>I have to say I want to side with Bill and John on this one, but I'm
>don't follow the argument here. How will a socialist society ensure
>that all of the useful and necessary work is done? Will there just be
>enough diversity in interests and preferences so that all of the work
>will be accomplished without coercion? (Are there enough people
>intrinsically interested in cleaning public toilets so that we need no
>social or economic coercion to make sure all the public toilets are
>cleaned?)
I'm not convinced that cleaning toilets is inherently unpleasant work. Instead it is simply low status work and this is what makes the work unrewarding and unpleasant.
But cleaning toilets seems no more inherently unpleasant than performing surgery surely. All that blood and guts and worse makes this a far more unpleasant job. Yet being a surgeon is regarded as a high status job. It isn't the work itself, it is the social context.
Which doesn't answer your question directly, it merely seeks to answer the objection that there are some jobs so particularly unpleasant that they amount to an insurmountable obstacle to an economy and society based on voluntary participation.
The general case has been put much better than I could by John, in his last post. I suspect he could probably answer the special instances objection just as eloquently, but since you have addressed it to me, you will have to settle for my response.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas