• animist
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    When you say “workers” do you mean the actual workers or some vanguard party of intellectual champagne socialists who make decisions on the workers’ behalf?

    • PorkRoll@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actual workers. If we made a society where people are taken care of, we’d find most folks would be enthusiastic about their work. Saying “people don’t want to work” is often taken at face value when the reality is that most people do want to work, because it helps them feel a sense of purpose. They don’t, however, want to be exploited/work under capitalism because that is soul crushing.

      • animist
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I agree completely with all of that. I just have been duped before by MLs saying worker ownership and what they really mean is their particular political party controlling everything. If everything is run by workers’ councils with no existence of a vanguard party, that would be paradise for me.

        I would also go beyond saying that labor (not “work,” as IMO the word “work” implies labor under capitalism) gives people a sense of purpose in that it gives communities a sense of purpose and connectedness. When we are all sharing in common labor toward the goal of enhancing our community and generally improving lives, we feel a more collectivized responsibility for one another.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Obviously they meant the former since that’s what we’re literally doing here. But even the latter would do a better job managing Twitter/Reddit than what they have now.

      • animist
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it obvious though? MLs mean something very different from anarchists when they say “workers” in this context