: In my recent debates with RD, NJ, and Lark, these gentlemen advocate preindustrial (artisan, peasant) production as a means to mitigate capitalism's horrors. They reject my Marxist proposals to retain the ultra-abundant mode of production that capitalism has developed.
Indeed, I do not, any reference I have made to artisanship has been on the supposed basis of that coming as part of a socialist abundance, as a luxury that socialism could afford.
: Concurrently, RD and Lark (not NJ) reject my call for job rotation.
I think I should clarify this, once and for all, my position is that people may work as the please, which means should someone wish to not rotate they may not, should they wish to they may; and further, that people within a certain structure of society would organically feel it necessary to engage in changing labour roles - what I am against is simply the suggestion that Socialism is enforced job rotation. My sinmple difference with you is that I do not think people will need to be compelled to perform different jobs.
RD is even on the record as saying that 'a professional porter... is a multi-facetted and skilled task, that engages mind and spirit.' Lark, of course, has had his share of similar bloopers.
Why is that a blooper? Further, if someone finds portering to be a pleasant job, who am I to stop them doing it? No-one would be forced to porter, if they did not please to do so.
: It occurs to me that while I advocate keeping capitalism's mode of production (i.e. industrialized, centralized abundance) yet abolishing its social relations (i.e. hierarchy, private ownership of the means of production)---a consistent Marxist program---, these gentlemen urge instead abolishing capitalism's mode of production while retaining its social relations. And that's what I call petty-bourgeois 'socialism.'
I reject that, I do not recall ever calling for private ownership of the means of production, or of hierarchy of any sort - you cannot have free labour under capitalist productive relationships. Simply, I have called, quite consistently, for socialisation of the means of production, and for free social co-operation in engaging in production.
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were willfully misunderstanding me.
For once and for all - socialism, a moneyless, classless, stateless society, where production occurs commonly and democratically by and in the interest of the whole community.