> I should admit my understanding of parecon is far from
> comprehensive, but the statement above troubles me. The
> assumption here is that the definitions of "pleasurable",
> "demanding", "sacrifice" are nonproblematic terms with
> universally agreed upon meanings. Is it a "sacrifice" for me
> to spend many years learning biochemistry to be a pharma
> researcher? If I value family, or my religious practices, or
> close friendships, sure. However, if I love the work, the
> challenge, and see other things (like family obligations) as
> a nuisance, I'm not really "sacrificing" anything! The
> definition of "sacrifice" is contingent and diverse, not
> universally agreed upon.
The issue isn't how much an indivdiual likes a task -- it is how society regards it. We will all presumably opt for what we prefer. That is fine.
Balanced job complexes are overwhelmingly -- necessarily -- balanced for empowerment -- it could be done as well -- and I suspect probably would be in most parecons, for fulfillment effects too.
> So I guess my question is: How does parecon deal with the
> fact that reasonable people differ dramatically in their
> perceptions of the same task? Who gets to determine whether
> a task is categorized as demanding or pleasurable?
It is a social determination -- let's stick to empowerment for purposes of the discussion though, I think...though in principle it is simpler.
In a workplace tasks are enumerated and combined into jobs -- the councils agrees they are balanced. It isn't perfect -- it is vastly better than not doing it, or then intentionally creating a corporate division of labor. We then apply for jobs we want, in light of personal tastes...sweeping and packing boxes may be rated essentially the same for empowerment -- or for fulfillment implications -- but I may vastly prefer one to the other, and you the reverse. That is not a problem.