> though a parecon would give the average schmoe much
>greater freedom in choosing his or her hours and areas of specialization
>than any workable system I know of, including market socialism.
About on a par with so called "market socialism". That isn't socialism either, socialism is the social ownership and control of the means of production. Market socialism entails theoretical common ownership of the means of production, but the practical control of it would be by private co-operatives operating in competition. So obviously the community interests would play second fiddle to the private interests of whoever happens to be dependant on the co-operatives for their income. The distinction between this and capitalism is mostly imaginary.
> And no,
>"the economy of the gift" is not in my opinion a workable system.
I have no idea what "the economy of the gift" is. Sounds like meaningless babble to me.
>Even I wouldn't want us to absorb the lost of efficiency of having people
>do their own dishes when they eat out. and I don't _mind_ washing dishes
>if it's in the context of a BJC, if I'm paid fairly, if my efforts are
>appreciated etc. It helps if there's something good on the radio, too.
I knew it, I just knew it. There would have to be someone out there anxious to perpetuate the useless and obnoxious servitude of a restaurant. No matter how degrading and useless the work is, there's always someone who would rather do mindless repetitive work, probably because its ultimately easier than any work that requires some mental effort. But I don't mean to malign you, its just that servitude and servile attitudes disgust me and the restaurant industry is an icon for all that is disgusting about class society.
>You may not know it but you've brought up an excellent point.
>Coordinatorist division of labor introduces class resentment into the
>kitchen, hence the halfassed work and occasional mucous membrane you find,
>or more likely don't find, floating in your soup. Not to mention that most
>owners so grievously understaff the kitchen that it's actually not possible
>to clean everything properly while keeping up with the sheer volume of work
>they demand.
>
>Which reminds me: Tip your dishwasher!
I don't do tips. It is regarded as patronising and insulting in Australia to tip workers. I don't know anyone who would offer such a tasteless insult. How humiliating it must be to have to politely accept a tip from some smug customer. Or have to fawn and grovel in the hope that the customer will offer you charity in recognition of the fact that you are too weak to demand your employer pay you a proper wage to begin with. Christ man, don't you have any dignity!
The restaurant industry is not quite that Dickensian in this country, than God, but it still disgusts me even without the more overt bowing and scraping that you Americans seem to revel in.
Mind you, I could be out of date on social customs. I don't go to restaurants all that often.
>I plan to have some bumper stickers printed up eventually...
Give me strength.
>Sometimes I help the cleaning staff here (college dorm) carry the garbage
>out, but I get the feeling they consider it a nuisance.
You didn't offer them a tip I hope.
>>I agree. Do away with the job.
>or spread it around.
Well that's inherent in doing away with it as a specialised job. If it still has to be done, then people can do it for themselves.
>>I didn't say it forces people into work more than the present system does.
>>But I don't see how it does that any less than the present system either.
>by getting rid of the market it
>
>1 allows us to reduce our working hours
Longer chains, great.
>2 gives us greater freedom to decide what our work will be
I don't see how.
>>I want everyone free, you want no-one free.
>as i said, i think your kind of freedom is impossible for everyone but a
>tiny parasitic elite
So you said. You also said you'd explain your reasoning, but you haven't done so. You've merely repeated the assertion over and over again. Please explain WHY it is necessary or desirable.
>Ayn Randism. Some of her horrid books were required reading for me in high
>school.
>
DEAR GOD! A blatant crime against humanity! I shall report this to
the International Criminal Court, can you provide some details about
the perpetrator. I vaguely recall they tried to get me to read
particular books in high school to, now you mention it. No idea what
the books were, I took no notice and read what I felt like reading.
Look at the result - you have a job as a dishwasher and I'm unemployed. Don't feel bad though, when you finish college you can hope to qualify as a waiter and start earning the big tips. From there its only a few small step up the social ladder to being unemployed. ;-)
>>While you're at it, could you explain again why you think that no-one
>>would be willing to lift a finger
>>voluntarily? That seems to be the premise of your conclusion that without
>>compulsion to work, everyone will >stop work.
>
>
>maybe not everyone, but some certainly would, and i for one don't feel like
>being their servant, however few they might be.
You already are. Don't be modest, you've already admitted that you are more than willing to be anyone's servant, so long as you get the occasional gratuity. The fact that this actually represents your ideal society demonstrates a level of servility I wouldn't have thought possible. What is it, you some sort of snob, eager to serve the upper crust, but not a hobo?
Anyhow, "I don't feel like it" is hardly a proper answer. Not only isn't it a real reason, but if you don't mind me saying so, it sounds a bit uppity. ;-)
>The social obligation to contribute to production will always exist,
OH PARDON ME! Is that in the bible, or where. I bet it was in one of those books I ignored at school. Of course, how could I be so dumb, THE social obligation to contribute., its one of the ten commandments is it?
>it's no more "coercive" than any other moral responsibility.
Somewhat more arbitrary though. Other moral responsibilities usually have some basis in material circumstances. Some reason.
>Further, there is no added cost to the kind of mutual
>self-management we engage in where I work. It's extremely efficient.
>almost, in fact, entirely an outgrowth of normal social interaction.
Sure, sure. You have a smart boss, no doubt about it. Let the workers police themselves, very cost-efficient.
>Yes. That's why a good polity would need a set of laws and
>semi-independent civil liberties subject to review, sort of like what many
>liberal democracies have now. I got news for you though, even those civil
>liberties depend on the assent of the majority, no way around it.
Yes, they do, in a political democracy. But I advocate an economic democracy without political power or a system of economic coercion.
You only need those instruments for protecting civil liberties in a society which maintains coercive structures that can infringe civil liberties. I am suggesting that it might be better all round to have neither. By removing your ideologically-motivated coercive structure designed to punish heretics who transgress the Holy Protestant Work Ethic, you remove not only the incentive to step on other people's rights, but any official means of actually doing so.
Sure, a few anti-social people would probably bludge off everyone else, but giving those same anti-social elements a gun and official power to enforce your silly moral code is hardly a great step forward. Even if the work police also have to pretend to clean toilets for 15 minutes a day.
>>I am not talking about reverting to subsistence farming, I am talking
>>about doing away with this whole "service economy", where people expect to
>>have servants take away their garbage, cook their meals, clean up after
>>them, etc. You seem to presume it is actually necessary to have restaurants.
>
>No, but it's nice to have restaurants.
I wouldn't argue with that. But its a question of priorities for me, if the price of having restaurants is that some people have to be denied human dignity, then I'm willing to cook my own food. Maybe even wash up.
If robots could be built to run the restaurant, sure. But we lack such "magic lanterns" as yet.
>>But the same principle applies, the people who will presumably use the
>>public toilets could take a few seconds to clean them. Why the hell is that
>>particularly inefficient? Just leave to tools handy and someone will do it.
> >
>
>Certain people in my dorm won't even flush, nor will they wipe up their
>sprinkles with the toilet paper provided to them.
I blame it on a lack of 'repressive, paternalistic authoritarian and patriarchal power' being asserted when they were toddlers. And it doesn't help that our dicks don't come with any sort of manual or instructions either (or maybe that was another one of those books I didn't read at school.)
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas