- Capitalism and Alternatives -

an all powerful, all pervading and prevailing mutual aid society.

Posted by: Lark on January 31, 19100 at 13:34:47:

In Reply to: My problem is that job rotation can never be entirely equal posted by Pete on January 30, 19100 at 20:26:32:

: You know, it's only one guy who has been talking about job rotation, Barry Stoller. So the phrase "it's insinuated time and again" casts a larger net than what is actually the case. If I didn't know you for the dedicated freedom seeker you are, I'd suggest that you're exaggerating so as to contrive to misunderstand. As it is, though, you're just thumbing your nose at Stoller, but you haven't thought this through.

Pardon my behaviour if it has seemed so but Barry has made that accusation about three times.

: What "lesser tasks" could possibly mean another 5 years training? Most tasks, certainly all the "lesser ones" take no training at all. It's things like taking out the garbage and sweeping floors.

Oh, I really wouldnt mind any of those tasks if the work conditions where good, the reward, in pay or whatever, was good and I wasnt being bullied by the 'pitbulls' (employers or senior ranking officials). What I meant was if I was a social worker and suddenly I was told now you must be a mechanic, builder, joiner, farmer I dont know anything about those things and I probably would be useless in that type of work with nothing more than a crash course.

: Lark: I dont want the hassle of being transfered about every time I find a job I like with people I like etc.

: You know, if we were to make your objections to job rotation a broader rule, then our new socialist society would have problems getting unpleasant tasks done.

Possibly, I'm aware that my posts can appear to err on the side of so individualistic/libertarian to appear like so much anti-democratic silliness, that's unintentional but I dont want a system that commits itself full time to 'apeing' capitalism's inhumane coercion even it's more fair.

: Lark: Plus I've got a hatred of the sight of blood, I'm ill tempered under stress, I'm not the greatest at not questioning commands, this makes me an unsuitable physician/medical student, police officer or soldier already, now I could go on.

: I can see this, even though I understand Barry's notion that specialization (e.g., "I'm a doctor so I don't have to scrub the toilets") carries within it the seeds of private property.

I'm not sure of that, it carrys the germ of arrogance, self-importance and authoritarianism but those are social relations nothing really to do with private property. I'm not sure of talking of the abolition of private property in absolute terms, even if you repeat that your not going to interfer with possessions or labourers property or small holdings, your going to cause a great deal of misunderstanding.

:Still, I think you'd agree, Lark, that some more equitable system of labor must be instituted--probably even mandated--so as to prevent disintegration of the entire purpose.

Oh, yes indeed but authoritarian egalitarianism doesnt create freedom, it needs to be infused with a libertarian element, whether it is 'statist' or not doesnt matter, to guarantee freedom, I dont want either equality or liberty to be breaks on each others progress or factors that retard the development of empowerment or freedom through perpetual frictional conflict but neither do I think either is an absolute principle.

: My problem is that job rotation can never be entirely equal, no matter how hard we try. 16 year olds cannot do heart surgery, and (most) 80 year-olds cannot do dockwork. People with handicaps cannot do hard labor, or be firefighters and pregnant women will have a variety of jobs they can't do, which will be established on a case by case basis. (If she's works in radiology, she has to stop immediately.)

That's an excellent point, I agree entirely. We can't destroy natural inequity but we can change consciousness in order to create an all powerful, all pervading and prevailing mutual aid society.

: Moreover, there are just too many jobs for one person to do, and many many tasks even within a given field. What really constitutes a "job", anyway? I mean, you can say a person works in carpentry, but within that are a variety of tasks--hammering, measuring, working the lathe, some of which may or may not be pleasant. Okay, so we'll strive to have equality in doling out the unpleasant tasks, but this would mean different things on different sites with different crews. It can't really be codified, except as saying "crews should strive for equality in doing unpleasant tasks."

Yes, true again, unless it was freely organised by the grass roots themselves it'd be a real planning and bureaucratic nightmare altogether.

: Now, should a heart surgeon be forced to become a carpenter? I don't think so, because she could hurt her hands and thus society would lose a valuable skill. But should this same surgeon clean bedpans? Absolutely.

I'm not disagreeing here comrade, it sounds as though we're thinking in tune.

: So, now I have a question for Barry Stoller: Why so many posts on this issue? It strikes me as a very important topic, but one that will become more clear later. Even Krasny said this. As you know, your posts have been quite invidious to some, and while that's no reason to hold back, it does make me wonder the purpose of your persistence on this issue. Could it be that you're trying to figure out who's who (i.e., who is a true revolutionary) before hand? If that's true, then it has a whiff of vanguardism, and that makes me hesitant to get squarely behind you on this question.

Barry's a militant vanguardist, didnt you know? A spart/trot through and through and wholely commited to the bloody implementation of theoretical blueprints and architectual plans regardless of the human/worker costs.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup