@LаngLаngС The English version available on marxists.org (mentioned in the question) seems to be the first one, 1887. However, Marx was dead already, so we cannot be sure he approved it. In any case, there is already a direct use of the word in Theories of Surplus Value so the claim is evidently false.

So... he didn't use it in his writings? So far you haven't proved he did. He might have been aware of it, sure, but that is a different question (and not the statement being claimed by Braudel). I'm skeptic about Braudel's statement that Marx never used such word.

Thanks, but your conclusion seems to be a bit rushed. First, the fall for year 12 enrollment was only pre-2000. Then, it was stable. Hard to argue from here that there is a general disaffection, let alone one one driven by the financial crisis. Second, this fall hasn't reflected in university enrollment, which is what matters for academic economists (see his claim). Economists do not teach year 12+ students. Third, his claim is evidently not restricted to Australia. The book is in no way contained to Australia. So to me, the claim remains, if anything, false.

Regarding your last sentence, the right comparison is not yes/no handwash but handwash with and without the statement. As one comment noted, as long as the handwash gets rid of the bacteria from your hands, it does not matter if they really kill them, at least not to you.

@bdsl So are you implying that by "we kill bacterias and therefore they will not affect you" they are actually referring to "we get rid of but not kill bacterias but that is what matters anyway so they will not affect you anyway"?

@DJohnM How is that relevant?