~ Never take life seriously.~
~ Nobody ever gets out alive anyway.~
I'm calling all angels, 'cause things have to look up.
Don't think too poorly of those 6th graders, they are party animals. On a bell curve that charts worker self management prowess, the top 3% might be capable of self-management, maybe 5%. The problem is the lowest 3%. About 95% of the workers are good people and will help you out if they've time or make time to help. Of that last 5% though, 3% will not help if they've time. Then there is that scum of the earth, that 2% who will NOT help but will intentionally take time and go out of their way to hinder your progress on a job, the genetic assholes. Rare, indeed, is the shop that can rapidly cull these exploiters of all that is good from the payrolls of the company. When one would be fired, a party was had in his honor. Cheers, not tears for his departure.My point stands clear. Your assumption that workers have no ability to manage themselves is highly disturbing. It's even worse that you compare their self-managing abilities with that of school children.
I do find the factual reality of your worker utopian vision disturbing but to pretend the reality is not a problem, I find even more disturbing. Outrageous even. The workers will have a committee to guide production and then you're back to the Man running things.
Rubbish. Ever participated in a slow down?The Man is not exploited in the way that workers are. The Man still holds political and economic supremacy as long as he exists.
What nonsensical statements. Certainly changes asked for, considered, and addressed are not all possible, but those that were changed addressed the voiced needs of the workers. Of course in your ideal world it would only be the workers needs met to be worth a crap, eh? If the changes meant less injuries to workers but also included greater profit for the Man, it would be tossed regardless of the benefits to the workers?Changes in the workplace do not satisfy the needs of the working class. Workers won't just give up their struggle because they're given more vacation time or something.
THE worker will have a boss regardless of whether it is corporate management or worker management. Who doesn't want to have a boss which will bear the responsibility for the decision that caused us to fuckup?I don't understand this. I'm assuming you're referring to the idea of a vanguard party, but that would be an entirely different argument which you probably wouldn't get into.
What was that? Some workers don't want to manage? Those lazy fucks probably won't want to work either, eh? The worker managers you so laud will indeed be excellent delegators. You've got this part right except for the money bit. The competent idea includes the monetary means to bring from idea to reality, the Company. Not easy, or it would not be worth much.Even if you do know how to go about it, you still likely don't have the money necessary. Plus, it's not like every worker wants to be "The Man".
Not even to get their vote? You must be an idealist. Would you rather the masses do the exploiting? Or, , hold that an agreement to exchange labor for money and benefits the better way to realize neither worker or management is being exploited?I am sure of it. I don't want to see the masses exploited.
You did not want the "Man" to exist. Did not want to be told what to do by, did not want to be exploited by, "The "Man." If I don't want to be told what to do, I make an effort and don't put myself in those places where I can't tolerate being told what to do. So I got a divorce, bid off a job to another, and then quit the whole business. You say this is the path to an unproductive society, though. What am I to do now? And here I thought I was living the workers' dream of your vision.Please clarify this. I have no idea what you're saying.
But you become "The Man" by pushing your vision of change onto the rest of us. If you would be better off without the man wanting a return on his investment, isn't it your return for getting rid of "The Man" that which was previously to have been "The Man's?" I just love the organizers who claim to be able to provide more benefits to those he's exploiting, while promising less effort from the exploited than his predecessor, "The Man." I just don't, carte blanche, buy into that. Not that it cannot work, but that the personalities required for a broad successful implementation of worker self management shops is in such short supply.It doesn't.
A Moment of Silence - AviationPros.com
Engines of Democracy | Fast Company
So there is a lower caste of worker that you would exploit, namely, the ones doing jobs so bad, that any working those jobs, a priori, MEANS they're being exploited. The fog is lifting.I don't want that. The reason they probably don't want those jobs is because they suck.
Definitely a false dichotomy. I am not getting screwed by minimal standards of performance and demonstrated competency of doctors or airline pilots, am I? Are you?It's not a bad or a good thing as long as its within the capitalist system. Either way someone is getting screwed over.
But maybe you're meaning those who don't pass the minimal standards and demonstrated competency trials are the ones being screwed and should be granted those certificates, those licenses to hang on their office walls so they can advance in society.
Any worker that enslaves himself with chains of debt should feel that self-inflicted bite of self-loathing for having screwed up so bad.So all workers are just self-loathing people who should never try breaking free of their chains?
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Even "burger flippers" advance.
Have you come up with answer for these quesstions?
However, having created a very specific scenario of an uneducated, unsupported worker who simply cannot do it on his own, what would you have provided for him and by whom?
And tell me why whomever you choose should provide this assistance?
The tree of liberty is hungry. Let's feed it well in the next election.
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
Society may be formed so as to exist without crime, without poverty, […] no obstacle whatsoever intervenes at this moment except ignorance to prevent such a state of society.
This can be corrected. Personal choiceChris the Chees;876426]Well, they work hard and conscienciously doing back breaking labour their whole lives.
This can be changed. Personal choice.low social expectation
Move to better employment. Personal choiceconsistent regional high unemployment
We can certainly seek to improve the conditions around us that we use to infer luck.bad luck. The usual.
We make choices. These choices have consequences
What would you have society do to counter these consequences?
The tree of liberty is hungry. Let's feed it well in the next election.