[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1627651256723-0.jpg ( 721.24 KB , 2904x1922 , FIRST_SHIFT_OF_MINERS_AT_T….jpg )

File: 1627651256723-2.jpg ( 135.67 KB , 700x525 , Amazon Warehouse.jpg )

File: 1627651256723-3.jpg ( 943.3 KB , 3000x2000 , elderly-man-working.jpg )

File: 1627651256723-4.jpg ( 103.6 KB , 1000x667 , photo-1560264350-1a8891f44….jpg )

 No.410914

An image beloved of both the internet right and the left. The worker. "Imagine going up to a worker", they say, "and saying what you've just said." Often they are specific: The steelworker, the tired coal miner, the teamster, etc. But one must ask: what does the worker of today look like?

This figure is everywhere, watching over us. We like this idea of the worker, he is pleasing to have around. He works a real job, a job that produces things. There is unfortunately a catch: A soldier is closer to a representation of the average western worker than he is. (Some quick numbers: US coal mines employ about 50,000 people. The US military has 480,000 soldiers.) No, if you want an image of the average worker today, you're looking at the other pictures. People with smartphones and Twitter accounts. People who'll talk your ears off about films, not good films like Blue Collar (1978), films like Black Widow (2021), which they don't even watch in photogenic cinemas - no, they watch them in bed on their laptops, or perhaps if they're still students then with a HDMI cable awkwardly slung from a precariously balanced MacBook Pro in the middle of their shared flats. They're not the people you wish were your dad, they're the people you went to school if you're not underaged. A disproportionate number of them have degrees. Or perhaps they're the old people, practically invisible to you now. The middle aged ones who sit watching daytime television. The unemployed. The people who get in your way at the supermarket, the people who sit beside you on the bus when you'd really rather be left alone listening to your spotify playlist.
They are not, by and large, "aesthetic". There is no gigantic repertoire of social realist art to look on that will make you appreciate the low paid social worker in her office tabbing through an excel sheet of case-work. No obvious visible end product from the care workers looking after forgotten retirees. Some think "after the revolution, I will be a miner", but who thinks "after the revolution, I will work in the [former] amazon warehouse."? And it is this force, this lack of a clear image in one's mind that is so pernicious. Without a clear image of the modern working class, people quickly fall back to their file photo - the working class of the days before everyone had a colour television.

So what? "Well", you think "First of all I object to your characterization, you haven't specifically highlighted…" yeah, great. That's not relevant. Here's what's relevant: If you're marketing anything from Anti-Aircraft Guns to Pepsi to Zimbabwean holidays, you've got to know your target market. Socialists rarely do. /leftypol/ in particular has a glaring vulnerability in that it's also interlinked with imageboard culture, which has its own set of norms which are often clashing and contradictory. It's not uncommon on /tech/ to see, for example: We are leftists, we love the workers, and yet we hate 'normalfa–normies!'' - bad news! You're talking about the same people! Put the "um actually" screencap away: It's the same people! Your lot just don't know how to market to them!
Even those socialists who aren't naive enough to fall into the trap of "What would THE WORKERS think of this?" often fall into it by stealth when trying to advance their cause. It is surely a fact that communist parties have devoted more time fretting about how to make REAL socialism appealing to the relatively small number of unionized railway drivers than they have to finding a way to make it appealing to the much greater number of underemployed Tumblr users. That's something that will have to be resolved as a simple matter of fact, however much you might not like many of the groups that entails rallying together: You can't say "workers of the world unite!" in one breath, and then go "except the Tumblr users, the ones with bad taste in films, the ugly ones, the university educated, the deviants, the Windows users, the call centre workers, the Polish, the ones without a "real" job, the city dwellers, the unemployed, the country dwellers…." in the next.
No, if you want to lead the working class, the first thing you're going to need to do is get clear in your mind who actually composes it. Then you're going to have to remind yourself that your job is to rally them all together based on their common class interests.
>>

 No.410921

What?
>>

 No.410922

>People with smartphones and Twitter accounts. People who'll talk your ears off about films, not good films like Blue Collar (1978), films like Black Widow (2021), which they don't even watch in photogenic cinemas
is this pasta? anyways in the US it's more difficult because you don't need to unite all the people in your picture. any movement only needs a 1/3rd of the population's support to gain power. theoretically you could dominate US politics by only appealing to white male workers, which is what the right is trying to do. hence all the debate around a fictitious working class that is 90% white men. even the liberals out themselves as retards when they get trapped by wignat soys into saying that the working class is mostly angry white guys.
>>

 No.410926

Idealist drivel, sage
>>

 No.410934

>>410926
idealism. noun: noticing that walmart, the third largest employer on the planet, has a 57% female workforce.
>>

 No.410940

>>410934
Go to your idpol containment thread please. Sage
>>

 No.410941

>>410914
>An image beloved of both the internet right and the left.
What? Literally most of the right idolize only petit bourgeois small business owners. Workers who got included in that bunch are usually the people who struck at luck and got rich.
They abhor both the workers at home and the foreign workers.
>>

 No.410951

>>410914
>There is no gigantic repertoire of social realist art to look on that will make you appreciate the low paid social worker in her office tabbing through an excel sheet of case-work.
That sounds kinda cool though. I'd like to see socialist realist art like that.

Video of some workers in Texas.
>>

 No.410968

>>410921
picture "the workers" in your mind
now tell me: does the group that comes to mind align itself with the actual makeup of jobs in your countries workforce?

>>410922
not a word of pasta.
i wouldn't say you have to unite literally everyone, but even if you set a target of 1/3 of the population, it's practically impossible to achieve that without running up against the fact that most of those people are going to be service sector employees.

>>410940
Sage, like Idpol, isn't even here idiot.

>>410941
they abhor workers, they like (or like to use) the image of workers. compare say, this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbRRsbGUz9Q with the actual demography of the american workforce. or (since the original was specifically about the internet right) that one stonetoss comic that's like "we support the working class!" "well shucks" "[uncomfortable liberal]". (i could find it, but fuck him, it's a shit comic.)

>>410951
by all means such art should exist. that it doesn't, or doesn't in quantity, is a missed opportunity. (and tbh one that wouldn't even be that hard to rectify, it's not like there's a shortage of artists on the left.)

based video
>>

 No.410975

>>410968
>picture "the workers" in your mind
people stuck in shitty service industry jobs
>does the group that comes to mind align itself with the actual makeup of jobs in your countries workforce?
around here at least, yeah
>>

 No.410987

Extremely based. Should be published at New Multiude
>>

 No.411140

>>410921
He is annoyed that tech autists don't value the same things that normies do, and like all normies it bugs him and makes him hate them for being like that.
>>

 No.411144

If you are not directly producing a product with your own hands you are not a worker. You are a labor aristocrat. It doesn't matter how much money you are paid. My ideology is not obsolete, you are just a revisionist.
>>

 No.411158

>>410914
>you don’t know how to market to them.
Really? This is nothing but idealist claptrap.

sage this thread.
>>

 No.411172

i do not care in the slightest how workers look, how they are percieved or what image comes to mind when i hear the word "workers". pure idealism.
what matters is their relationship with the means of production, have you forgotten?

>We are leftists, we love the workers, and yet we hate 'normalfa–normies!''

some of the most revealing projection i have ever seen
a bunch of imageboard-using retards being mad about "le normies" is not indicative of any real problem of the non-american left and if you think it is you need to log off
>>

 No.411275

The working class does not exist
>>

 No.411283

>>411172
>a bunch of imageboard-using retards being mad about "le normies"
It is a very real problem online and IRL tbh.
>>

 No.411309

>We like this idea of the worker, he is pleasing to have around.
What?
>He works a real job, a job that produces things.
That's not how the working class is defined.
>they're still students then with a HDMI cable awkwardly slung from a precariously balanced MacBook Pro in the middle of their shared flats. They're not the people you wish were your dad
Would be fucked up if my dad were younger than me.
> they're the people you went to school if
Try again in English.
>A disproportionate number of them have degrees.
Disproportionate is a contrasting word. You need to establish some standard of what is normal in order to have a contrast, but you haven't done that.
>They are not, by and large, "aesthetic".
This is true of large groups of people in general.
>No obvious visible end product
Again, that's not how the working class is defined.
>Some think "after the revolution, I will be a miner"
What the fuck are you on about? This is not a popular job.
>but who thinks "after the revolution, I will work in the [former] amazon warehouse."?
I work a warehouse job and it hasn't occurred to me to work as a coal miner (WTF). I think having the same job is the most probable scenario.
>Without a clear image of the modern working class, people quickly fall back to their file photo - the working class of the days before everyone had a colour television.
I assure you nurses and teachers and other service jobs are older than TV.
>imageboard culture, which has its own set of norms
Imageboards don't glorify coal miners. Imageboards are full of underage, NEETs, retail. And the right-wingers on imageboards tend to glorify small-business owners.
>It is surely a fact that communist parties have devoted more time fretting about how to make REAL socialism appealing to the relatively small number of unionized railway drivers
You sound like a person who got interested in politics (or a "social-media" simulacrum of that) one week ago and is now desperate to show the world how smart they are. You have never been to a communist party meeting. You are a very young person constantly making up fictional people in your head to be mad about or to ridicule.

>>410987
Yeah, publish! What a great idea. We had a mag before New Multitude and the first article was hardcore Zionist rubbish. It's a continuation of the /leftypol/ tradition that the most misinformed people here have the biggest delusions about being intellectuals. Let's share their farts with the world!
>>

 No.411338

File: 1627667565517.jpg ( 27.66 KB , 601x508 , 086701af3d4a870a2001fba209….jpg )

>>

 No.411352

>>411283
i have NEVER seen this outside of imageboards and edgy meme accounts.
>>

 No.411391

>>411309
>That's not how the working class is defined.
The title of the thread isn't "Working class", it's "Worker". You fucking idiot, you absolute moron. You tried to do the imageboard pedant attacking sentence fragments bit and you fucked it up in the second line. (Yes, I am just using you as an excuse to bump, thank you for not asking.)
>>

 No.411399

>>411283
>it's a very real """""""problem""""""""
the state of normalfaggots lmao
>>

 No.411416

Retarded succdem strikes again

"worker" which is a vague term, Marxists used proletariat
a Proletariat is a wage earner and yes that means people working in sweatshops in asia as well as the fat walmart sheboon to the upper middle class office worker. All produce value that is stolen from them by their employer.

>This figure is everywhere, watching over us. We like this idea of the worker, he is pleasing to have around. He works a real job, a job that produces things. There is unfortunately a catch: A soldier is closer to a representation of the average western worker than he is. (Some quick numbers: US coal mines employ about 50,000 people. The US military has 480,000 soldiers.) No, if you want an image of the average worker today, you're looking at the other pictures

there is no "image of the average worker" the work force is incredibly diverse

>They are not, by and large, "aesthetic". There is no gigantic repertoire of social realist art to look on that will make you appreciate the low paid social worker in her office tabbing through an excel sheet of case-work

probably because no one likes those jobs. at least manual labor while rough can be enjoyable if you're friends with people there.
No so much at the HR department

Is there even a point you're making here?
Are you a grad student? you talk a lot without saying anything
>>

 No.411452

>>411416
>Is there even a point you're making here?
What's your problem? Can't deal with concentrated intellectual energy? Here are the key points:
1. OP is making up people who say something like the working class is all burly man with hard hats and whites only.
2. Then OP says: But many workers aren't like that. FREE YOUR MIND. I am very smart.
3. Then comes the part of accusing leftists of being outdated based on the (false) claim that at some point in the past the working class did overwhelmingly look like the hallucination of those people who themselves are hallucinations of OP.
4. OP declares the problem with everybody who isn't OP is that they fail to look at reality.
5. It ends with some vague accusation that the hard left is elitist and doesn't care about ordinary people (this is mandatory when writing such an essay if you want to be published in The Guardian or some other respectable progressive outlet).
>>

 No.411462

>>411140
impressive use of death of the author to spin your own interpretation, alas i'm quite undead and here to offer my own view:
a more apt interpretation would be that i'm mocking tech autists for their idealism: they don't appreciate the material factors that drive people to use one product over another, and as such they're bad at evangelizing. they get to feel superior, sure, that's even a social pull for some people, but if your end goal is to have everyone using good software and not bad software, you're on a road to nowhere with the present strategy.
i trust you can't see the gigantic flashing "hint hint" on this, but others might enjoy it.

>>411144
what about bus drivers, teamsters, train drivers, and on and on and on. your own definition only really captures the means of production. distribution and exchange be damned?

>>411158
genuinely impressive how many posters on /leftypol/ can find a post that is essentially attacking idealism, saying that a common idealized image people hold has no modern material basis, and go "ah, yes, idealism."
but very telling that none of them manage a comprehensive response. none say "this is idealist, and here is why", all the bulk of them can say is "idealism! sage!"

>>411172
>what matters is their relationship with the means of production, have you forgotten?
on the contrary, it is what i am trying to emphasize. the problem is that people think "workers relation to the means of production" and then go "yes, a coal miner and his coal, a steelworker and his steal" rather than a checkout operator and her till. a shelf stacker and his cans. an airline catering worker and her i (i freely admit i don't know anything about airline food).
>a bunch of imageboard-using retards being mad about "le normies" is not indicative of any real problem of the non-american left
it is, however, something that people on this board do. something it might be useful to point out so as to make them angry and bring them into the open, something which (even if you will go to your grave calling me an idealist) i'm sure you will agree has been successful.

>>411275
bold and brash, i like it.

411309 (no you) jesus christ

>>411416
>"worker" which is a vague term, Marxists used proletariat
I'm glad nobody on /leftypol/ ever says worker.
>there is no "image of the average worker" the work force is incredibly diverse
Google image search "worker", quite literally everyone is wearing hard hats.
>Is there even a point you're making here?
Several, but this post has gone on quite too long already and I like to leave it so that we get posts like…
>>411452
Because it really is amazing how you can make people contort their interpretation of a post just by using a certain flag.
(And really, The Guardian! I won't settle for less than the New Statesman.)
>>

 No.412278

>>411462
>Writing a serious answer to >>411144
That one was clearly baiting. Also:
>411309 (no you) jesus christ
You already replied to that post in >>411391 but forgot to turn of your flag for that.

Lurk more.
>>

 No.412295

>>410914
Dont care what "typical worker" looks like, thinks, believes or wants.
Scientific socialism shows what is now and what needs to be done. And that will be done, regardless of how it looks to workers or even whether workers agree with it.

Read.
>>

 No.412475

>>410914

Most workers can't be fully taught everything. We just have to hope for gradual victories like unionization of stores, increasing knowledge about income inequality and income theft by the bougie etc.
>>

 No.412542

File: 1627717080544.jpg ( 77.65 KB , 430x700 , 134168927750.jpg )

>>410914
I agree about everything except
>the Polish
Some workers just don't count as human.
>>

 No.412762

>>412278
>That one was clearly baiting
It was also one of the few with the potential to go somewhere interesting. I hope this isn't an admission that you posted it and then ran out of ideas, that would be very embarrassing.
I never forget to turn off my flag. On very rare occasions I forget to turn it on. I replied to line 1 and 2 of >>jesus fucking christ in the first post, then offered my view of the post as a whole later on. The result of doing so was to bring out two more people to reply to.

That you couldn't put this together yourself suggests that you need to lurk more, ideally on 4chan.org, where you belong.

>>412295
>Dont care what "typical worker" looks like, thinks, believes or wants.
Leninhat, I'm not sure even you believe that. You'd surely be pleased if the typical worker was successfully convinced to subscribe to the CPGB-ML's newspapers.
>>

 No.412972

>>412762
>A shitpost making fun of me had the most potential for serious discussion
And that says a lot about society.
>>

 No.412974

I don't know what you people in this thread are crying about (I bet it's just the succdem flag). OP made a simple point. There is an idealized image in the heads of a lot of people of The Worker as a burly, sweaty man with a face covered in soot working in a steel mill or something. This image doesn't correspond to what the majority of proletarian wage workers in developed countries actually do for a living. This is correct and worth pointing out.
>>

 No.412984

File: 1627742170677.jpeg ( 24.92 KB , 739x415 , 1623631068529.jpeg )

>>

 No.412985

>>410914
Very good post as usual Socdemanon. Far far too many people on this site and elsewhere have the idealised image of a 'worker' from 100 years ago and nothing but contempt for the workers of today.
>>

 No.413006

>>410914
idk who the fuck you're talking to, you're preaching to the choir here. This isn't stupidpol where we're jerking it to some idealized version of a 1930s factory worker/soot covered miner, we all understand that a amazon warehouse worker is a worker.
>>

 No.413017

>>413006
I've 100% seen this rhetoric run rampant on here, it's usually disguised behind some kind of rhetorical trick like calling 50% or more of the population 'PMC'.
>>

 No.413022

>>413017
hating on PMCS + socdem just ends up devolving into aimee terese/tucker carlson thought, its not even socdem really just capitalism with some nominally workerist industrial/trade policies
>>

 No.413028

>>413022
Right. It's just right-wing populism, even the scant concessions they do say should happen, they would never actually do if they were in charge.
>>

 No.413039

Normalfaggotry: The soul of man under Capitalism
>>

 No.413046

>>412974
>OP made a simple point.
I got two for you:
1. The claim about the working class being more diverse than white muscle guys is a banality that fits into a tweet and OP is a pretentious windbag about it.
2. OP is creating strawman communists: "It is surely a fact that communist parties have devoted more time fretting about how to make REAL socialism appealing to the relatively small number of unionized railway drivers…"
In my country the communists talk all the time about the non-unionized, unemployed/underemployed, and so on. They talk more about it than the socdems who in turn talk more about it than the conservatives. This is how it is here. This is how it is in other countries. We recently had a thread about the campaigns of the JCP and their various mascots representing different groups. Even the socialist propaganda posters from the last century don't follow OP's stereotyping, showing instead plenty of nurses and musicians and students and women operating machinery.

OP is just regurgitating indoctrination about what communists are like and then criticizing that picture instead of actually observing what they say and do.
>>

 No.413073

>>413046
>We recently had a thread about the campaigns of the JCP and their various mascots representing different groups.
The JCP are socdems who threw a massive party in a strip club when the USSR collapsed, it's not surprising that it's also a party that has gone down the route of idpol pandering
>>

 No.413254

File: 1627752296000.jpg ( 42.39 KB , 672x310 , sairaanhoitaja2_2013.jpg__….jpg )

>>410914
>Amazon workers
Funny you should bring them up. I personally point to the Amazon workers and the proliferation of warehouse work in general as a proof that the blue collar proletariat remains the backbone of even the so called developed economies. One could add food delivery workers to the list, and other logistics and servide workers. The point is that grueling, miind numbing and often physical labour is still a huge chunk of what the proletariat spend their lives on. Of course what the specific jobs these people are employed on have changed, but warehouse workers are most likely even closer to the factory proletariat of the last century, than modern machinists for example, in terms of what kinds of labour they do.

One more observation though. I'm a warehouse and factory worker, and in the recent years I've seen the rise of a new kind of factory. There are now companies, in the developed Western countries, that rent out or lease IT equipment and also buy/trade and fix up used equipment the then go onto resell. I've work in one such "cutting edge" factory, and it was the most manual labour I've ever done in my life. There are very few processes that can be automated, and almost everything is done by hand. I expect this type of work to proliferate in the coming decades.

Currently I work at another electronics factory, but on the logistics rather than the assembly line, and what the warehouse workers do is much more physically demanding than the line workers. And what I do is pretty idyllic compared to what workers have to do in these huge warehouses where people spend all day picking up orders based on voice command etc.

Back in the neighbourhood I grew up in most guys from working class families went to either logistics or health care. One guy from a paper mill family first worked at elderly care before becoming a truck driver. Women went to health care, youth work, social work etc. I quite frankly don't understand how people act like nurses being working class is some revelation. It's a super demamding, low wage job, and everyone who works in that field that I've ever met came from a blue collar family or neighborhood.

>>413046
/thread
>>

 No.413262

>>413254
>I quite frankly don't understand how people act like nurses being working class is some revelation.
Pretty sure Barbara Ehrenreich, whose work has suddenly become very popular among anti-idpol types, classified nurses as "PMC" lol.
>>

 No.413319

>>413262
>classified nurses as "PMC"
sounds like a complete retard, how can anyone take her seriously ? or is it only among theorylets ?
>>

 No.413336

>>413319
>or is it only among theorylets ?
From what I've seen, yes.
>>

 No.413350

Gaslighting: The Post
>>

 No.413353

>>413262
Do you have a citation for that.
>>

 No.413358

>>413350
You're making this up. There never was a post.
>>

 No.413371

Bump thread
>>

 No.413381

>>413353
>First formulated by Barbara Ehrenreich and John Ehrenreich in a pair of essays in the journal Radical America in the late 1970s, the idea of the “professional-managerial class” was originally part of an attempted materialist explanation of the political stability of American capitalism in the 20th century, and in particular the failure of the New Left to overthrow it.
>a new middle class, whose purpose was to supervise the accumulation process and keep the unruly proletariat in line: researchers and engineers to transform the production process; teachers, doctors, nurses, and managers to sculpt, maintain, and control the workforce; cultural workers to produce commercialized mass entertainment and ideology, displacing the pathologized pleasures of the ghetto; social workers and lawyers to deal with the ensuing social problems when people deviated from this disciplinary grid.

https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/professional-managerial-chasm/

>This group of middle class professionals is distinguished from other social classes by their training and education, typically business qualifications and university degrees, with occupations including academics, teachers, social workers, engineers, managers, nurses, and middle-level administrators.

>The term was coined in 1977 by John and Barbara Ehrenreich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional%E2%80%93managerial_class

>"Sometimes, like in healthcare, it’s very hard to get nurses to form alliances with the technicians and even the lower-level nursing staff. And that’s because nurses have such a fragile grip on professionalism themselves."


https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/on-the-origins-of-the-professional-managerial-class-an-interview-with-barbara-ehrenreich

I haven't read any of Ehrenreich's work myself but it seems commonly accepted that nurses and teachers are part of the PMC, and she came up with the concept. I also can't find a quote by her saying nurses are not PMC. I don't think she's saying that nurses are a inherently reactionary, but that they belong to a stratum above the "real" working class and aren't likely to form an alliance with the working class because of their "fragile grip on professionalism" and fear of being "properly" proletarianized.
>>

 No.413390

>>413353 (me)
>>413381
I of course meant a citation from the person that you are accusing of actually saying what you are acccusing her of saying.
>>

 No.413400

>>413390
*I of course meant a citation from the person that you are accusing actually saying what you are accusing her of saying.
>>

 No.413441

File: 1627759012841.png ( 68.79 KB , 717x776 , 2.png )

>>413400
The last quote is from Barbara Ehrenreich herself and I thought it implied pretty clearly that she sees nurses as distinct from the "real" working class. But fine, I found the Ehrenreich's "The Professional-Managerial Class" and read some of it.

They claim that nurses are part of the PMC. However they emphasize that nurses are a lower stratum of the PMC and that the line between the lower PMC and the working class can be blurry and not always well defined.
>>

 No.413471

>>413441
>The last quote is from Barbara Ehrenreich herself and I thought it implied pretty clearly that
I'm not quite seeing that, but you are right that the original text coining the term kinda does it. So I know agree with you. I looked up the Ehrenreich after >>413262 and have found the interview myself and the thing that you are now posting (which got linked by that interview) and I was about to comment on that: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/on-the-origins-of-the-professional-managerial-class-an-interview-with-barbara-ehrenreich So here we go:

"We define the Professional-Managerial class as salaried mental workers who do not own the means of production and whose major function in the social division of labor may be described broadly as the reproduction of capitalist culture and capitalist class relations."
-Barbara and John Ehrenreich: "The Professional-Managerial Class" in "Radical America", issue March-April 1977, page 13. That seems to describe to describe managers, not nurses. But then on the next page it goes on listing registered nurses as an example of "people near the divide separating the PMC from other classes". Clear as mud. They admit it's muddy and justify that by saying reality is muddy because the nurse may be in a managing position, "supervising dozens, even hundreds". Well then, why not instead just use the distinction of the IWW, who say that what matters is whether you are in a position where you can make hiring/firing decisions?

I just want to point out one thing, which has nothing to do with the truthiness of your claim about Ehrenreich, but with your method of talking online. You just lazily spread rumors about people based on vague impressions like people do on Twitter, and I find this irritating to no end. That the gamble worked out in this particular case is irrelevant. When you do that repeatedly, in the big picture it just leads to more misinformation being spread.
>>

 No.413474

>>413381
Ehrenreich isn't completely stupid. I think in some ways the PMC is just a more modern and deeper analysis of what Marx and later Lenin called the labour aristocracy. The problem with the latter term is that people on the Left who fit the classification use it to depict the working class of "TeH fIrRsTt WwwÖrrRlDhh" as a whole, thus justyfying their own petty bourgeois Leftism (the workers can't be won over anyways). PMC hits them harder and pisses them off something fierce.

The problem with PMC of course is that it very easilly starts to be applied to all work that requires a degree. Like calling nurses PMC is just bonkers. But then again calling the people who produce mass entertainment PMC is quite accurate. I just read Jack London's "Iron Heel", and one of the things that jumps out is how in his vision the Artists form a new clergy to serve the oligarchy and provide its justification. He also saw this class of Artists rising from the favoured labour castes and the children of Oligarchy.
>>

 No.413486

You're a faggot if you think most workers are blue haired sjw twattertards like you. You are not a leftist.
>>

 No.413487

File: 1627761202877.png ( 72.57 KB , 260x300 , soyjack.png )

>>413486
> You're a faggot if you think most workers are blue haired sjw twattertards like you. You are not a leftist.
>>

 No.413489

>>413486
Not everyone is bluehaired but le based recreational-suit-wearing cucker carlson devotees are not 'the true workers' either.
>>

 No.413494

>>413471
>I just want to point out one thing, which has nothing to do with the truthiness of your claim about Ehrenreich, but with your method of talking online. You just lazily spread rumors about people based on vague impressions like people do on Twitter, and I find this irritating to no end. That the gamble worked out in this particular case is irrelevant.
Fair enough. I was pretty sure the Ehrenreichs classified nurses as PMC, but obviously I haven't read any of their work until just now so I should've read it before posting that. I wanna say that I don't really have a problem with the Ehrenreichs themselves. I think I disagree with some of their analysis but I think the PMC could be a useful category if you apply it carefully. And to their credit, they are pretty careful with emphasizing that nurses exist in a sort of gray area and that the line between worker and PMC isn't always clear. My problem is mainly with the people use the term defined by the Ehrenreichs in a sloppy, stupid way. Basically they use "PMC" as a pejorative for anyone with a university education and/or "socially progressive"/liberal views regardless of their actual class position.

>>413474
>Ehrenreich isn't completely stupid. I think in some ways the PMC is just a more modern and deeper analysis of what Marx and later Lenin called the labour aristocracy.
>The problem with PMC of course is that it very easilly starts to be applied to all work that requires a degree. Like calling nurses PMC is just bonkers.
Absolutely. When I first saw people use the term PMC it seemed like a useful concept to me. But very quickly I became annoyed with how the term was misused so much it became completely meaningless. For a while on stupidpol (don't know how it is now, I haven't checked in on that shithole in forever), "PMC" was just the word you used when you meant to call someone a "libtard" but you wanted to sound smart.
>>

 No.413500

>>413489
>le based recreational-suit-wearing cucker carlson devotees
wat
>>

 No.413511

>>413500
That was a shot at Groypers (and Caleb Maupin I guess). The point being, workers are pretty normal people who may have niche interests or may not, but they're definitely not soot-faced Appalachian miners.
>>

 No.413619

>>413474
Well that essay as whole was pretty confusing. I found the bit about lack of intermarriage between PMCs and the rest of the world interesting, that's certainly a point in favor of PMCs being a real thing. I don't think PMC / Labor Aristocracy and related concepts will ever have the explanatory strength of the division between on the one side the landlords and owners of the means of production and the workers on the other, nor do I believe PMC/LA will ever have the explanatory strength of just sorting by income level.
>>

 No.413861

>>413619
>I don't think PMC / Labor Aristocracy and related concepts will ever have the explanatory strength of the division between on the one side the landlords and owners of the means of production and the workers on the other
Fair. I prefer to talk about Labour Aristocrats, and I think they're best understood as an upper caste of labour that serve as the retinue of the owners and in tve case of media, the clergy of the state. The character of this caste is easilly grasped when you look at corrupt and de-fanged union bosses, for example. They may consider themselves Left, working class even, but ultimatelly they think tge ideal is a capitalist world in which the relations between the exploiters and the exploited is managed through a caste of enlightened technocrats such as themselves.

Unique IPs: 34

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome