Just because Marx gave a name to “an ownership class that undercompensates labor and pockets the spoils” doesn’t mean that condition didn’t or doesn’t exist.
You are deeply misinformed or perhaps intentionally misleading re: your characterization of Marx’s ideas. Marx’s theories on mental labor appear in his earliest works, and continue through his later, more developed ones:
labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description.
Capital V1, chapter 6 – where Marx defines labor power
Your characterization of Marx’s ideas, that he is creating artificial divisions between different kinds of labor, is in fact a tendency of capitalism that Marx identified and criticized at great length.
Just because Marx gave a name to “an ownership class that undercompensates labor and pockets the spoils” doesn’t mean that condition didn’t or doesn’t exist.
Marx is one of a long string of ‘experts’ that don’t value work that isn’t obviously the result of working with hands. Mind work is very important
Never said it wasn’t. I don’t think he did either.
You are deeply misinformed or perhaps intentionally misleading re: your characterization of Marx’s ideas. Marx’s theories on mental labor appear in his earliest works, and continue through his later, more developed ones:
Capital V1, chapter 6 – where Marx defines labor power
Your characterization of Marx’s ideas, that he is creating artificial divisions between different kinds of labor, is in fact a tendency of capitalism that Marx identified and criticized at great length.
Liberals will not read Capital and then say Marx didn’t consider something he explicitly covered in Capital.