What is a worker?

[Good4Nothin]

I would like some of the socialists here to please explain what they mean by the word "worker."

Is a worker someone who does physical work? Like digging a ditch or making pizza? What about mental work?

Is a worker someone who produces something tangible? Like bagels or automobiles? Is a writer a worker?

What about people who get ideas and invent things? Is that work? If not, what is it?

What about people who coordinate the activities of people who do physical work. Are these coordinators workers? Are managers and supervisors workers?

What about the marketing and accounting professionals in a company? They don't physically make the product, but their activities are essential for the success of the business?

In general, can professionals be considered workers? Are medical doctors workers? If not, what do are they doing all day if not working? Are lawyers workers?

Who is NOT a worker? Isn't anyone who does something to earn money a worker? So that means business owners are workers also, since they run their business in order to make money.

Marx's theory is rubbish.

 

[Irredentist]

I would like some of the socialists here to please explain what they mean by the word "worker."

Is a worker someone who does physical work? Like digging a ditch or making pizza? What about mental work?

Is a worker someone who produces something tangible? Like bagels or automobiles? Is a writer a worker?

What about people who get ideas and invent things? Is that work? If not, what is it?

What about people who coordinate the activities of people who do physical work. Are these coordinators workers? Are managers and supervisors workers?

What about the marketing and accounting professionals in a company? They don't physically make the product, but their activities are essential for the success of the business?

In general, can professionals be considered workers? Are medical doctors workers? If not, what do are they doing all day if not working? Are lawyers workers?

Who is NOT a worker? Isn't anyone who does something to earn money a worker? So that means business owners are workers also, since they run their business in order to make money.

Marx's theory is rubbish.

The concept of the "working class" isn't unique to Marxist theory. It generally refers to wage earners, as opposed to salaried employees. These are the people generally considered "workers", or in Marxist theory, the proletariat. They are distinguished from business owners, or the bourgeoisie, by the fact that the do not own the means of production or the products of their own labor.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The concept of the "working class" isn't unique to Marxist theory. It generally refers to wage earners, as opposed to salaried employees. These are the people generally considered "workers", or in Marxist theory, the proletariat. They are distinguished from business owners, or the bourgeoisie, by the fact that the do not own the means of production or the products of their own labor.

That (bolded above) is utter nonsense and would exclude, for example, those serving in the military as being workers.

 

[MrPeanut]

I always thought that workers were essentially all employees. Employers would not be considered workers as far as I can tell.

 

[Good4Nothin]

The concept of the "working class" isn't unique to Marxist theory. It generally refers to wage earners, as opposed to salaried employees. These are the people generally considered "workers", or in Marxist theory, the proletariat. They are distinguished from business owners, or the bourgeoisie, by the fact that the do not own the means of production or the products of their own labor.

Ok, but ... don't the salaried employees work? And if the wage earners took over, wouldn't they no longer be considered workers, according to Marx?

Sorry, the whole thing MAKES NO SENSE.

 

[Good4Nothin]

That (bolded above) is utter nonsense and would exclude, for example, those serving in the military as being workers.

It would also exclude MOST PEOPLE WHO WORK!

 

[Irredentist]

That (bolded above) is utter nonsense and would exclude, for example, those serving in the military as being workers.

I don't think either Marxist theory, nor popular conception generally consider soldiers to be "workers". They don't necessarily make much money it's true, but they are employees of the state, not wage earners, and receive substantially greater benefits.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I always thought that workers were essentially all employees. Employers would not be considered workers as far as I can tell.

But employers work also. There is no way to divide workers from non-workers within a company.

 

[Irredentist]

Ok, but ... don't the salaried employees work? And if the wage earners took over, wouldn't they no longer be considered workers, according to Marx?

Sorry, the whole thing MAKES NO SENSE.

Marxist theory envisions society through the lens of class struggle, where the working class strive against their exploitation at the hands of wealthy capitalists and property owners.

Regardless of whether you agree with this interpretation or not, that is his theory, and unions, for example, are one example of class struggle.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I don't think either Marxist theory, nor popular conception generally consider soldiers to be "workers". They don't necessarily make much money it's true, but they are employees of the state, not wage earners, and receive substantially greater benefits.

Ok well, what about police? Teachers? Medical professionals? Writers? Inventors? Artists? Accountants? Software developers? Marketing professionals?

What about everyone who does mental or creative work?? Is a worker just the guy who turns a screw on the assembly line?

Come on! This is a SERIOUS problem with Marxism, a theory that is STILL POPULAR among academics!!!!

 

[Irredentist]

Ok well, what about police? Teachers? Medical professionals? Writers? Inventors? Artists? Accountants? Software developers? Marketing professionals?

What about everyone who does mental or creative work?? Is a worker just the guy who turns a screw on the assembly line?

Come on! This is a SERIOUS problem with Marxism, a theory that is STILL POPULAR among academics!!!!

I am not disagreeing that Marxist ideology and definitions are imperfect. Of course they are. No ideology is perfect. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. Unions and strikes are good things.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Marxist theory envisions society through the lens of class struggle, where the working class strive against their exploitation at the hands of wealthy capitalists and property owners.

Regardless of whether you agree with this interpretation or not, that is his theory, and unions, for example, are one example of class struggle.

I KNOW!!!!

But it doesn't make sense! Especially not today. It is NOT POSSIBLE to differentiate between workers and non-workers!! I have explained this well enough.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I am not disagreeing that Marxist ideology and definitions are imperfect. Of course they are. No ideology is perfect. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. Unions and strikes are good things.

I am not saying Marxism isn't perfect. I am saying it is a PILE OF RUBBISH.

 

[Chomsky]

That (bolded above) is utter nonsense and would exclude, for example, those serving in the military as being workers.

He's speaking in terms of Classical Marxism, and I believe he's right within that theoretical framework.

 

[MrPeanut]

But employers work also. There is no way to divide workers from non-workers within a company.

Your mixing up two things. Truckers drive trucks and I drive a truck but I am not a trucker. A worker is defined as someone who sells their labor to someone else. It isn't just someone that does some kind of work. I haven't read any Marx though so my knowledge of all of this is pretty shallow. I just know that workers and bosses are very different things.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Your mixing up two things. Truckers drive trucks and I drive a truck but I am not a trucker. A worker is defined as someone who sells their labor to someone else. It isn't just someone that does some kind of work. I haven't read any Marx though so my knowledge of all of this is pretty shallow. I just know that workers and bosses are very different things.

Salaried employees sell their labor to their employer. But someone else said salaried employers are NOT workers.

Everyone seems to assume that Marx knew what he was talking about. But he didn't! Really!

 

[Irredentist]

I KNOW!!!!

But it doesn't make sense! Especially not today. It is NOT POSSIBLE to differentiate between workers and non-workers!! I have explained this well enough.

The reason that Marxist philosophy is somewhat dated and doesn't apply perfectly to modern society is because it is almost two hundred years old and written in the context of early industrialization, and the beginning of modern class stratification. The concept of a "middle class" was only just starting to exist, which is why Marxist theory doesn't really account for it. So yes, it's not perfect, but still useful in some ways, as a method of interpretation.

 

[MrPeanut]

Salaried employees sell their labor to their employer. But someone else said salaried employers are NOT workers.

Everyone seems to assume that Marx knew what he was talking about. But he didn't! Really!

Just read some Marx then. I don't know why you are asking all of these questions, not looking into them, and then claiming that Marx is an idiot. If you are genuinely curious about what he believed just read his work.

 

[Irredentist]

I am not saying Marxism isn't perfect. I am saying it is a PILE OF RUBBISH.

You're entitled to your opinion, but there's no doubt that Marxist theory was hugely influential in shaping the 20th century, and it looks set to help shape the 21st as well.

 

[Chomsky]

Ok well, what about police? Teachers? Medical professionals? Writers? Inventors? Artists? Accountants? Software developers? Marketing professionals?

What about everyone who does mental or creative work?? Is a worker just the guy who turns a screw on the assembly line?

Come on! This is a SERIOUS problem with Marxism, a theory that is STILL POPULAR among academics!!!!

I think you're getting hung-up on profession and job duties/responsibilities.

The better way to look at it is by one's position within the system:

1] State
2] Owner
3] Worker

Then look at the specific relationship of the professions you listed above, including their form of deriving income.

1] If they're employed by the government, they're "State".

2] If the work for themselves or have other's work for them, they're "Owner".

3] If they're employed by a non-state individual or entity, they're "Worker".

However, a grey area in modern society would be those that are essentially working as employees, but are considered "contractors". But this relationship is not just a problem in Classical Marxism, but also is very much a problem in modern society as can be exemplified by gig work like Uber.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Just read some Marx then. I don't know why you are asking all of these questions, not looking into them, and then claiming that Marx is an idiot. If you are genuinely curious about what he believed just read his work.

I have read enough about Marxism to know what he said. Actually suffering through his writing would be a tragic waste of time. I already know that it is nonsense.

I read most of Noam Chomsky's non-fiction, which at least is current. I understand that people can become famous by criticizing modern society, without having any better ideas.

No I ain't gonna read Marx and I will be better off for it.

 

[Good4Nothin]

You're entitled to your opinion, but there's no doubt that Marxist theory was hugely influential in shaping the 20th century, and it looks set to help shape the 21st as well.

But ... WHY? He was NOT a great thinker! He criticized early capitalism. Ok fine. He inspired some nightmare revolutions. Terrific. Tell me WHY I should waste three seconds trying to understand his theories. As of now, I am sure they are toxic waste.

 

[Chomsky]

Your mixing up two things. Truckers drive trucks and I drive a truck but I am not a trucker. A worker is defined as someone who sells their labor to someone else. It isn't just someone that does some kind of work. I haven't read any Marx though so my knowledge of all of this is pretty shallow. I just know that workers and bosses are very different things.

Bingo!

 

[Chomsky]

I have read enough about Marxism to know what he said. Actually suffering through his writing would be a tragic waste of time. I already know that it is nonsense.

I read most of Noam Chomsky's non-fiction, which at least is current. I understand that people can become famous by criticizing modern society, without having any better ideas.

No I ain't gonna read Marx and I will be better off for it.

:thumbs:

 

[Good4Nothin]

I think you're getting hung-up on profession and job duties/responsibilities.

The better way to look at it is by one's position within the system:

1] State
2] Owner
3] Worker

Then look at the specific relationship of the professions you listed above, including their form of deriving income.

1] If they're employed by the government, they're "State".

2] If the work for themselves or have other's work for them, they're "Owner".

3] If they're employed by a non-state individual or entity, they're "Worker".

However, a grey area in modern society would be those that are essentially working as employees, but are considered "contractors". But this relationship is not just a problem in Classical Marxism, but also is very much a problem in modern society as can be exemplified by gig work like Uber.

No, please listen more carefully. There is no worker / non-worker dichotomy. Most Americans do NOT physically produce something to be sold. MENTAL work is MORE IMPORTANT, usually, than physical work. Marx's ideas simply DO NOT APPLY to modern society at all.