: Look, we really are getting to the point where we're just arguing over how many Trotsky's can dance on teh head of an ice-pick:No, I beg to differ. We are arguing over the Marxian predicate of INDUSTRIALIZED ACTIVITY (which demands the division of labor in manufacture) and the Morrisian fantasy of PREINDUSTRIAL modes of production.It's a big distinction.
: I have *never* argued against people freely changing jobs, my *sole* argument has been against an enforced and proscribed rotation, i.e. my assertion is simply that such interplay of jobs will occur organicaly, out of social necessity.
But this 'organic' interplay you envision is utterly utopian. Socialism is born out of capitalism---and capitalism has created the 'craft-idiocy' that resists the despecialization anticipated by Marx and Engels' German Ideology quote.
Also, this 'organic' jazz you propose negates fundamentally Marx's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Please see Marx's letter to Weydemeyer, 5 March 1852, for a refresher in Marxist thinking...
: Further, I would hold that there would have to be responsible agencies, co-operative structures, which set out to perform specific productive tasks, such as shoe production, etc. and I think that people will be members of such organisations, performing myriad actual tasks within and for them - at the very least, certain regions will have a local productive speciality based on geography, which in a world-wide system is a social division of labour.
That's lame.
Choose betwen Marx and Morris, Bill. I hate to see you squirm like this...
