am i a worker and what is a worker

i heard one day that if you dont build nothing you are not a worker.

I work in a warehouse 40 hour a week, but i dont really build nothing, i just manage the inventory and give stuff to the people working in the shop.

i will never be able to reap the fruit of my labor even in a communist society, i dont build nohing at all i maintenance.

You have a job, you perform that job for someone else, you are a worker.

that mean security guard and cops are worker too?

Technically.

I think you are a worker, dont see how any world present of future can exist without warehouses.

I have a silly title to the job I do but at the end of the day im a janitor, I dont make anything either, but its work that needs to be done.

Making things is not the only work, given this countries decline in manufacturing, if making things is the sole classification of a worker id say thats bull.

Without proper storage distribution is ballsed up, and distribution is important in a communist society, and unless people are made of teflon and dont shit and piss in the future I expect I will be utilised too.

Even if a man does a job that is surplus to needs in a communist system, a lot of times its just to meet his bills, in a communist future he will get training for a job that adds to the quality of society rather than serving needs of the rich.

Not all now do jobs that will be needed, simply because there are nowhere near enough manufacturing jobs out there.

To my mind if you do an honest days work and dont exploit the labour of others you are a worker full stop.
Some people have no jobs atall, the workers movement is for the good of all and the re-education of exploiters imho.

If you see the man who said that in the first place, tell him we are all exploited by the capitalist system, its the 21st century and that he is a retard,

Does that go for the managers also? If a company president doesn't "own" any part of the company he heads (he's a hireling) is he considered a "worker" too? In a way if you take away the stock options of the chairman of Exxon--he's a worker, too. The only difference between him and the guy in the Exxon factory is "pay scale."


I imagine that under Communism managers and coordinators will be needed just as much as under Capitalism.

In theory, yes. Although in practicality I doubt many executives that high up don't have enough wealth, and property, to comfortably live on that for as long as they would like. So they don't have to sell their labour and thus aren't workers. (Look below at ComradeOm's post for a correction on this)

Personally I know quite a few stinking rich persons, (a boon of not having much private schools so the children of the bourgousie goes to the same schools as everyone else) who work for others although they would never need to.

Yep, and they will probably remain quite prestigeous and respected positions. They won't have the absolute power they have now, as important decicions will be voted on by all the workers, and probably not the same material reward they have now as their wage will be decided by the workplace.

Which is the flaw in Jack's definition. In addition to "performing a job for someone" your labour must also be productive (ie, it generates surplus value). To take the original example, the labour of a warehouse worker is productive because while they may not be directly "building" it, the product is not going anywhere without them

In contrast the labour of a top manager is unproductive because they are so far removed from the production process. You can remove the manager and the product will still be delivered

Coordinators and specialists will of course be required but managers, the primary role of which is controlling their workforce, will not. Certainly not as we understand the role of the manager today

I think its a "we will know when we get there" type situation.

Even if your job is totally tied in with shares in x, y, and z and you spend all day thinking up potty mouthed financial service, you are still a man at the end of the day.

The job may disappear but the man is alive and well, sure the man will be getting a change of circumstances but when the revolution comes so will we all, new roles in society will go to those best able to meet the needs of those roles, if you have abilities (and most of us do) they will be used, if you have needs they will be met.
But at the end of the day we all get a fair slice of the outcome.

The only people who will suffer will be those who cant deal with the change, and that will be a minority.
If a man used to sitting back and living off the sweat of others cant deal with the fact he has to pitch in, that will be too bad but it will be the reality.
And time will cure that.
Simply having core needs met under a duty of care from the state will cover most the population with smiles.

May the revolution come soon:)

You are a worker.

A 'worker' is primarily a relationship to the means of production. The working class (of which you are a part of) does not own the means of production (the capitalist class does); rather, they use the means of production to produce goods/services.

- August

I draw out plans that other people build, so technically, I don't build anything, but I am still a worker, becaues the plans I draw are sold by other people for a price much higher than what I am paid. The plans are bought by people who have other people build the things which are sold also for much higher than what they are paid for, with materials bought for much higher than what the people who collected them are paid. To build something that is sold by someone who really had nothing to do with the process.