Define Worker

[Dermezel2]

According to various and widespread interpretations of socialism and Marxist doctrine including those of MCS, we need a society built around the "Working Class", this holds particularly among many members of Gaia's largest Guild: http://www.gaiaonline.com/guilds/viewforum.php?f=579

However I must ask, what precisely is a Worker, how is it defined and how is the definition justified?

Traditionally worker in Marxism referred to Proletariat, or largely propertyless person- one whom basically had to sell their labor to make a living.

However talking to modern socialists, it seems like the concept of Worker has become subjective. Many imply that worker can only mean factory worker or "industrialized worker" and do not include, for some reason: Teachers, Cops, Activists, Intellectuals, Artists, etc. Even if they earn very low wages and own almost no property.

Likewise, I want to know how emerging industries which break almost all traditional roles are treated: 3-D Printers, Video Game Testers, Video Game Competitors, Drone Operators, and Bio-Tech Engineers. Take a Video Game Tester, is that Working Class? They play video games all day.

This is important because they are saying the Working Class "should rule", basically have power over all of us, including the power to "suppress" us when "necessary". If the definition of a Worker or Working Class is arbitrary, it makes the whole issue dangerous.

Some examples of why this would be important:

-If a Video Game Tester is defined as Working Class, would that mean a Video Gamer will be able to suppress (through vote or influence in the "Vanguard Party" ) Intellectuals? Someone who plays video games will be able to censor college professors?

-If Factories Workers are "Working Class" but not Intellectuals or Teachers or Artists, does that mean that during elections their voice counts for more? Will they be able to rule over Teachers and Artists? Will they be able to suppress Teachers or Professors or Doctors, either through vote or the actions of a Vanguard Party?*

So for example the Workers (however defined) think X book or Movie should be suppressed, can they suppress it, and what recourse will intellectuals or artists have? Will they have to appeal to the Vanguard Party which is supposed to represent the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"? What if the Vanguard Party is biased, or itself engineering censorship for political expediency?

If Workers are supposed to rule, and the Party is supposed to be able to supersede even democracy, as comrades have noted "for the World Strategic Situation", in order to represent "Workers Interests" by leading even the backwards elements (according to Leninism workers do not entirely know their interests because they cannot educate themselves sufficiently due to how they are constrained by the work-spend cycle, and thus have to be led by a more educated/intellectual caste which represents them) then is it not of the utmost importance that these terms not be subjective?

If terms such as Worker, Working Class, etc. are subjective in even the smallest way, what is it prevent a total abuse of power?

[Heimdalr]

The terminology was meant for another time entirely. I define workers as those who need to get up in the morning to continue having money.

[Limonchiki]

A video game tester would indeed be a worker. because they provide work in exchange for wages. Teachers and professors are usually workers. Artists are generally workers as few artists are able to make an entire living by selling their work directly to consumers. A doctor may be a worker if they are hired by a hospital, but not if they have or are a partner in a private practice.

The reason the line can seem blurry is that being a worker or not is really more about your relationship to the capitalist system, rather than your line of work. Self-employed individuals and small business owners are considered "petite bourgeoisie", but many have more in common with the proletariat than with the bourgeoisie proper.

[Dermezel2]

Limonchiki

A video game tester would indeed be a worker. because they provide work in exchange for wages. Teachers and professors are usually workers. Artists are generally workers as few artists are able to make an entire living by selling their work directly to consumers. A doctor may be a worker if they are hired by a hospital, but not if they have or are a partner in a private practice.

I am not sure how this was justified in the first place though. Why wages? So if a Video Game Tester gets paid for every product evaluated, instead of wages- no longer a worker. If they get paid a percentage of how much the game sells- no longer a worker. If they do it without getting paid, or for receiving indirect benefits- such as credit in the company for a future position, name recognition, a free copy of the game, etc. - no longer a worker.

A Car Saleman works for wages- Worker. The same person doing the same exact job gets salary or commission- no longer a worker.

An exotic dancer works for wages- worker. They work for tips- no longer a worker.

The line seems valid- that is consistent.

But what about accuracy? How is the initial premise in this matter itself determined? To me it seems arbitrary, and therein lay the potential for danger and absurdity.

I mean according to that standard, an Activist who say cleans up beaches for his friends for free is not a Worker- and hence should not be treated with the political respect, including that of decision, rights, Party privilege and other forms of power as a Worker.

But say we actually then, pay this person wages- and thus- in essence the person is providing less benefit to the community in economic terms, then the person all of a sudden is uplifted to the category of noble worker.

So basically, greed is rewarded in this example. People who host beach clean-up parties or charity events for free, or for minimal reward (such as free housing, like religious charity workers or ideological ones) are downgraded, while people who only do good things for wages are rewarded with political power.

Limonchiki

The reason the line can seem blurry is that being a worker or not is really more about your relationship to the capitalist system, rather than your line of work. Self-employed individuals and small business owners are considered "petite bourgeoisie", but many have more in common with the proletariat than with the bourgeoisie proper.

Well all you are doing here, so far as I can see is justifying one controversial premise, with another, ill-defined, equally controversial premise.

What exactly do you mean, now, by "relationship to the capitalist system"? Wages were just promoted as THE dividing line a moment ago. Now we get this extremely vague term about "relation" to a capitalist system.

How is this not arbitrary? Is there any objective measurement for this at all, or do we have to make general approximations, and if so, how do we know the Party will not introduce its own subjectivity into these general approximations?

Again, the problem is not with validity/consistency. Anyone can start with any premise, and argue consistently from that said premise no matter where it leads. I can argue from the Premise that Lord of the Rings is true, or Star Wars did occur in a Galaxy Far, Far Away and argue with almost no contradictions at all if I am allowed enough wiggle room.

To give a concrete example of this, the Catholic Church had a Grand Theory that combined Theology, Natural Philosophy, and Astrology based on the premise that Geo-Centrism was correct.

While we dismiss the concept of Geocentrism as mere superstition, it took the Church centuries to finally unite these disparate fields into one coherent and elegant ideology. It created a sort of peace, between Philosophers, Theologians, Astronomers and Astrologers for the first time in decades. It was a beautiful theory that put man and earth in the center of the universe (which thereby also allowed for it to include Aristotle's theory of essences, which posited that the universe held a pre-defined place for various materials, which the Church Hierarchy preferred to theories of Gravity which they considered "occultist" due to the inherent spookiness of unexplained "action at a distance" ). Outside the Earth were various circles of existence, leading all the way up to God, each guarded by a particular Angel or group of angels. (This explained the Astrological effect of the Stars. )

Quote:

This order was not invented or worked out by Ptolemy, but aligns with the ancient Seven Heavens religious cosmology common to the major Eurasian religious traditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_Model

The Catholic Church was not so concerned about Galileo simply because they were upset over an issue of astronomy.

The Geocentric model of Promely was the result of a centuries long political project to develop a kind of peace among the various branches of the Church: Philosophers, Astrologers, Theologians, Astronomers, and even Musicians and Artists (the Seven Spheres around the Earth were thought to correspond to the music of heavenly bodies):

Musica universalis

So when Galileo proved that the Earth was not the center of the universe it did not effect just a small science, it effected a centuries long political and philosophical project of the Catholic Church over the telescope.

One can see then, why so many, even if they believed Galileo was factually correct, would think it better to pretend he wasn't to preserve the social-political order, and the hard won peace between the various branches of church intelligentsia and leadership which they felt was barely being maintained in world surrounded by ruthless enemies,

It would be like if someone, using a new kind of computer, disproved a major Marxist or Leninist premise in the USSR.

The point is thus- a theory might be completely consistent within itself: many Marxists/Leftist/Socialists are very good at declaring terms, and then arguing super-consistently from these terms or definitions to their desired conclusion.

But, just as the ultra-sophisticated, extremely valid ideology of Ptolemic Geocentrism may have had the merit of being very internally consistent and cohesive, the fact of the matter is if certain key underlying premises are inaccurate, the whole series of conclusions may be almost completely false.

Here various groups are asking for a heck of a lot: We should put all our trust into Vanguard Parties, which are able to supersede democracy, in an authoritarian manner, suppress perhaps millions of members of our population (the petty bourgeoisie it is argued have to be "suppressed" i.e. almost half of the Middle Class, which would be tens of millions of people), freedom of speech would have to be curtailed.

We may even have to accept extra-constraints on free speech, Military Rule, and vast amounts of collateral damage on the basis of this theory. On the basis of the claim that the Workers must rule (albeit indirectly through a Vanguard Party since they are in many ways too backwards to know their own true interests), and we must have a Dictatorship of the Working class, which certainly not argued by all, is interpreted very literally among the most militant parties within Marxist circles.

And with this in mind, all these risks and sacrifices we are being asked to take, what a Worker is cannot even be defined objectively. Instead we get ridiculous standards like "Wages" and then extra-vague terms like "Relationship to Capitalist System"- which can mean a million different things.

To me this sounds like an ingredient for despotism plain and simple, and I will note many Leftist Parties, especially of the militant strain, tend to operate in a very closed-minded and authoritarian manner.

