>I tell my students that I am comparable to the Dept. of Ag. beef inspectors. The school does not care whether they learn or not; we are grading beef for the employers.
OK - Two points on this. I did not include elementary or high school or community college teachers. Elementary through high school teacher is not a coordinator position - though it still beats waiting tables.
Secondly, if University professor (not just tenured but untenured) think that university does not change students conciousness...
I don't know one student who went to the university who can't tell about a favorite teacher who changed their life I don't know one student who went to the university who did not hate one teacher who changed their life. I know at least one student who was a left-liberal until she took a standard economics class and then decided that the free market was it. TINA. And became a stockbroker.
I think radical teachers probably are very frustrated, because you don't change your students conciousness intentionally - that is their conciousness does not change your students in any way you intend. But believe me, students come out of the university different people than they went in; and you teachers are a big part of that whether you like it or not. I went to Cal State Long Beach - which was (and still is for all I know) one step above a community college And teachers changed my conciousness a great deal.
JKS
>Your point? That the work I do for six hours a day after working for 10 or 12 as a lawyer doesn't count?
That there are people who do rote stuff for 10 or 12 hours a day and then go home and do the same six hours of chores you do.
> One might, however, wonder whether it is the best use of my time and skills to take me away from the work I was specially trained to do, and which not everyone could do.
OK here is the point. Excluding clinical cases everyone has a a talent and capability for something over and above scrubbing toilers. Yet there are people who do nothing else all day long. Do you doubt there are people out there with the same talent you have for the law, who would get the same enjoyment, who did not get your opportunties and who are scubbing toilets or answering phones or in (god help them) customer service. So, if we had a transition to a better society (forget Parecon for a moment - lets just say some sort of socialism) they would not be offered that training? And once they received it, do they go on answering phones while you do law twelve hours a day? Or does this equally talented person now do law six hours a day, and perhaps answer phones six hours a day while you do law six hours a day, and perhaps answer phones six hours a day. (I'm not saying it has to be answering phones. I'm sure there are lots of rote jobs associated with the law, answering phones, photocopying. Maybe some of the computer searches are pretty rote?
I mean in a socialist society everyone has the chance for any training they are capable of benefiting from (and a chance to become capable if they are not). So do some trained lawyers do law all day while others scrub toilets all day? Or is the legal work split among the qualfied lawyers, who then fill in their worktime doing something else, scrubbing toilets, answering phones.
Really the only additional social cost to this is cost of additional education. But is it really a cost to make education to everyone who wants it and is able to benefit or a gain?
>I will observe, though pointy-headed intellectuals like you might not believe it, that there are many people, millions on millions of them, and including (I'd add, most lawyers) would would prefer to wash dishes for 40 hoursa week than to do what I do, which is exacting legal research and writing -- much less what I do for _fun_, which is scholarly reserach in philosophy and political economics.
Hmm - lost your temper worse than I did earlier there. Pointy headed intellectuals?. But the fact is that most people washing dishes for a living have something else productive they could do, they would like better - if only offered the training and opportunity. And I don't doubt there are people out there scrubbing toilets or pushing broom or weeding fields or waiting tables who would enjoy what you do, and would be good at it if offered the training.
Like I said any socialist society to be worthy of the name would have to offer a hell of a lot more education than ours does. That is not a cost of any one brand of socialism - market or non-market. It is a cost of any socialism worthy of the name. And if particular training did not attract enough people by being offered free, it would have to be paid. And of course it is not only in intellectual labor that training would be available. I have friend who is training as skilled carpenter; she had to go through a lot of shit to get that opportunity. I bet your sister had to struggle to her chance at that training. (Or maybe not; this differs from area to area; she may have had a connection. I'll just tell you that training is not easy to get either.) And of course we automate the really unpleaant stuff away as much as we can. But I think there will always be some that you can't automate for a long time to come. And, market economy or Parecon - I don't see why training can't be offered freely enough that everyone has the skill to do some pleasant and empowering job. And given that I don't see why pleasant and empowering tasks and the unpleasant and rote ones can't be shared more or less equally.
Except for the cost of additional training, I don't see a social cost to this type of sharing. And I see a hell of a lot of social gain. No Maoist "force the intellectuals to pick up a rake at the point of a gun". Just a wider dispersion of skills and training, and a fairer sharing of responsibilities.