>catherine and i and doug and yoshie and carrol have all had to
>consider the varieties of definitions of work.
Don't forget Oscar!
>It is clear, then, that no Authoritarian Socialism will do. For
>while under the present system a very large number of people can
>lead lives of a certain amount of freedom and expression and
>happiness, under an industrial barrack system, or a system of
>economic tyranny, nobody would be able to have any such freedom at
>all. It is to be regretted that a portion of our community should be
>practically in slavery, but to propose to solve the problem by
>enslaving the entire community is childish. Every man must be left
>quite free to choose his own work. No form of compulsion must he
>exercised over him. If there is, his work will not be good for him,
>will not be good in itself, and will not be good for others. And by
>work I simply mean activity of any kind.
>
>I hardly think that any Socialist, nowadays, would seriously propose
>that an inspector should call every morning at each house to see
>that each citizen rose up and did manual labour for eight hours.
>Humanity has got beyond that stage, and reserves such a form of life
>for the people whom, in a very arbitrary manner, it chooses to call
>criminals. But I confess that many of the socialistic views that I
>have come across seem to me to be tainted with ideas of authority,
>if not of actual compulsion. Of course, authority and compulsion are
>out of the question. All association must be quite voluntary. It is
>only in voluntary associations that man is fine.
Doug