: [I]t is true that, to the mode of thought of the educated classes..., it must seem monstrous that in time to come there will no longer be any professional porters or architects, and that the man who for half an hour gives instruction as an architect will also push a barrow for a period, until his activity as an architect is once again required. [Sarcastically:] It is a fine sort of socialism which perpetuates the professional porter!
: ---Engels.I agree entirely with that quote, what I disagree with is the enforced, and positive systematisation and enforcement of job rotation - I suspect that such rotation will grow freely from necessity, and life, not from planning or enforcement.
: The more I push for job rotation (AKA participatory government), the more I get branded a fascist.
Please cite where I call you fascist, or witrhdraw: else I'll klep thee dimwit.
: AD HOC labor? Is that anything like 'liberty in the workplace', by any chance?
No, its the liberty to work where and when you want, feel or need to. It implies that ad hoc division of labour may occur (i.e. that someone may porter for teh day, as needed, rather than have to take turns at portering...).
: Co-ops? Communes? I'm taliking about full-fledged communism.
But we will still need to organise social structures around production, tehre would be a plane building group, a mining group, bvecause geography means that we can't all take turns in a mine 1,000 mies away. Social Division of labour would exist because different groups on different points of teh earth would produce different artifacts, and different people would want to do different types of work - I for one would refuse to take a turn in the abatoir...
: No, my misinformed friend, the SOCIAL DIVISION OF LABOR is what's anti-humanistic.
Why? Socially divided labour still retains the fullness of human engagement with life-activity, a professional porter - such as worked at our college halls - is a multi-facetted and skilled task, that engages mind and spirit, particularly if the subject is willing. To rotate jobs is to replicate the fractioning of the human spirit of productive division of labour. Not everyone can be a doctor.
: Without job rotation, specialized elites will form (such as 'representatives').
Only if you have political structures that allow them: but if we break the link between work and income, then professionalisation would not matter.
: Artisans (and other petty proprietors) are firmly IN FAVOR of hypertrophied social divisions of labor. Guild system, anyone?
Nope: the guilds held master-craftsmen - they may have divided over types of work, but they still didn't divide down to teh level of one man hammering, one man placing, etc.
: You' re waffling here...
No, making a distinct point - I'll suppliment it: if tehre is an unpopular task that needs rota-ing, then its up to society to mechanise that job oput of existence tout suite...
: What you specialize in is your business.
Indeed, but I think my point was to refute your fatuous sweeping generalisation.
: Should that exempt you from doing your fair share of unskilled work?---or do you want some unskilled people kicking around to do it for you?
Not at all, my whole point, and now after your complete demonstration of dimness, I will klep thee - nitwit!, was that I will have to work unskilled labour, cheers muchly. And am prepared to, teh only thing that holds me back much time, is that unskilled labour usually means shite wages and a fucking evil boss.
: You are not taking a CLEAR position here.
I think I am. Income should be divorced from work, work should be entirely voluntary.
