Alienation 2026

"𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘪𝘗! 𝘎𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘺𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘶𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺-𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘫𝘰𝘣. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 '𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘧𝘶𝘭'"

Or so the current scuttlebut seems to say.

But let me remonstrate. (Don't worry, it doesn't involve bodily fluids).

Our grandparents slaved away at jobs they often hated but were proud of. If you look carefully at the syndrome, it was a matter of class-related solidarity. You lived in the same places, with the same habits, the same language, and the same culture as other people like you. That slaved away in meaningless jobs like you. Or jobs that crippled you early and ended your life in pain. What made their job an investment of pride was the hegemonic idea of class contribution to social power. It's the 'dignity of work' argument. It was a con then, and it's a con now, but it was a way of interpreting repetitioous grind as having some sort of 'meaning'.

It's not for nothing that the UK socialist movement came out of such conditions. The obliteration of hope by work is called alienation: "𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯". Karl was right. He's still right.

So when you ask (demand!) that a poor or disabled person sell their hours as cheaply as possible in labour that has no outcome, you're deliberately condoning their alienation. In other words, lowering them from a human being like yourself to a 'thing' for whom the only destiny is a meaningless existence. A Kantian error of profound dimensions. Of course there will be those who will say that "any job is better than no job" (LBC, 29/8/26)... but that's a false dichotomy playing out in mind.

Not only that, but alienation feeds into one of the worst contradictions of capitalism. The legitimisation of exploitation. A profound extinguishing of the idea that there must be 'something better than this'. Which in turn feeds into a lack of societal identification. Young people become alienated because of the mythology of working hard at school. All those GCSE's... and still the jobs remain poorly paid and unsatisfying. Hence the unrest, the destructive behaviour, the distrust of authority and an aimless need to oppose whatever 'The Man' has on his agenda at the moment. Societies that used to be stable because of work-solidarity now find themselves at odds. Politicians beat ever more extreme drums as a means of emotionally satisfying this alienation and instead end up feeding its underlying nihilism. Society fractures. Fascism rises.

We have the means, the wealth, the technology, and the organisational capability of changing society. But we are not willing to. As long as the hierarchy of the very, very, very rich remains, then so will alienation.

I've quoted this Orwell piece before, but I see no reason not to do so again:

"𝙁𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙙𝙧𝙪𝙙𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙮, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮, 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙. 𝙄𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙚𝙣𝙙, 𝙝𝙪𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧, 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠, 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙩, 𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙮, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙚 𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙛𝙚𝙬 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨.𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩, 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙗𝙮 𝙖 𝙨𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙪𝙩𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨—𝙗𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙚—𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙙 𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙛𝙞𝙛𝙩𝙮 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙩𝙝 𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨.

𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙡𝙡-𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣—𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙚𝙙, 𝙞𝙣 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚, 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣—𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙝𝙞𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙩𝙮. 𝙄𝙣 𝙖 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙚𝙙 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨, 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙚𝙣𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙖𝙩, 𝙡𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖 𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙤𝙢 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙖 𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙖𝙧 𝙤𝙧 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙞𝙧𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙤𝙗𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙖𝙡𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙮 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙. 𝙄𝙛 𝙞𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡, 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙛𝙚𝙧 𝙣𝙤 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣.

𝙄𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚, 𝙣𝙤 𝙙𝙤𝙪𝙗𝙩, 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙖 𝙨𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙩𝙮 𝙞𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙪𝙭𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨, 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙙, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙖 𝙨𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙩𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚. 𝙁𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙛 𝙡𝙚𝙞𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙚𝙣𝙟𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙢𝙖𝙨𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙥𝙚𝙛𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙥𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙫𝙚𝙨; 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙙𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙨𝙤𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙧 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙣𝙤 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙨𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙥 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙮.

𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝘂𝗻, 𝗮 𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗮 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲."

(George Owell, '1984', Chapter IX: THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM by EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN.)