• unfreeradical@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Listen. The topic is terminology and constructs imposing on workers a division, of some being “unskilled”.

    You had suggested that such norms have a “logistical” (e.g. natural) utility, as for example of career counselors seeking to process cases more efficiently. Your repeated insistence that I have invoked an appeal to nature, even in spite of my denial, is dishonest.

    I sought to challenge your representation of the natural utility for the construct of the “unskilled worker”, and your representation of its occurrence in society. Constructs are not equally helpful to everyone. Society has structure.

    Capitalists organize the division of labor, the recruitment of workers, and perpetuate the wage system.

    The term “unskilled worker”, obviously, is a construct reproduced by capitalists, toward the effect of marginalizing a cohort of the working class, and keeping the class divided and therefore disempowered, against becoming conscious of being oppressed beneath the wage system.

    There is no argument to be won, or grand solution to be proposed. There is no value merely in subjecting the privileged to “bashing”.

    Value derives from being critical over how society is organized, and the processes by which it is reproduced, and from seeking the opportunities for meaningful change.

    Answers and solutions cannot simply be passed to you, as though on a silver platter. You need to think and to learn, to ask questions yourself, and to try to answer them, with an attitude that is critical, not avoidant or assured.

    What is abundantly clear is that if you are protected the construct of the “unskilled workers”, then you are protecting capitalists, and harming the working class.