technology

No matter how much you read or understand, someone is always going to come along and show you an essay from a century ago proving you wrong. Your classification and understanding of the issues is fundamentally misguided because you don't understand some niche schism that has absolutely no bearing on anything tangible to our world.

We've built a monolith that now stands unintelligible to the masses. Sure you can join our movement but first I need to to slog through 3 massive volumes of dense theory, then read everything written, by x,y,z, leader, and don't forget the rebuttals. It's almost impossible to get into because it requires years of dedicated study. It's worth it, but it ends up being an unending intellectual persuit more than anything.

I haven't coined too many Marxist/Marxian terms in my conlang, but one thing I've tried to keep in mind when I have is to "dejargonize" and basically have each term be its own definition to whatever extent possible. The first example to come to mind is sotaňogestkruňiya ("commodity fetishism"): with-birth wealth-ness to-head-collection, i.e. "innate value ideology". I think that's a much clearer term for the belief that commodities' exchange values are inherent to them than a term that assumes you have the cultural context of 19th century anthropology.

Also, something something Cockshott masturbation

It has been said that a recurring issue in works written by philosophers is that they tend to repeat their ideas often. This is to say that philosophers' writings frequently return to previously-discussed concepts and rephrase them. To use the German, philosophers often employ what is known as Wiederholung, essentially meaning "doing the same thing again".