it does, because you said earlier that you don't believe in a "species-being", even though Marx specifically said it was not "human-nature" as in a fixed & permanently defined thing. but changes with epochs & social modes etc.
"species-being" in this context has much to do with social relations and the ways that historical changes create new social necessities & niches that are filled by concerted human activity. that is a "homo faber", human producing
but I think it's a noteworthy contradiction to say your time/skill/effort is "alienated" in capitalism because of the kinds/conditions of jobs there are available, while also glossing over what those kinds/conditions of jobs have alienated you from.
Alright, obviously I misunderstood what Marx meant by "species-being", my mistake.
I don't think I'm glossing it over? By even mentioning alienation am I not invoking the entirety of the theory? I do think that alienation under capitalism is why labor becomes work (by the definitions I've been running with). And yes, that is because it alienates me from the product of my labor. And yes, this is part of why labor under socialism would largely not be "work" in my view. I don't see how this contradicts my insistence that unpleasant labor should be minimized as much as possible. And what is "unpleasant work" would vary by individual as well. Many people would find educating and playing with children to be "work", because they don't enjoy the company of children. Those people should not have to do labor that involves kids. Luckily, there are plenty of people who do enjoy the company of children who can do those jobs. There are people out there that genuinely enjoy manual labor, and while I don't think that the manual work that needs doing can be entirely covered by those people, I imagine it could be covered by them as much as possible. Thus minimizing labor that would be "work". That said, if toilets in public areas need scrubbing, I'd gladly take on my share of scrubbing them to contribute to a socialist society. And while it would be "work" to me, because I don't enjoy it, it would be less so "work" than it would be when I had to scrub toilets when I worked at Burger King. Because at least I'd feel I was contributing to something.
most everyone having a kind of "chore chart" that might include scrubbing public toilets one day or burping babies on another, but obviously wouldn't allow for everyone to have a turn at being a machine lathe operator or bus driver or nuclear technician sounds about right
remember also that privately owned machines also steal the vast majority's claim to any of the social product. and I wouldn't even say that this is due solely to legal limitation & private property rights... it's more about self-censorship and ethical considerations made by the majority
even a UBI or single tax would not rid us of these problems. that's because there is a spiritual/ethical concern when we are divvying up these tasks, and distributing the resulting outputs. healthy & capable unemployed deserve to be kept afloat, but do they deserve to be buoyed indefinitely by other workers?
people who do more work might deserve more compensation, and perhaps no one deserves absolutely nothing. but how does one go about ethically dividing up resources in FALGSC when no one can be said to have worked to create them? this is a contradiction & a moral issue
sanitary workers deserve hefty salaries, and their work is just as essential as someone's work producing food or clothing, but perhaps it's not as consequential
Not much to disagree with here. Though I think under FALGSC, the implication is that we'd be post-scarcity, and most of the unpleasant work would be automated, so I'm not sure the moral dilema would be relevant at that point. Under early stages of socialism, sure, and I'm not against "labor vouchers" or whatever you want to call it during those stages. The only thing I would be against is saying that disabled people who are not capable of certain kinds of or any labor aren't entitled to a comfortable life.
it does, because you said earlier that you don't believe in a "species-being", even though Marx specifically said it was not "human-nature" as in a fixed & permanently defined thing. but changes with epochs & social modes etc.
"species-being" in this context has much to do with social relations and the ways that historical changes create new social necessities & niches that are filled by concerted human activity. that is a "homo faber", human producing
but I think it's a noteworthy contradiction to say your time/skill/effort is "alienated" in capitalism because of the kinds/conditions of jobs there are available, while also glossing over what those kinds/conditions of jobs have alienated you from.
Alright, obviously I misunderstood what Marx meant by "species-being", my mistake.
I don't think I'm glossing it over? By even mentioning alienation am I not invoking the entirety of the theory? I do think that alienation under capitalism is why labor becomes work (by the definitions I've been running with). And yes, that is because it alienates me from the product of my labor. And yes, this is part of why labor under socialism would largely not be "work" in my view. I don't see how this contradicts my insistence that unpleasant labor should be minimized as much as possible. And what is "unpleasant work" would vary by individual as well. Many people would find educating and playing with children to be "work", because they don't enjoy the company of children. Those people should not have to do labor that involves kids. Luckily, there are plenty of people who do enjoy the company of children who can do those jobs. There are people out there that genuinely enjoy manual labor, and while I don't think that the manual work that needs doing can be entirely covered by those people, I imagine it could be covered by them as much as possible. Thus minimizing labor that would be "work". That said, if toilets in public areas need scrubbing, I'd gladly take on my share of scrubbing them to contribute to a socialist society. And while it would be "work" to me, because I don't enjoy it, it would be less so "work" than it would be when I had to scrub toilets when I worked at Burger King. Because at least I'd feel I was contributing to something.
yes, we don't disagree then
most everyone having a kind of "chore chart" that might include scrubbing public toilets one day or burping babies on another, but obviously wouldn't allow for everyone to have a turn at being a machine lathe operator or bus driver or nuclear technician sounds about right
remember also that privately owned machines also steal the vast majority's claim to any of the social product. and I wouldn't even say that this is due solely to legal limitation & private property rights... it's more about self-censorship and ethical considerations made by the majority
even a UBI or single tax would not rid us of these problems. that's because there is a spiritual/ethical concern when we are divvying up these tasks, and distributing the resulting outputs. healthy & capable unemployed deserve to be kept afloat, but do they deserve to be buoyed indefinitely by other workers?
people who do more work might deserve more compensation, and perhaps no one deserves absolutely nothing. but how does one go about ethically dividing up resources in FALGSC when no one can be said to have worked to create them? this is a contradiction & a moral issue
sanitary workers deserve hefty salaries, and their work is just as essential as someone's work producing food or clothing, but perhaps it's not as consequential
Not much to disagree with here. Though I think under FALGSC, the implication is that we'd be post-scarcity, and most of the unpleasant work would be automated, so I'm not sure the moral dilema would be relevant at that point. Under early stages of socialism, sure, and I'm not against "labor vouchers" or whatever you want to call it during those stages. The only thing I would be against is saying that disabled people who are not capable of certain kinds of or any labor aren't entitled to a comfortable life.
people entitled to as comfortable of a life as has been produced by social striving & creativity
OK, agreed. What was once a frusterating conversation due to a few misunderstandings has proven productive in the end.