>On 7/12/07, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> I would be opposed to any kind of remuneration for work. That's what
>> I mean by work being voluntary, one does it voluntarily, not because
>> in exchange you get the means to survive.
>>
>> The necessities of life would, under my conception of socialism, be
>> an inalienable human right.
>I already mentioned my thoughts on that:
>
> "I can see that it may be repressive if not combined with humane
> policies which guarantee human rights of food and shelter. Like
> perhaps any economic model. In the same way, you can have better
> or worse forms of capitalism, state communism, etc. Depends on the
> details."
>
>Free food and shelter strike me as more a matter of politics than the
>economic system. But it isn't so easy as having a nanny-state provide
>everything for you -- someone's farming your food, driving trucks to
>deliver your advanced medicines, emptying your bedpans and so on.
>These don't come from the Ancient Gods of Communism. They come from
>someone working hard to get you your stuff. Cleaning the place where
>people play music for each other, and the trains they took to get
>there.
And I'm saying its better for such social labour to be freely performed, rather than conscripted. That its better that some vile jobs don't get done at all, as opposed to having slaves do them. Or even worse, in the name of egalitarianism, enslaving the whole human race so that a few jobs get done.
>The working class. What does it make you if you're benefitting from a
>working class tending to your human needs, but you don't wish to share
>the onerous work?
Since everyone would be free, there would be no working class. Socialism isn't about abolishing the capitalist class and in the process making everyone a wage slave, Its about abolition of all classes.
Logically, abolition of all classes must mean abolition of the working class as well.
>I simply don't think it's bean-counting to keep in mind peoples'
>effort and sacrifice devoted to these basic societal tasks. The
>working class's time and stress is relevant.
If there is still a working class, it can't be socialism. See, the whole idea of socialism is to emancipate the working class, not make our enslavement universal across the whole human race. Any proposed system where there is *only* a working class, is a ghastly dystopian fantasy. Not to mention that a class system with only one class is completely illogical.
>(That said, I do think there are psychological issues with remunerated
>vs. voluntary work, which people like Michael Albert have touched
>upon.)
Tell me where. Frankly, I'm curious about the psychology of these people.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas