I feel the word "workers" might be a bit dated

[R_P_A_S]

Some people I talk to, including my self sometimes think of workers as just peasants and like for example, factory workers? Just like the Hammer and Sickle symbolize.

In my head when I hear "workers of the world unite" I only picture strong, sweaty factory workers pumping their fist in the air and marching strong! like some damn soviet propaganda 1950's film or something. The image of a waiter, or bus driver does not register. And you know what? I don't think it registers with other people.

I mean capitalist life has us competing for money, and work against each other. that unity between like.. all waiters and cooks just sounds silly to some people. no?

When I hear of a 'communist revolution' or something along those lines I need to snap out of it because at times I can only picture the typical working looking men. and that if they are victorious all of us are going to be just "workers" wearing suspenders and carrying our lunch boxes and hard hats. haha I say this because I think this way sometimes, Its so damn sad you know? that I have no picture of this events other than soviet posters and propaganda films. And when I was talking to a couple of people about it they said the same thing.

"thats what freaks me out too! I can't picture the world any other way than it is, sadly"

sadly, I think people think communism will make us all into farmers and just "workers" like on the posters... hmm..

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:38 am
Some people I talk to, including my self sometimes think of workers as just peasants and like for example, factory workers? Just like the Hammer and Sickle symbolize.
The term worker has a specific class definition. That definition is an integral part of understanding class struggle.


sadly, I think people think communism will make us all into farmers and just "workers" like on the posters... hmm..

In America perhaps. A task of communists is to show people that this is wrong.

[luxemburg89]

Its so damn sad you know? that I have no picture of this events other than soviet posters and propaganda films. And when I was talking to a couple of people about it they said the same thing.


Do you reckon that is because many tend one tred of Communism, say 'Leninism' for example, is representative of all communist theory? Equally people who claim to be communists, but really just like to wear a red shirt and stand out from the crowd for a few months before sinking back into bourgeois society, damage the movement by spitting out rhetorical nonsense that they took from a snippet of one of Stalin's speeches and then claiming to know about communism. Marx would have wanted us to think for ourselves, to evaluate theories and try to build on his foundations, not accept the work of the Bolsheviks or Mao or whomever as written law on what communism is. If you can only picture Soviet propaganda then that is your own ignorance and I suggest you think long and hard about what communism REALLY is. Read Marx as yourself, not as a Bolshevised robot - I think you'll see beyond the propaganda then.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I've never had this experience. I talk to fellow workers all the time, and while they might not consciously identify as "workers" without prompting, they don't reject the label either. When you bring it up -- talking about problems facing working people, for example -- they embrace it.

Just because the capitalist media does its best to hide class conflict, doesn't mean workers don't know they're workers. When given a chance (e.g. in a survey), most people in the U.S. identify as workers -- not "middle class" or anything else (..can't find a source right now, but it was here on the forums a while back).

I mean, if you have to go work for a boss or starve to death, you know you are a worker. What else would you think you are?

[Dr Mindbender]

can you think of a better alternative? I know I cant. Except maybe 'labourers' or even better- 'wage slaves'.

[MarxSchmarx]

Some people I talk to, including my self

Do you talk to yourself often? :lol:

In all seriousness, how about "working people"? Everybody in our class knows what it's like to have to work for a living. Even if they don't think of themselves as workers, much less proletariat.

Another facet of this is people who work for an hourly wage versus salaried workers. Many salaried workers think of themselves as "professionals" even though they have the same dilemma hourly wage earners have.

[chebol]

Do you have a job????

The word "workers" seems pretty clear to people that I know, work with, and hand out propaganda to. "Working people", "working families", etc, are all variations on the theme.

I see no reason to go looking beneath every politically correct haystack for *new* terms when what is needed is political "work", talking to and learning from workers.

[R_P_A_S]

the word worker is fine. I guess I just get the feeling that some people when they hear the word "workers" and then socialism. communism or revolution is tag along with it, they feel as "we all are going to be poor working class people" lol.. i know its weird. but I once thought that way.

[Red Rebel]

The only people who have something to lose and be worse of materiallly after the revolution are the bourgeoisie.

[rebelworker]

Although i strongly identify as a "worker" and a member of the "working class"(which many non communists i know do), I also like "working people".

It defenitly has its uses in conversation.

[Zurdito]

what the hell? if worker is dated, does that mean people no longer work? work is what makes the world run, what makes our economy go round, what produces and maintains our entire civilization. the definition between a capitalist and a worker is that one works and the other benefits. why is this dated? is it no longer correct? or is being correct now irrelevant ? what new phrase would we replace it with?

BTW, non-communist workers usually tell me "well I'm a worker, and I disagree with you", so at least in England the label is not rejected at all, in fact, it's part of how mainstream people view themselves.

[Ultra-Violence]

Marx would have wanted us to think for ourselves, to evaluate theories and try to build on his foundations, not accept the work of the Bolsheviks or Mao or whomever as written law on what communism is. If you can only picture Soviet propaganda then that is your own ignorance and I suggest you think long and hard about what communism REALLY is. Read Marx as yourself, not as a Bolshevised robot - I think you'll see beyond the propaganda then.





OMG I LOVE YOU will you marry me? :wub:

on a seruios note though I like the word workers i dont see anything bad about it sure were not in sweatshops any more (i know they still exist but thier undergruond) but what else would we call our selves?

[MarxSchmarx]

If you can only picture Soviet propaganda then that is your own ignorance and I suggest you think long and hard about what communism REALLY is.

The concern the OP had was that most people ARE extremely ignorant about communism, and DON'T "think long and hard about what it really is". Part of propaganda IS about dealing with such people. Sure that's not everything. And face it, anecdotal stories either way don't a spring make, but if using the word "worker" turns people off in some temporal or regional context, then we should rethink how we spread our message in those circumstances.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:48 am

If you can only picture Soviet propaganda then that is your own ignorance and I suggest you think long and hard about what communism REALLY is.

The concern the OP had was that most people ARE extremely ignorant about communism, and DON'T "think long and hard about what it really is". Part of propaganda IS about dealing with such people. Sure that's not everything. And face it, anecdotal stories either way don't a spring make, but if using the word "worker" turns people off in some temporal or regional context, then we should rethink how we spread our message in those circumstances.
ok but can we have reference to SPECIFIC contexts and actual SPECIFIC alternatives to "worker", because actually "worker" is a correct term and probably in the experience of many of us here, who are hardly shielded from anti=communist sentiment, this particular phrase has not been problematic, ever, and is even used by right wingers.

[Wanted Man]

Yeah, the term "worker" is so outdated. I mean, it's not as if anyone works anymore! Oh, wait.


Originally posted by lux
Equally people who claim to be communists, but really just like to wear a red shirt and stand out from the crowd for a few months before sinking back into bourgeois society, damage the movement by spitting out rhetorical nonsense that they took from a snippet of one of Stalin's speeches and then claiming to know about communism.
How many people actually do that? They are either non-existent, or so tiny in numbers that they do not really influence the perception of communism.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The United States is the country with the largest industrial output in the world by far and among the countries with the largest agricultural outputs. Maybe you're just out of touch, RPAS.

[Taevus]

Well, it sure is better than "proletariat".

[MarxSchmarx]

but can we have reference to SPECIFIC contexts and actual SPECIFIC alternatives to "worker"

Well, in my community, most people don't identify with the direct translation of "worker". Instead, they have more sympathy for "People with Jobs" or "Employees".

I totally hear you comrade, that this is ridiculous. But the most accurate translation of "worker" where I live just doesn't inspire my neighbors to want better. I know it is anecdotal, but for a fact, if I started talking about the people we call "workers", my neighbors will think I'm joking. But as soon as I talk about "Employees" or "those who have to punch the clock", people are surprisingly sympathetic.

I realize all this is imperfect, as I am dealing with translations of the term, but if I directly translated "worker" with its most accurate sense, I fear I will be counterproductive for the cause.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Class distinction only exists in regards to the relation to the modes of production. i.e. the proletariat or the working class is not distinct in regards to the the job, the wages, etc. because class relations are determined by relation to the modes of production.

Someone of the bourgeois class is distinguished from a proletarian or worker in that to be part of the bourgeois class means to have ownership of the means of production, of the relations of production, to control the modes of production, the proletariat does not control or own the modes of production, its relation to the bourgeoisie is determined by its role in regards to the modes of production.

The term "worker" or "proletarian" refers to the subordinate class. They are not simply subordinate to the bourgeoisie, they are subordinate through relation to the modes of production.

Think of it this way-

A proletarian's (worker's) labour is reduced to the form of a commodity, as it is merely bought and sold. This occurs through the workers' transfer of their own labour into a material entity or object. They do not own this object, though they have produced it with their own labour. It does not "belong" to them. The product of their labour is a commodity, and they do not profit from it, they are only paid wages for its production, i.e. they don't gain from the production of any material object its value, because the product of their labour has been separated from the act of labour itself. They are merely alienated from it, but they are subordinate. They depend on wages, but they do not own their labour. Their labour is then merely a commodity, so not only do they not own the means of production, but they do not own the product of their labour as a result of these relations. All relations have simply been reduced to property relations, which is where the concept of a subordinate class and a ruling class exists.

Therefore, classes are not distinct in regards to jobs, wages, etc, they are distinct in regards to their relation to the modes of production, which ultimately determine class relations and the ownership of private property.

[MarxSchmarx]

CN:



Therefore, classes are not distinct in regards to jobs, wages, etc, they are distinct in regards to their relation to the modes of production, which ultimately determine class relations and the ownership of private property.

What about self-employed people? They often own the means of production, and certainly control it. Anybody who has to work for a living is a worker.

The relationship to the means of production isn't the issue. The issue is whether you have to work to live, or if you don't have to work to live.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:57 am
CN:
What about self-employed people? They often own the means of production, and certainly control it. Anybody who has to work for a living is a worker.

The relationship to the means of production isn't the issue. The issue is whether you have to work to live, or if you don't have to work to live.
Are you refering to shop/small business owners and others who are self-employed?

If so, what you are forgetting is they do not have ownership in regards to the means of production. The "class" you are refering to is the petit-bourgeoisie. What you forget, however, is they do not control the forces of production or the relations of production. They do not own the means of production, however, they are subject to bourgeois ownership.

They may "own" a small business, but they do not contribute to the conditions present, they are subject to the conditions of bourgeois society. They do not control the means of production, the bourgeoisie does. They are still subject to the forces of production, just as the proletariat. Even when they aren't subject to it in the same "way" they are still subordinate to the bourgeoisie through the productive system and their relations to it.

They may be considered "separate" from the working-class because of differences in work/employment but a fundamental aspect of marxist economics is relation to the modes of production. i.e. the petit-bourgeoisie manage the distribution of commodities owned by the bourgeoisie, they do not have "ownership" in regards to the commodities. They may manage the distribution, but they don't own the commodities, just as proletarians don't.

So, even when they have a distinct role in regard to the means of production, their "control" exists because they manage it, not because they own it. They do not have ownership over the means of production, they are still subject to the bourgeoisie's ownership of the means of production. They manage the means of production but they do not own it, just as they do not own the commodities produced as a result of managing "labour". Ultimately, they are still subject to bourgeois control of production.

The petit-bourgeoisie is not completely distinct from the proletariat as (1) neither own the means of production, (2) both are subject to bourgeois ownership and control of the relations of production, (3) both do not own the commodities produced as a result of their contribution to the capitalist system.

So, the petit-bourgeoisie does not have ownership of the means of production, they simply contribute to the relations of production through managing it, which does not imply ownership as they have no more ownership of commodities than the proletariat.