Definition of worker

[Jesus Christ!]

People use the term worker all the time as a basis of who will start and make revolution, but I have yet to see exactly who is to be considered a wroker and who is not. After all everyone does do some kind of work for a living and yet we do not call everyone workers. Is a wroker someone who is economically disadvantaged as compared to the rest of society? I know the whole deal about the middle class being a figment of capitalism and that there is only proletariat ("wrokers") and bourgeois (still techinically workers). I'm having trouble making the distinction.

[RedAnarchist]

I would consider a worker as someone who does not own the means of production - for example, someone who owns a business or is an employer is not a worker.

[Ol' Dirty]

Worker. n. 1. one who labors to recieve the recources they may nee to survive.
2. onev that sells their labor daily (in contrast to a slave, who is sold only a few times in life).

[Jesus Christ!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 04:42 PM
Worker. n. 1. one who labors to recieve the recources they may nee to survive.
2. onev that sells their labor daily (in contrast to a slave, who is sold only a few times in life).
That's the problem every body who works is techinically selling his/her labor daily.

[LoneRed]

A worker/proletarian is one who sells his labor-power to the capitalist in order to survive as a worker

[Jesus Christ!]

Still everyone who works then is by definition a "worker". And yet your orginisation doesn't allow anyone in unless they are proletariat aka workers. This exculeds middle class people who are still technically workers.

[YKTMX]

A workers is someone who sells their labor power for a wage, and has no control over the nature of their, or anybody elses', labor.

They have no autonomy. in other words.

Doctors and lawyers and professors sell their labor power, but they have autonomy in the workplace.

For instance, a doctor tells nurses what to do; a middle manager has control over their "sector"; a lawyer over their secretary etc. Workers have no control at work.

[Jesus Christ!]

My dad has like 3-4 people "under him" aka he's 3 people's boss. Does this keep him in the worker category due to the fact that really he could be fired any second and has a million people above him? or does it put him in the " non worker" category because he has 3 people who somewhat answer to him.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:35 PM
A workers is someone who sells their labor power for a wage, and has no control over the nature of their, or anybody elses', labor.

They have no autonomy. in other words.

Doctors and lawyers and professors sell their labor power, but they have autonomy in the workplace.

For instance, a doctor tells nurses what to do; a middle manager has control over their "sector"; a lawyer over their secretary etc. Workers have no control at work.
Why does a doctor have autonomy whereas a street sweep doesn't?

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by England Expects+Apr 20 2006, 08:50 PM--> (England Expects @ Apr 20 2006, 08:50 PM)
[email protected] 20 2006, 07:35 PM
A workers is someone who sells their labor power for a wage, and has no control over the nature of their, or anybody elses', labor.

They have no autonomy. in other words.

Doctors and lawyers and professors sell their labor power, but they have autonomy in the workplace.

For instance, a doctor tells nurses what to do; a middle manager has control over their "sector"; a lawyer over their secretary etc. Workers have no control at work.
Why does a doctor have autonomy whereas a street sweep doesn't? [/b]
I said why.

They have control over the labor power of others (nurses, secretaries, etc).

They also have a significant degree of control over their own labour - how they work, when they work, what they wear, high-level decisions etc.

A street sweep sweeps the street. That's what he does. He works from 9-5, sweeping the streets. He does it with a brush and some plastic bags.

He'll do the same tomorrow. It's completely different.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Apr 20 2006, 08:56 PM--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Apr 20 2006, 08:56 PM)
Originally posted by England [email protected] 20 2006, 08:50 PM

[email protected] 20 2006, 07:35 PM
A workers is someone who sells their labor power for a wage, and has no control over the nature of their, or anybody elses', labor.

They have no autonomy. in other words.

Doctors and lawyers and professors sell their labor power, but they have autonomy in the workplace.

For instance, a doctor tells nurses what to do; a middle manager has control over their "sector"; a lawyer over their secretary etc. Workers have no control at work.
Why does a doctor have autonomy whereas a street sweep doesn't?
I said why.

They have control over the labor power of others (nurses, secretaries, etc).

They also have a significant degree of control over their own labour - how they work, when they work, what they wear, high-level decisions etc.

A street sweep sweeps the street. That's what he does. He works from 9-5, sweeping the streets. He does it with a brush and some plastic bags.

He'll do the same tomorrow. It's completely different. [/b]
But isn't a doctor still selling his labour. Admittedly his labour involves a different type of task but ordering people around is still labour.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by Jesus Christ!@Apr 20 2006, 07:24 PM
Still everyone who works then is by definition a "worker". And yet your orginisation doesn't allow anyone in unless they are proletariat aka workers. This exculeds middle class people who are still technically workers.
apparently you missed this part


"order to survive as a worker"

last time i checked doctors,lawyers etc... live quite a comfortable life


also you cant interchange words in different paradigms

bourgeois- lower class, middle class, upper class


Marxist- Working Class- Small businessman,professionals/petty-bourgeois. capitalists

[YKTMX]

No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "labour".

"Nursing" is labour; typing and other secretarial tasks is labour, telling people to do these things isn't labour.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:12 PM
No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "labour".

"Nursing" is labour; typing and other secretarial tasks is labour, telling people to do these things isn't labour.
How do you define labour?

[YKTMX]

Tasks fulfilled by human beings which have productive ends. It usually involves interaction with another factor, like capital.

So, to take our example:

A cobbler has leather and all the other capital required to make shoes. If he wishes to, he can make shoes.

A doctor wishes to send a message to the golf club saying he'll be late, so he tells a secretary to do it. The secretary then sends the message using the phone (capital) to the golf club. The secretary has performed labour, she has laboured, he has not.

Furthermore, there is no one to whom the secretary can "outsource" this task. Either she does it and she keeps her job, or she doesn't and she gets fired (and the doctor gets kicked out his golf club.)

Thus, we see the fundamental class divisions in modern society.

;)

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:25 PM
Tasks fulfilled by human beings which have productive ends. It usually involves interaction with another factor, like capital.

So, to take our example:

A cobbler has leather and all the other capital required to make shoes. If he wishes to, he can make shoes.

A doctor wishes to send a message to the golf club saying he'll be late, so he tells a secretary to do it. The secretary then sends the message using the phone (capital) to the golf club. The secretary has performed labour, she has laboured, he has not.

Furthermore, there is no one to whom the secretary can "outsource" this task. Either she does it and she keeps her job, or she doesn't and she gets fired (and the doctor gets kicked out his golf club.)

Thus, we see the fundamental class divisions in modern society.

;)
What does this mean for those who will plan a planned economy?

Will we then still have a class division even when we earn our revolution? :huh:

[YKTMX]

The workers themselves will plan the economy. It won't be the job of "adminisrators".

We will have class divisions for a short time. With the workers on one side and the counter-revolutionary, pettybourgeois, reactionary economics students on the other side. Oh, and the capitalists.


There aren't enough bullets in the world.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:35 PM
The workers themselves will plan the economy. It won't be the job of "adminisrators".
What? You mean instead of doing things that I find fulfilling I'm going to have to take on an unproductive task? Say it ain't so.

[YKTMX]

You won't have to do anything you don't want to do.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:43 PM
You won't have to do anything you don't want to do.
But if there's a group of workers who want to take on the task of planning and a group of workers who don't won't that create a class divide similar to the one which you described earlier?

Also if the workers take on the unproductive task of planning won't they be the same as the doctors who have autonomy in the workplace. Thus making the doctors, and others in a similar role, workers according to your definition?

This is getting confusing. :blink:

[YKTMX]

But if there's a group of workers who want to take on the task of planning and a group of workers who don't won't that create a class divide similar to the one which you described earlier?

How? Class divisions come about as the result of unequal access to the means of production. Since this will eradicated after "our revolution", it will not be a problem. Some people may well be more or less engaged in "planning" the economy, but they won't be able to use this to exploit or buy anyone else's labour.


Also if the workers take on the unproductive task of planning won't they be the same as the doctors who have autonomy in the workplace. Thus making the doctors, and others in a similar role, workers according to your definition?


Yes. Socialism will eradicate class distinctions. There will be no "workers" or "middle class" under socialism, because socialism destroys the basis under which such distinctions arise, namely private property.


This is getting confusing.

I don't see that it's that confusing.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:25 PM
Tasks fulfilled by human beings which have productive ends. It usually involves interaction with another factor, like capital.

So, to take our example:

A cobbler has leather and all the other capital required to make shoes. If he wishes to, he can make shoes.

A doctor wishes to send a message to the golf club saying he'll be late, so he tells a secretary to do it. The secretary then sends the message using the phone (capital) to the golf club. The secretary has performed labour, she has laboured, he has not.

Furthermore, there is no one to whom the secretary can "outsource" this task. Either she does it and she keeps her job, or she doesn't and she gets fired (and the doctor gets kicked out his golf club.)

Thus, we see the fundamental class divisions in modern society.

;)
But you're explanation of class divisions earlier on didn't mention ownership of the means of production. This is confusing.

[YKTMX]

I assumed that owning a factory excluded one from the proletariat. Sorry.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:03 PM

But if there's a group of workers who want to take on the task of planning and a group of workers who don't won't that create a class divide similar to the one which you described earlier?

How? Class divisions come about as the result of unequal access to the means of production. Since this will eradicated after "our revolution", it will not be a problem. Some people may well be more or less engaged in "planning" the economy, but they won't be able to use this to exploit or buy anyone else's labour.


