From the Marxist POV, what actually is alienation and why is it bad?

I understand that under capitalism the proletariat essentially becomes production tools, which alienates them from their species-being, as they have no other choice given the necessity of selling their labor to live on. But isn't that the exact same process that the bourgeoisie operates in?

I mean, the bourgeoisie still needs money to feed itself, so the end goal is precisely the same, isn't it?

>the bourgeoisie can just exploit others' labor without doing anything
Right, but then why are they ontologically bad? The proletariat will still keep working for his own need in the end. You can argue that the bourgeoisie exploits him because he has no other choice than to work, but that won't fix his transmutation of labor power into goods, whether he owns the factory or not. Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels to me that alienation just leads to social democracy: a system where the worker can choose where he sells his labor—to himself, to a cooperative, or to one individual.

>the materialist dialectic will eventually make all workers work for their own needs because it's the rational thing to do
In this case, the bourgeoisie isn't bad but merely individuals who managed to seize an opportunity. Furthermore, if workers will rationally come to this own conclusion, then why even both with a socialist revolution ? I guess you could argue that it's precisely about making the workers aware in a sense of their potential but again, this only seems to bring towards a social-democracy, not a marxist-x'ism' revolution.

Thoughts ?

You're assuming Marxism has a coherent moral and ethical scheme when it doesn't. It's foundation is grey materialism, then it expects you to have some vague passion for justice and equality. Go to leftypol and ask them why exactly the proletariat should want to overthrow capitalism. They won't be able to give a meaningful answer.

>>17858583
>why exactly the proletariat should want to overthrow capitalism
Isn't the reason for that precisely alienation ?

>>17858539 (OP)
>What is alienation and why is it bad in marxism
Marxism proposed that you are entitled to the sweat of your brow.

This made a lot of people really mad.

>>17858627
Why is alienation bad? What's the basic ontological foundation for alienation being evil? They have no clue. Marx came up with that idea in the middle of his career and published it because he thought it sounded profound and convincing. It's incomplete and groundless.

>>17858639
As opposed to the bourgeoisie getting it and retributing you for it, as it's the only way possible for proles?
In that case isn't alienation simply a problem of opportunity ?

>>17858539 (OP)
bump

>>17858539 (OP)
>From the Marxist POV, what actually is alienation and why is it bad?
People become split off from their labor, and labor becomes just another job you "pick up" because you have to earn a living. It's why people feel a sense of release after they clock out. Work ceases to be fulfilling and loses its place as the center of people's creative lives. The more you work, the "less you have." People become cogs rather than naturally creative, social producers.

>But isn't that the exact same process that the bourgeoisie operates in? I mean, the bourgeoisie still needs money to feed itself, so the end goal is precisely the same, isn't it?
The bourgeois fashions a world in his own image. But I think the argument is more that the proletarian has nothing else to give except his labor. I think it's possible the bourgeoisie is also alienated though. You ever see Trump talking about Citizen Kane?
https://youtu.be/aeQOJZ-QzBk

>Right, but then why are they ontologically bad?
They're not, really. There are no "good" men and "bad" men, but only men reacting to their social environment and economic compulsions.

>Maybe I'm wrong, but it feels to me that alienation just leads to social democracy
Maybe it does. Either way, I figure if you try to make Marxism into a certain end goal and, when reality blocks that, you try to force reality to change so your particular blueprint of how society should look can proceed, then you're going to end up with a disaster.

>Furthermore, if workers will rationally come to this own conclusion, then why even both with a socialist revolution ?
People only make revolution (like armed insurrection to overthrow a government and seize total power to irreversibly change history) on mass scale when it's do-or-die. It's not necessarily "rational" but a process where one class overthrows another by force:
https://youtu.be/EH1EtiOhr6o

>>17858539 (OP)
Alienation is one of the many parts of Marx writings that are actually quite astute, albeit maybe not completely so.

I guess Marx is simply saying that modern life is far removed from the natural state, and that creates some problems for humans. It's basically the same observation that a present-day /pol/cuck could make, but attribute to some nefarious jewish scheme