- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Rotating Candy from a baby

Posted by: Gee ( si ) on December 21, 1999 at 15:00:47:

In Reply to: RD's Candy-coated Marxism posted by Barry Stoller on December 21, 1999 at 11:15:36:

Hello Barry its Gee......

Count to ten.....

Right, now that your immediate reaction has vented or dissapated please read the response below.

You seem to understand what job rotation will require - not some happy-go-lucky voluntary association, but strict and if necessary harsh authority and enforcement. If one person on Earth is 'allowed' to be a brain surgeon exclusively then there will be social division of labor - and that much more portering to go round.

Ofcourse thats how a nasty socialist state might work. Privilage for the party members and enforcers, and rotation for everyone else (in the hope that all the extra portering that the party doesnt do isnt too heavily noticed by the proles).

Ofcourse you have said that all jobs need to be rotated so as to avoid the above. Indeed they would.

Job rotation seems clearly not voluntary in the sense RD meant:

"EACH CITIZEN should be required to perform an equal amount of unskilled work (preferably unskilled work of their choosing);"

This clearly shows job rotation to be an obligation - and for obligations we require enforcement lest the obligation become toothless. You have noted that many people, college grads for instance, do not like the above idea. That represents alot of people. I would suggest that those who disagree with obligatory job rotation are, and will increasingly become (as specialisation continues to develop), of such number that no enforcement save the most savage will be enough to ensure the obligation is properly served.

So it is a voluntary scheme - it has to be because any significant level of disagreement will quickly wreck the system, or result in the necessity of the most strict enforcement. And as those who are enforcers will be rotated themselves I would not like to predict the outcome.

It simply underlines that socialism as RD describes it requires the most overwhelming voluntary assent. Socialism as BS describes it requires either the most overwhelming voluntary assent or a majority sufficiently powerful and willing to see its will done despite the protests of naysayers (whom themselves will be rotated into political and enforcement roles), and to use such force as necessary to accomplish this.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup