The bourgeoisie in my country have pushed the euphemism of “working capital” as something that needs protection from wealth tax. By inseparably connecting capital with jobs, they push the narrative that you cannot tax wealth without removing jobs and consequently hurting the working class. They paid for research groups to prove this connection, but what their research actually showed was that wealth tax creates jobs due to incentivizing keeping profits within the companies they own. The audacity to think owning the means of production is a privilege they should enjoy special treatment to keep is beyond me, but even so, this type of rhetoric keeps gaining ground.
What is the propaganda they are pushing on you, and how can socialist policies prevail if reason loses to made up words changing the narrative?
You must log in or register to comment.
well quiet quitting is the new hotness.
How about “day job”? Gotta have one or you’ll starve on the street, can’t do anything unproductive with your day!
I hate the word “content” and the title “content creator”. It emphasizes the platform/publisher as the actual product and implies anything on it is just interchangeable, vague filling. Is Steven King a content creator for Simon & Schuste?
Here in Mexico is very common for employers to ask us to “ponernos la camiseta” (put on the team jersey). I believe this has football connotations, but I thinks it means the same as taking one for the team. It is mostly used when the employer, manager, sr manager, etc. requests us to do more than we are paid for, e.g. to work longer hours, work on weekends, take on two people jobs, etc.
Always a team/family until you ask for a raise instead of them taking out extra profit.
That’s an excellent question and there are so many. The most recent and prevalent has to be “la valeur travail”, the work value or the work virtue I guess are closest -but it really is untranslatable because it is deliberately so fuzzy. The bourgeoisie is trying hard to turn it into a sort of national and personal pride, to sugarcoat labor until people are begging to be let in on it.
I think there is always something ominous about talking of grand qualities the populace should embody. Trying to spin wanting better work conditions and fair compensation to some kind of ungrateful immoral thing is equally bad.
“Human” as a deceptive descriptor for dehumanizing concepts, practices, or framing of people. “Human resources” is the most common version of that but it doesn’t stop there. When some rich asshole talks about “human” this and “human” that or how they want “fellow humans” to “be better humans” or whatever it’s pretty much always a thin creepy mask over some surveillance state shit or social manipulation.
Reddit had that “remember the human” slogan while normalizing and making excuses for all sorts of cryptofascist shit on that site, including thinly-veiled targeted harassment campaigns trying to drive vulnerable people into self-harm, and all of that was declared to be “not against the rules” and therefore permissible.
“Grindset”
Yeah you’re living life up with your eighty hour week at two minimum wage jobs bro
Imagine grinding anything other than the bones of billionaires.
“Middle class” as a way to pretend that workers, petit bourgeoisie, managers and small capitalists are one homogenous group.
What do you mean by petite bourgeoisie and small capitalist? Thanks :)
From Wikipedia:
Although members of the petite bourgeoisie can buy the labor of others, they typically work alongside their employees, unlike the haute bourgeoisie.
Essentially they are small business owners who employ a few people. Although an owner of a small shop with a few employees does not exclusively sell their labor power for survival, they also do not really own the means of production. As a class they usually identify with the higher bourgeoisie class, but they are not playing on the same level field.
The entire managing class peddles euphemisms for a living, and has done so for generations.
My favorite remains “Human Resources”.
Also “consumer”.
Not quite sure I understand the connotations of this one fully. Could you explain it a little for me?
I see the common reference to working people as “consumers” as emphasizing their role as passive recipients of goods and services who serve primarily to put money into the capitalist system. To call people consumers de-emphasizes and obscures these same people’s role as the producers of value, suggesting that value is produced elsewhere.