Also if the workers take on the unproductive task of planning won't they be the same as the doctors who have autonomy in the workplace. Thus making the doctors, and others in a similar role, workers according to your definition?


Yes. Socialism will eradicate class distinctions. There will be no "workers" or "middle class" under socialism, because socialism destroys the basis under which such distinctions arise, namely private property.

So it is private property, in the shape of the means of produciton, that causes class distinctions rather than the type of tasks which someone os employed to perform.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by EE
But if there's a group of workers who want to take on the task of planning and a group of workers who don't won't that create a class divide similar to the one which you described earlier?
I don't think there will be a separate group of people who will 'plan' the entire economy. Rather, at an individual workplace, production will be planned by way of incoming data of consumption.

Also, the implications of attempting to 'classify' every single individual case as 'proletarian' or 'bourgeois' or 'petty-bourgeois' (or other) become immediately apparent when viewing this thread.

Marx looked at capitalist society as a whole, and so made class generalizations based on obvious differences in society. So long as one realizes such differences exist, and so long as one realizes that the aim of all our activity is to eliminate those differences, it isn't especially important to specifically classify every possible individual case.

[YKTMX]

So it is private property, in the shape of the means of produciton, that causes class distinctions rather than the type of tasks which someone os employed to perform.

Well, private ownership causes class distinctions. The fundamental divide is between people who own the means of production and those are employed to work for them.

However, there is, as were are discussing, a class of people who exist somewhere "between" these two divides. People who don't own significant amounts of capital (although most doctors are of course very wealthy), but still have a large stake in the system, don't have a "boss" in the sense that workers do, have decision making autonomy.

This is a very small group of people. Most people fit into the other camps.

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:36 PM

So it is private property, in the shape of the means of produciton, that causes class distinctions rather than the type of tasks which someone os employed to perform.

Well, private ownership causes class distinctions. The fundamental divide is between people who own the means of production and those are employed to work for them.

However, there is, as were are discussing, a class of people who exist somewhere "between" these two divides. People who don't own significant amounts of capital (although most doctors are of course very wealthy), but still have a large stake in the system, don't have a "boss" in the sense that workers do, have decision making autonomy.

This is a very small group of people. Most people fit into the other camps.
Doctors have bosses in exactly the same sense as other workers. There is an army of parasitic middle managers in the NHS for example. Lets not forget the greedy capitalist paymasters of private healthcare providers.

[bezdomni]

Doctors and middle managers are petit-bourgeoisie.

They still sell their labor, but they have control over it and are given the "illusion" of power, of being bourgeois (when they really are still exploited by the bourgeoisie). For example, a middle manager may thing he's hot shit because he owns some stock and there are "big prospects" for him. In actuality, his job is ultimately unimportant and he will remain petit-bourgeois with an illusion of power for the rest of his working life.

The petit-bourgeois share aspects of proletariat interests and aspects of bourgeois interests. In countries like the United States, there is a large petit-bourgeois class. However, most developing countries (for example, Venezuela) have a larger proletariat class than anything else. That is why revolutionary situations usually occur in developing nations - they have the largest and most impoverished working class.

The bourgeois class is truly elite. The people who don't have to work to make a living and do nothing other than own the means of production and manipulate money. This is explained by Marx in Kapital in the chapters on Surplus Value.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

A worker is someone who sells his labor to accumulate the wealth (i.e. food, housing, etc.) needed to live. Usually he has Surplus Value extracted from his labor by those who own the means of production he uses in his occupation (the bourgeoisie). When it comes to doctors, I think the reality is simple. For most of history doctors have been self-employed or ran their own offices, in this manner they were members of the petit-bourgeoisie because although they employed their own labor, they also owned the means of production. Increasingly doctors are being "proletarianized", they're workplaces are increasingly centralized and they are increasingly forced to sell their labor to various medical employers: hospitals, HMOs, the State itself, etc. Eventually in the future I think most doctors and the such will be more or less fully proletarianized. The fact that they often are "bosses" over others doesn't mean much. In hierarchical workplaces one of the necessary tasks that is usually accomplished is the administration of one group of workers under another group. For the most part a doctor makes no economic benefit from having a few other workers under him, unlike a capitalist who extracts actual wealth from the labors of others.

[RebelDog]

Occupations and people interchange between the bourgeoisie and proletarian depending on circumstances, ie does the doctor own the surgery? If a doctor works for our UK NHS then I would not describe him/her bourgeois as they work for a public owned health service and do not own any part of it. If my son said "I wish to become a doctor dad" I wouldn't castigate him for entertaining bourgeois thought, I'd encourage him to persue his desire to help his society in what is an essential occupation.
I believe there is a situation in England where a group of highly paid consultants purchased the local MRI scanner and now rent it back to the NHS. These consultants are bourgeois bastards and are doing a fantastic job of carrying out the privatisation of the NHS from the inside out.