: The more I push for job rotation (AKA participatory government), the more I get branded a fascist. Considering that fascism is fundamentally characterized by a rigid social division of labor as well as minority control of the state apparatus, this claim against job rotation is wholly ludicrous.People are reacting, I should think, to - in the hegelian sense - positive character of Job rotation, in that it involves and externalised, and alienating enforcement of system over the subject - you may recall that that was teh fundamental begining of my opposition, prefering ad hoc Labour over systematised rotation, which to my mind, actualy recreates and entranches division of labour. Instead of being asigned to the same division of labour for life, a person would simply be rotated through different divisions - as per Foucault's "Society of discipline".
Further, we cannot rotate *all* jobs, there would remain social division of labour, in that some co-ops would build planes, and some would have access to coal mines, etc. unless *every8 commune was self sufficient, and every commune produced teh same thing, social division of labour would exist.
Further, teh fragmented character of rotation is anti-humanistic, in that it reduces the human to a place assigned by domination of the System, and to an alienated single task of the day.
The point about division of labour, is that it denies people to invest their whole person into tehir life-activity, as would have, say, an artisan, involved in using many different skills as partt of a production process.
I entirely agree, that if some unpopular jobs cannot be filled, then a rota may be preferable, but frankly, you'd end up with people swapping, with lazy bugger's skipping, and with a general feel of the onerousness of the task - I prefer 'guilt-lists' over alienation to the system.
And before you say it - the chances of my finding any skilled job otehr than teaching, are fucking slight with a lit degree.
