Worker only vote?

[Steve_j]

From another thread, im quite curious about the idea of worker only vote organisations.

My biggest issue is how to define "worker" in this day and age, i am particularly interested in peoples opinions with peoples arguments in relation to immaterial/affective labour.

Secondly, in relation to the situationist rework of alienation, did they relate this in any way to the above question?

[Comrade1]

From another thread, im quite curious about the idea of worker only vote organisations.

My biggest issue is how to define "worker" in this day and age, i am particularly interested in peoples opinions with peoples arguments in relation to immaterial/affective labour.

Secondly, in relation to the situationist rework of alienation, did they relate this in any way to the above question?
A worker is anyone who has to sell his or her labour in order to make ends meet.

[Steve_j]

Please define labour? Please define "ends meet"?

Is an investment banker a worker that should be welcomed into a workers revolutionary organisation? What about an MP? Or a cop?

[BIG BROTHER]

A politician I assume you mean your regular bourgeoisie possessional politician. And the answer would be no.

Now to me anybody who engages in politics is a politician. Politician worker's or those who are committed Revolutionaries should be allowed.

Now a worker is simply someone who earns their living by selling their labor, regardless of what they earn.

This differs them from a petty-bourgeoisie who could be a self employed person that also performs labor but since its self employed it is not selling it.

And yes in any worker's organization a class enemy such as an investment banker should be banned. Now if they renounce to their property and class privilege then they could be admited but it would be suicided to allow them in otherwise.

I mean I can understand being lenient towards petty-bourgeois because they can side with the proletariat, but a big time bourgeoisie that would just lead to complete failure.

[Comrade1]

Please define labour? Please define "ends meet"?

Is an investment banker a worker that should be welcomed into a workers revolutionary organisation? What about an MP? Or a cop?
Labour is well....labour, self explanitory. And no they wouldent becuase they do not use labour. Cops exploit the people (mostly) as do MP's but a banker that you would see at the desk would be a worker. Not the owner thought. He accept billions of bailout money :lol:

[Steve_j]

Now a worker is simply someone who earns their living by selling their labor, regardless of what they earn.


And yes in any worker's organization a class enemy such as an investment banker should be banned. Now if they renounce to their property and class privilege then they could be admited but it would be suicided to allow them in otherwise.

Ok but the issue here is still defining worker, investment bankers are workers by your definition, they sell their labour. Whilst as you mentioned with the petty-bourgeois ie a self employed plumber i would see as someone with far more revolutionary potential.


Labour is well....labour, self explanitory. And no they wouldent becuase they do not use labour.

Labour is well....labour? Ofcourse investment bankers use labour, are you implying that only manual labour counts as labour?

Basically what im trying to see if there is a simple application of logic to screen people for such and organisation, or is it to complex that they need to factor in a case by case approach?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Class is more complicated than that:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relationsi-t73419/index.html

[Steve_j]

I cant acces your link, it says i dont have permision?