Even in a communist society there will be specialisation. There is no such thing as unskilled labour and everything from baking a loaf of bread or laying bricks to brain surgery takes training and experience to be done well. The thing about fishing in the afternoon and being an art critic after dinner doesn't mean that everyone will be capable of doing everything, it means that the individual will be free to develop their skills according to their talents and interests without being forced into a rigid system where you are locked into a discrete career path from an early age where some paths available to only the select few brings wealth and social status and others brings nothing but toil.
Teaching is a skill that you have to learn to do well. In a communist society there would still be people who spend more time teaching and studying didactics, developmental psychology, pedagogical methods etc. than most other people. You could call them teachers although they would also do other types of work to the benefit of society.
I think we mostly agree. I was arguing against people only being teachers, and being paid to be teachers, as opposed to being given the resources to exist and thrive no matter what. In universities, people are often researchers and teachers, or accountants and teachers, or lawyers and teachers. This is one way you could do that. Socializing people into social roles through other institutions like apprenticeship, or in the family (as rich people and many tradesmen already do) is another.
So my objection isn't to "being locked into a discrete career path from an early age," but simply being locked into a career path. I believe that would have downstream effects such as the dissolution of boundaries between roles like teacher, parent, tradesman, or scientist
Even in a communist society there will be specialisation. There is no such thing as unskilled labour and everything from baking a loaf of bread or laying bricks to brain surgery takes training and experience to be done well. The thing about fishing in the afternoon and being an art critic after dinner doesn't mean that everyone will be capable of doing everything, it means that the individual will be free to develop their skills according to their talents and interests without being forced into a rigid system where you are locked into a discrete career path from an early age where some paths available to only the select few brings wealth and social status and others brings nothing but toil.
Teaching is a skill that you have to learn to do well. In a communist society there would still be people who spend more time teaching and studying didactics, developmental psychology, pedagogical methods etc. than most other people. You could call them teachers although they would also do other types of work to the benefit of society.
I think we mostly agree. I was arguing against people only being teachers, and being paid to be teachers, as opposed to being given the resources to exist and thrive no matter what. In universities, people are often researchers and teachers, or accountants and teachers, or lawyers and teachers. This is one way you could do that. Socializing people into social roles through other institutions like apprenticeship, or in the family (as rich people and many tradesmen already do) is another.
So my objection isn't to "being locked into a discrete career path from an early age," but simply being locked into a career path. I believe that would have downstream effects such as the dissolution of boundaries between roles like teacher, parent, tradesman, or scientist