Example: On some Leftist forums I was censored for quoting Jared Diamond, due to him being labelled a "Racist".

To be fair, the censorship at far Left sites like RevLeft is not as bad, nor the rhetoric as nasty as you will find on far Right sites like Stormfront. However, if you want people to accept these extreme risks and sacrifices, they have to be certain this is not just some power-grab. Thus far, I do not see how these Parties have proven themselves ideologically, or in terms of quality of character or leadership. I am not saying I am of such quality- which is why I do not run for any political office nor do I join a Party which wants absolute power. However your groups are doing this, so I ask again:

FOR TL: DR

-Do you have any objective definition of what a worker is? And if you do not, can you at least give me a functional term/description, in a general, approximate sense, and justify why we should accept such a term over a rival term put forth?

You are asking us to accept an Authoritarian Dictatorship, after a Violent Revolution, and you cannot even tell us what a Worker is.

[banndmanswag02]

I don't see why it's necessary for the worker to oppress anyone.

[banndmanswag02]

Dermezel2

You are asking us to accept an Authoritarian Dictatorship, after a Violent Revolution, and you cannot even tell us what a Worker is.

Nobody with any sense is requesting that you accept authoritarian government.

[Dermezel2]

banndmanswag02

Dermezel2

You are asking us to accept an Authoritarian Dictatorship, after a Violent Revolution, and you cannot even tell us what a Worker is.

Nobody with any sense is requesting that you accept authoritarian government.

Actually they are. According to Leninism a Vanguard Party is needed to lead the workers into Socialism. To this end, the Party must be composed of the ideologically pure (even people who believe in God are outright rejected according to the more hardcore/militant groups). These Parties must suppress certain Counter-Revolutionary elements, including the Petty Borgeoisie. They must have power over both military and civilian sectors, with no separation of powers like we see today, and will have to be able to overrule both courts, legal process and democratic process for the "World Strategic Situation."

As soldiers can be considered working class, according to most (though police are not for reasons not well described) this can mean Military Rule. In fact, it could easily be argued that Military Rule might even be preferred within the context of the World Strategic Situation.

To give some concrete examples of what this might entail:

-The people elect a Party that is considered "Counter-Revolutionary" after a Revolution, that being the case it would be up to the Vanguard Party to step in and block such elections or the democratically elected officials from office for the long-term good of the Proletariat.

- A group of Anarchists is engaged in "Counter-Revolutionary activity" which can include organization or speech, this group may have to be suppressed for the good of the revolution.

-The majority of people vote to reduce funding for the military, but the Party decides, based on strategic calculations that this funding is needed to spread the Revolution to other strategically vital nations. The Party will then have to overrule the people's wishes for the good of the World Revolution as a whole.

[banndmanswag02]

Dermezel2

-The people elect a Party that is considered "Counter-Revolutionary" after a Revolution, that being the case it would be up to the Vanguard Party to step in and block such elections or the democratically elected officials from office for the long-term good of the Proletariat.

- A group of Anarchists is engaged in "Counter-Revolutionary activity" which can include organization or speech, this group may have to be suppressed for the good of the revolution.

-The majority of people vote to reduce funding for the military, but the Party decides, based on strategic calculations that this funding is needed to spread the Revolution to other strategically vital nations. The Party will then have to overrule the people's wishes for the good of the World Revolution as a whole.

They're going to have to define counter-revolutionary activity better.

[logan the god of candy]

one who applies any form of effort to acquire goods or currency... so everybody. but that would be more like free market capitalism.


socialism is just crap and doesn't work. why do people keep discussing it? it's been around for decades and we already know it's a stupid ******** idea.

[Cory Shallow]

It would be more interesting if you could actually define "Proletariat, or largely propertyless person". When is a person so propertyless that they cease to fall under the paradigm of propertarianism? When they live in a cave and leave their implements out in the rain on the off-chance other survivalists would want to borrow them? This is the kink in your bullshit stroganoff, not the definition of 'worker'.

[Dermezel2]

logan the god of candy

one who applies any form of effort to acquire goods or currency... so everybody. but that would be more like free market capitalism.

A rational system will utilize both.

[Yasano]

- A worker is something most in our modern age are not; most are lazy, whiny, useless, and lack any ounce of integrity thus making them not really a worker but a space filler. Most of these "workers" obtain their job by the method of "bullshitting" which sadly helps them acquire the position which hinders the possibility of someone who actually can perform the job barring them from employment.

Thus ensues lack of quality.........


I am not going to get into the politics of things. xD