Workers Vs. People

[Devrim]

If you didn't seem to be so detached from reality, you'd know that in a lot of places, workers usually don't use the term 'working class'. The phrase 'the people' is not collaborationist, in fact, it's just normal, daily language for the lower of society -- ie. the workers. Now, while it is true that this phrase has been misused sometimes to carry a class-collaborationist program, that usually isn't the case.

I presume that to make a statement like this you are a well travelled, multi-lingual, anthropologist who has made a study of these things. My experience though probably much more limited is completely the opposite. People tend to know how to speak their own language, and are aware of the difference between words like 'workers' and 'people'.

When it is used by leftist groups I don't at all believe that the use is just an accident of semantics. You see different groups using the different terms in the same struggles, and the difference is reflected in their politics. Groups that talk about 'workers' tend to have politics which are based on an orientation towards the working class, and their struggles. Groups that talk about people tend tend to have politics, which are more in line with 'popular fronts' and campaigns.

Devrim

[the last donut of the night]

I presume that to make a statement like this you are a well travelled, multi-lingual, anthropologist who has made a study of these things. My experience though probably much more limited is completely the opposite. People tend to know how to speak their own language, and are aware of the difference between words like 'workers' and 'people'.

When it is used by leftist groups I don't at all believe that the use is just an accident of semantics. You see different groups using the different terms in the same struggles, and the difference is reflected in their politics. Groups that talk about 'workers' tend to have politics which are based on an orientation towards the working class, and their struggles. Groups that talk about people tend tend to have politics, which are more in line with 'popular fronts' and campaigns.

Devrim

I'd like to know why this post had to be made into its own thread when it was perfectly fine in the KKE Acropolis one. Are you calling me out?

Let's disect this:


I presume that to make a statement like this you are a well travelled, multi-lingual, anthropologist who has made a study of these things.

I love your irony. But let's see if there's any meaning to it. I hate doing the internet "I've done this and that" act, but you've forced to do it. Just so you know, I speak English, Portuguese, and Spanish, a bit of French, and I've lived in the US, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. From what I know, your experience is much richer than mine. There is no denying that. But there is also no denying that, at least in the Americas, 'o povo' and 'el pueblo', in every day language, do refer to the working class. In fact, genuine working-class organizations, such as the MST in Brazil, use a mixture of 'o povo' and 'a classe trabalhadora' in their statements.



When it is used by leftist groups I don't at all believe that the use is just an accident of semantics. You see different groups using the different terms in the same struggles, and the difference is reflected in their politics. Groups that talk about 'workers' tend to have politics which are based on an orientation towards the working class, and their struggles. Groups that talk about people tend tend to have politics, which are more in line with 'popular fronts' and campaigns.



People tend to know how to speak their own language, and are aware of the difference between words like 'workers' and 'people'.

Again, I love your idea that I'm speaking for various peoples; that I know their languages and they don't. That's bullshit and you know it. I'm not sure how the people you've met think of the concept of "the people", but most people I've met use it to refer to the majority of a place's people, which are the poor and working. No worker I've ever met uses it in a 'popular front' type, and no worker I've met uses the term referring to a collaborationist coalition of workers and the petty bourgeosie.


When it is used by leftist groups I don't at all believe that the use is just an accident of semantics. You see different groups using the different terms in the same struggles, and the difference is reflected in their politics. Groups that talk about 'workers' tend to have politics which are based on an orientation towards the working class, and their struggles. Groups that talk about people tend tend to have politics, which are more in line with 'popular fronts' and campaigns.

Well, seeing that your tendency is so sectarian that it dismisses everything which didn't work out exactly since October 1917, I wouldn't rely on you to tell anybody what a workers' organization really is. Because apparently all communists beside you guys are left-capitalists.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Devrim, not being funny mate, but the actual working class hardly ever say worker, its always just average languaged used

if you talk to workers, the word worker isnt usually mentioned.

They just say WE need better pay
They treat US like crap

Only marxists talk in the way we do nowadays.

And the people refers to the working class of said area

Why are you causing a shitstormover this lol

[Devrim]

I'd like to know why this post had to be made into its own thread when it was perfectly fine in the KKE Acropolis one. Are you calling me out?

I think it was really off the point of the Greek events, but is still an important topic. I don't think that I am calling you out, but I am not exactly sure what you mean by it.


But there is also no denying that, at least in the Americas, 'o povo' and 'el pueblo', in every day language, do refer to the working class. In fact, genuine working-class organizations, such as the MST in Brazil, use a mixture of 'o povo' and 'a classe trabalhadora' in their statements.

I'm not at all qualified to speak on the use of Spanish, but I would imagine that the use is at least influenced by leftists. When you talk of the MST isn't that actually a cross class movement composed of agricultural workers and poor peasants, whose main aim is land reform. I would put that down as a classic example of the sort of leftists who do talk about 'the people'.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Why are you causing a shitstormover this lol

I don't think that I am 'causing a shit-storm'. I am discussing something on a discussion board.


Devrim, not being funny mate, but the actual working class hardly ever say worker, its always just average languaged used

if you talk to workers, the word worker isnt usually mentioned.

They just say WE need better pay
They treat US like crap

Only marxists talk in the way we do nowadays.

And the people refers to the working class of said area

But what does we/us refer to? Does it refer to themselves as workers or to some vague amorphous mass of people?

Incidentally as I presume by your name you are posting from England, lots of people there do see themselves as being defined by their class to at least some extent. People in England often talk of being working class.

Devrim

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

The working class dont feel the need to call them selves working class, its a given, but since our conciousness has dropped so low, people have no idea what the working classes position in society is.

A worker told me that factory owners are working class because they have a job, he said the benefits mob areour enemy.

Rather than arguing about the people/worker which one is the right one, we should educate the workers on their true position in society.

All the best

[Robocommie]

Fighting the crucial battle over revolutionary semantics, eh Devrim?

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

HAHA youve just been told Devrim :)

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Jesus guys give him a break, its a diccussion board and even if it is just "semantics" seeing as there is hardly a revolution about to break out any day now, we have all the time in the world to dicuss esoteric shit like this.

And I have noticed that popular frontist type organisations use the word people..and working class orientated organisations tend to say "workers" more (although personally i find that a bit cliche). I mean there clearly is an incentive to use either word - workers being specifically towards those who identify as "Workers" and "working class" and "people" giving a more "we're all in this together" for a specific cause without hinting at classes or the conflict between them so much.

[Saorsa]

'The people' isn't just a meaningless term. When Maoists talk of 'the people' or 'the masses' they mean all the classes in society that can be united around the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist struggle - proletariat and peasantry, allied with the urban petit-bourgeoisie, and allied with the national bourgeoisie against imperialism.

However, the struggle is different in the First World to in the semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. In New Zealand my organisation (the Workers Party) is distinctive for consistently opposing attempts to water down Marxist rhetoric and replace 'working class' with references to 'the grassroots', 'the community' and so on.

[Devrim]

Fighting the crucial battle over revolutionary semantics, eh Devrim?

No discussing how words are used. Groups that talk about the people don't do it because they think that the words have the same meaning.

Comrade Alistair puts it clearly:


'The people' isn't just a meaningless term. When Maoists talk of 'the people' or 'the masses' they mean all the classes in society that can be united around the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist struggle - proletariat and peasantry, allied with the urban petit-bourgeoisie, and allied with the national bourgeoisie against imperialism.

The difference between myself and him is that he thinks that these cross class alliances are progressive. I don't. He can see what it means though unlike others here.


However, the struggle is different in the First World to in the semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries. In New Zealand my organisation (the Workers Party) is distinctive for consistently opposing attempts to water down Marxist rhetoric and replace 'working class' with references to 'the grassroots', 'the community' and so on.

I don't think that the term semi-feudal has much meaning, but I think that we are all agreed that it doesn't at all apply to Greece anyway. What would you imagine that it means it that context?

Surprisingly enough the KKE sees it in exactly the same way that I do:


Our class has the power and the capability to lead the formation of a great antimonopoly, anti-imperialist, democratic front that will overthrow the power of the monopolies and will struggle for people’s power.

The KKE talks a lot about the working class. They also talk about the people, and they are aware of the difference between the terms. I think that quote makes it very clear when they talk about "our class leading a great...democratic front". They are exactly talking about cross class movements.

Whether this is a way forward or not is a completely different question, but the words 'workers' and the 'people' are not the same, and when the KKE uses them they know what they mean.

Devrim

[Saorsa]

I don't think that the term semi-feudal has much meaning, but I think that we are all agreed that it doesn't at all apply to Greece anyway. What would you imagine that it means it that context?

Semi-feudal? I don't know enough about Greece to comment really, but I doubt there's much of a landlord/peasant contradiction in the Greek countryside and I've never heard of any modern Maoist groups in greece trying to organise a Protracted People's War. I don't think it applies to Greece.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Originally Posted by [email protected] May
Our class has the power and the capability to lead the formation of a great antimonopoly, anti-imperialist, democratic front that will overthrow the power of the monopolies and will struggle for people’s power.


"Anti-monopoly!" Hahahaha. This was the 'grand popular front strategy' of the Browderist CPUSA. Predictably it resulted in EPIC FAIL.

[Palingenisis]

"Anti-monopoly!" Hahahaha. This was the 'grand popular front strategy' of the Browderist CPUSA. Predictably it resulted in EPIC FAIL.

I dont see small shop keepers, self-employed plumbers, working farmers, etc as necessarily the class enemy the way that Devrim seems to do but the whole "anti-monopoly" slogan seems to be putting forward a slogan of the petit-bourgiouse which is going a bit further than talking about the "people" or the "masses".

[Leo]

Fighting the crucial battle over revolutionary semantics, eh Devrim?

"It's about time every rebel woke up to the fact that the working class and 'the people' have nothing in common" -Joe Hill

[the last donut of the night]

"It's about time every rebel woke up to the fact that the working class and 'the people' have nothing in common" -Joe Hill

"It's also time Leo realized that one-liners do not add anything to the discussion" - Me

[Devrim]

I dont see small shop keepers, self-employed plumbers, working farmers, etc as necessarily the class enemy the way that Devrim seems to do but the whole "anti-monopoly" slogan seems to be putting forward a slogan of the petit-bourgiouse which is going a bit further than talking about the "people" or the "masses".

I don't exactly see them as the class enemy. The class enemy is the bourgeoisie. The question is though one of whether you think the struggle is a working class one, in which it can drag other non-exploitative classes behind it, or a cross class alliance with the working class having a 'leading role', which in our opinion always ends up with it being used by other classes.

It is not that putting forward petit-bourgeois (or openly bourgeois, or nationalist) slogans is going a 'bit further than talking about the "people" or the "masses"'. It is that the people who talk of 'the people' or 'masses' tend to do this anyway.

Devrim

[Leo]

"It's also time Leo realized that one-liners do not add anything to the discussion" - Me

The point was that the distinction between the workers and the people is not something we invented, but has been a point the workers' movement have been making for decades, genius :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I dont see small shop keepers, self-employed plumbers, working farmers, etc as necessarily the class enemy the way that Devrim seems to do but the whole "anti-monopoly" slogan seems to be putting forward a slogan of the petit-bourgiouse which is going a bit further than talking about the "people" or the "masses".

While Devrim said that they aren't "the class enemy" per se, my stance is more mixed.

First, the proper petit-bourgeoisie pertains to small business owners only. They perform a productive role in society, while self-employed plumbers do not.

Second, in poorer countries, you can have a Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and Left-Nationalist Petit-Bourgeoisie (http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-third-world-t129680/index.html). The former is compromised of the proletariat, workers who perform unproductive labour (butlers, housemaids, and even military assembly line folks), the proper lumpenproletariat (prostitutes where illegal, rank-and-file gangsters, etc. as opposed to lumpen-scum outside the wage labour system), and the managerial-coordinator-"specialist" class (mid-level managers, academics with subordinate research staff, doctors without general practice businesses). Mao was wrong to suggest the existence of any sort of "national bourgeoisie," since every single one of them in poorer countries is a comprador.

In more developed countries, however, the petit-bourgeoisie does tend to belong to One Reactionary Mass. This One Reactionary Mass consists of them, self-employed, cops, lawyers, judges, and the like. The biggest rabble-rousers / loudmouths amongst this One Reactionary Mass happen to be self-employed like your example, Joe the Plumber.

[Palingenisis]

It is not that putting forward petit-bourgeois (or openly bourgeois, or nationalist) slogans is going a 'bit further than talking about the "people" or the "masses"'. It is that the people who talk of 'the people' or 'masses' tend to do this anyway.

Devrim

In current situation in Greece that slogan to put it mildly questions the class nature of that organization. The petit-bourgeois as a class is doomed and in the long or short run its members must either side with the proletariat or the capitalists. The KKE seem to be happy to avoid that fact which should make us warey of them. Thats basically what I was trying to say.

[manic expression]

This is all very simple. Do the workers represent the revolutionary class of their nations? If so, then no people (ie nation) can, as a whole, rise, without it being the express act of the working class against the bourgeoisie. IF the peoples of Europe rise up, it will be a working-class movement. Unless, of course, the enemies of the KKE deny that the workers are the revolutionary class, that the workers' interests are in overthrowing capitalism, that nationality exists.

[Palingenisis]

This is all very simple. Do the workers represent the revolutionary class of their nations? If so, then no people (ie nation) can, as a whole, rise, without it being the express act of the working class against the bourgeoisie. IF the peoples of Europe rise up, it will be a working-class movement. Unless, of course, the enemies of the KKE deny that the workers are the revolutionary class, that the workers' interests are in overthrowing capitalism, that nationality exists.

No its not very simple....We have seen before how the petit-bourgeoius and the patriotic bourgeouis have rallied workers to fight for their class interest using "Marxist" sounding phrases...And yes important gains have been won....But working class independence is very important...Only the proletariat can end class society once and for and all.

[manic expression]

No its not very simple....We have seen before how the petit-bourgeoius and the patriotic bourgeouis have rallied workers to fight for their class interest using "Marxist" sounding phrases...And yes important gains have been won....But working class independence is very important...Only the proletariat can end class society once and for and all.
First, outline such examples. Second, show how that can be applied to this slogan, at this time, from this party. Third, explain to us how, in the present day, a nation can rise up against capitalism without the workers being the revolutionary class.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, in my opinion, the whole question in this thread is centered around class contradiction between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. Comrades, kindly keep in mind that petty-bourgeoisie "revolutionary before revolution, reactionary after revolution". Moreover, they (the petty-bourgeoisie) is actually freckle minded and will leave the battlefield in groups, whenever any hard situation will arrive. We (the workers) may have them as our ally in the battle against capitalism, but we should have strict control over them and NEVER GIVE THEM ANY CHANCE TO TAKE THE LEADERSHIP. That will certainly end in revisionism and will eventually end in back to capitalism, like USSR and China.
So far, from the history, we know that the class contradiction between petty-bourgeoisie and workers will erupt after revolution. We have repeatedly observed it in USSR and China. The "Collectivization period" in the USSR was a very good example of that. China during the time of Cultural Revolution is also a good example. After revolution, our task is to eradicate private ownership on the means of production and service in all forms, IN SHORT ERADICATION OF PETTY-BOURGEOISIE CLASS AND THE END OF CLASS BASED SOCIETIES.