Class relations are just not as simple as Marxists make them out to be, and the insistence of shoehorning everything into a Marxist theoretical framework (and writing style) loses probably 90% of the audience within the first few paragraphs. People are busy, at least make the effort to state your claim up front and sketch out what makes it different and worth someone's valuable time.
Most working class people do not have an appetite for pseudo-academic polemic; conversely, most Marxist-influenced writing comes off as fan fiction which is utterly uninteresting to people who are not already fans of original works. Also, only drawing from within that pool is a negative signal to most readers, as is uncritical reproduction of things like Juche monuments in North Korea (a nominally communist country that in practice is a highly repressive monarchy).
Like I said, a bunch of interesting ideas that get lost under antique dogma and some questionable assumptions.
As it stands, your comment is a rather wordy complaint about tone. What's worse is that half your complaint about style is on behalf of some imagined working class person pressed for time, not even your own opinion!
I think you underestimate two things:
1. The impossibility of straying from Marxism from a strictly scientific/historiographic point of view: It's similar to trying to chart an independent path from Newton or Darwin. Marx simply was the one who coined some plain true scientific observations, so your only two options are to artificially depart (towards incorrectness), or to try to pass off Marxist observations as personal novelties (as, say, Marshall McLuhan did). This is sussed out as soon as things begin to get politically interesting, and gets called a scandalous trick as soon as it's exposed (by both opponents and supporters). I think rigor and plain-speaking honesty is the better way.
2. The relationship between understanding Marxism and one's own economic situation. Marxism appeals to two large camps of people: people who pursue the truth no matter what, and toilers for whom settling for a wrong choice isn't an option. As the essay explains, "The West" has temporarily immunized itself from Marxism not in a rhetorical or cultural sense, but simply through sheer resource transfer. This is going away, and so Marxism is coming back.
In the end, the whole semantic discussion, which rarely points to any specific improvements and instead pleads for rhetorical or stylistic improvements, is a bit reminiscent of back in the 90s or 00s, when many well-meaning commentators argued that "feminism" had had its heyday. They argued it had become a rather toxic term, and that it was time for "egalitarianism" or some other re-skinned, watered-down variant that was more inclusive, to really make headway.
Of course, in the ensuing years feminism simply steadily gained ground until it became a national fixture, warts and all. This is basically what's going to happen with the supposedly-banished Marxism.
Taken to its logical end, all the wealth would finally be concentrated in the arms of one person, and all the rest of the population would have nothing. Of course, it never reaches that point as some form of social upheaval (war, revolution, etc) will reset all the pieces. The process then starts all over again.
Slavery and feudalism also percolate wealth upwards, and, relatively speaking, capitalism provides more goodies to more people. You risk landing on a situation where, like Nietzsche, you believe injustice to be ineradicable, and to just defend capitalism as the best of its ilk. If you insist on a simplistic and moralistic explanation, people will quickly turn on you when they realize something's amiss.
As the essay explains, making a deeper study pays off.
Pure capitalism is unique in that it's non-political as such. (Mind you, there will be always be some political activity, because you will never find pure Capitalism, just as you will never find pure Communism.)
Slavery and feudalism I would class as specific 'political' forms of capitalism. Our modern capitalism is not pure. Wage slavery is slavery. Racial discrimination leading to lower incomes for specific ethnics is a form of modern-day feudalism, etc.
