do about them ?

But I don't see how this helps your overall point about making the social commune exclusionary to certain entire communities.
Why not ? Why cant these "entire communities" build their own social commune somewhere else anyway ?

If your sentence means something other than what it literally conveys then you can elab. That's not how language works but oh well.
How can you know what it "literally conveys" when you cant even read all the words ?
Illiterate retards shouldnt be allowed online...

I'd rather have people tackle the ideas instead of getting stuck on tags and punchlines.
Which is what I do
 
So, what is Alienation? It's a state of estrangement, a feeling of disconnect that people experience. That is particularly endemic to Capitalism. But what does that mean exactly?

Humans are fundamentally a social species. We come together and work to produce stuff necessary for our lives and thus produce the life we live, socially. No lone tigers hunting in the forest here. In every system of production throughout history, from hunter gatherers to feudal agriculture, there are social relationships which create the necessary connections for people to come together and work. These relationships contain within them the reality of how people identify (their roles), how they see other people in relation to themselves and the particular division of labour involved. These can be exploitative/hierarchial or co-operative.

Under Capitalism though these social relationships, as far as the production process is concerned, no longer exist. Or rather, they are hidden from experience. Instead the connection between humans are mediated by the exchange of money and commodities in a market. And since money/commodity becomes the medium of social activity, actual social relationships no longer mediate production. This leads to Alienation.

Think about it like this. As a consumer, you are surrounded by 100s of commodities that you purchased from the market. But these are not just products that appeared magically on the shelf. They are a result of real work that real people did. The way they did it, in what conditions, the lives they live inside and outside work, their relationship with all the other people involved, leaves an imprint on how the commodity actually turns out and it's final price tag. But you don't experience any of that, infact you have zero connection to the actual people whose hands created the things you use and love. Except the fact that you paid for those things and hence own them, privately, in an alienated manner. So your relationship to those commodities is relegated to one of private ownership and you cannot experience any social aspect to them (they way you can experience, say, your grandmom's love in a sweater she herself knitted for you. A labour activity and it's product that are contingent on that relationship and hence carry it within themselves)

This goes the other way round too. The worker himself is socially alienated from the people he is producing for. The products of his labour are packaged and shipped off to be sold in markets to people he has no knowledge or control of. In effect the worker becomes alienated from the commodity he himself produces using his own hands. Instead of something that emanates from the worker's own being, the commodity becomes an alien force that exists over and above the worker. And makes the worker slave away for it's own existence. Sometimes the worker cannot even afford the very thing he creates. Consequently, the worker becomes alienated from his very own labour. He doesn't do that work because he actually wants to but because he needs to inorder to make a living. This leads to misery, as the work does not emanate from the worker's own being/free will, the worker does not feel like himself when working. He feels like a drone who can only become himself when he reaches home. The work is not a part of his life because he can only live as himself outside work. This is why you will seldom find a bunch of Chinese workers taking pride in the fact that they created the globally beloved iPhone.

So, as you can see Capitalism disconnects a man from both ends. It disconnects us from the people who produce for us and the people we produce for. Thus alienation is fundamentally a loss of community. It is only possible under Capitalism that a man can have zero friends, no family, zero girlfriends, can go to work and barely interact with anyone outside work stuff, come home, buy commodities and live a completely isolated life. An experience some of you may be familiar with.

Capitalism alienates worker from worker because instead of co-operating it expects them to compete for employment and promotions. It alienates capitalists from capitalists as they are in a constant struggle to expand into each other's markets. And it alienates workers from capitalists for obvious reasons we've already discussed in previous posts.
where is the link to #5. i read 1-4 but im a grey so i dont have the search feature :(
 
1769329707757


Incels should be economically leftwing! Leftist economy benefits incels. Rightwing economy only benefits old money Chad moggers!

Socially conservative, economically left, this is the ideal stance for incels!
 
So, what is Alienation? It's a state of estrangement, a feeling of disconnect that people experience. That is particularly endemic to Capitalism. But what does that mean exactly?

Humans are fundamentally a social species. We come together and work to produce stuff necessary for our lives and thus produce the life we live, socially. No lone tigers hunting in the forest here. In every system of production throughout history, from hunter gatherers to feudal agriculture, there are social relationships which create the necessary connections for people to come together and work. These relationships contain within them the reality of how people identify (their roles), how they see other people in relation to themselves and the particular division of labour involved. These can be exploitative/hierarchial or co-operative.

Under Capitalism though these social relationships, as far as the production process is concerned, no longer exist. Or rather, they are hidden from experience. Instead the connection between humans are mediated by the exchange of money and commodities in a market. And since money/commodity becomes the medium of social activity, actual social relationships no longer mediate production. This leads to Alienation.

Think about it like this. As a consumer, you are surrounded by 100s of commodities that you purchased from the market. But these are not just products that appeared magically on the shelf. They are a result of real work that real people did. The way they did it, in what conditions, the lives they live inside and outside work, their relationship with all the other people involved, leaves an imprint on how the commodity actually turns out and it's final price tag. But you don't experience any of that, infact you have zero connection to the actual people whose hands created the things you use and love. Except the fact that you paid for those things and hence own them, privately, in an alienated manner. So your relationship to those commodities is relegated to one of private ownership and you cannot experience any social aspect to them (they way you can experience, say, your grandmom's love in a sweater she herself knitted for you. A labour activity and it's product that are contingent on that relationship and hence carry it within themselves)

This goes the other way round too. The worker himself is socially alienated from the people he is producing for. The products of his labour are packaged and shipped off to be sold in markets to people he has no knowledge or control of. In effect the worker becomes alienated from the commodity he himself produces using his own hands. Instead of something that emanates from the worker's own being, the commodity becomes an alien force that exists over and above the worker. And makes the worker slave away for it's own existence. Sometimes the worker cannot even afford the very thing he creates. Consequently, the worker becomes alienated from his very own labour. He doesn't do that work because he actually wants to but because he needs to inorder to make a living. This leads to misery, as the work does not emanate from the worker's own being/free will, the worker does not feel like himself when working. He feels like a drone who can only become himself when he reaches home. The work is not a part of his life because he can only live as himself outside work. This is why you will seldom find a bunch of Chinese workers taking pride in the fact that they created the globally beloved iPhone.

So, as you can see Capitalism disconnects a man from both ends. It disconnects us from the people who produce for us and the people we produce for. Thus alienation is fundamentally a loss of community. It is only possible under Capitalism that a man can have zero friends, no family, zero girlfriends, can go to work and barely interact with anyone outside work stuff, come home, buy commodities and live a completely isolated life. An experience some of you may be familiar with.

Capitalism alienates worker from worker because instead of co-operating it expects them to compete for employment and promotions. It alienates capitalists from capitalists as they are in a constant struggle to expand into each other's markets. And it alienates workers from capitalists for obvious reasons we've already discussed in previous posts.
Capitalism caused your lonely teen years too?
 
where is the link to #5. i read 1-4 but im a grey so i dont have the search feature :(


Capitalism caused your lonely teen years too?
Mentally crippled by lonely capitalist years
 

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top