I don't know about glorious... who is going to choose to be a garbageman?

Someone who doesn't have the skills (or doesn't want a job that requires them to invest heavily of themselves) to do more skilled work but who wishes to be a productive member of society.

True story: when I was teaching adult lit last year I had a student (Ronnie) with learning difficulties. As well as the literacy and numeracy lessons (and the 'skills for life' such as how to cook a meal, how to read a timetable, how to access dental care etc etc) we were supposed to try and get this guy into a job. I asked him what he wanted to try for. The one thing he really, really wanted to do...and I had difficulty getting my head around this if I am honest, all he wanted to do was work at the municipal dump. Seriously. That's what he wanted. I tried to get him a work placement, but they didn't have enough supervisors to be able to take on someone with his support needs. He was gutted. I tried to figure something else out that he might like to do...I eventually got him into a food packing factory. Nice clean factory, variety of jobs, good supervisors. He went for it and made the best of it...but he was still adamant that he wanted to work in the dump and I had to promise him that i would keep phoning them up from time to time to see if the situation had changed so I could let him know.

Another of my students had a deep desire to be an exterminator (as in vermin).

I rather like queeq's idea of offering a small increase in wages for the worst jobs, rather than the best. If you are motivated by a desire for money you'd go fo rthe dirty, nasty jobs. If you want are in a job you enjoy then you don't need the high wages to compensate you for your time. Just a playful thought.

True enough, but didn't Alexander III turn the clock back on a lot of those reforms?

Tied to land still meant that they could be bought and sold with the land surely? Also, unless I am mixing up the condition of russian serfs with earlier european models, didn't the lord have rights of permission when it came to marriages?

As to European countries, I have been guilty of a wide sweep in my earlier post. Most of western europe had ended serfdom by then I think. Certainly most of the major players had reformed it away.

I certainly wouldn't say that Russia was more oppressive than european nations, merely that it was more totalitarian, given that most of the major monarchies had by then moved to a 'mixed monarchy' system rather than divine right absolutism.

When Russia changed to a communist state it didn't go from 'freedom' as we wold understand it in the modern era, to dictatorship. It moved from one form of highly centralised control to another and exchanged one form of oppression for another (admittedly more violent) form of oppression.

What is utterly tragic, is that at the point that the revolutionaries actually made their move, they did so against a Tsar who was genuinely motivated towards reform and had they been able to see ahead to what was going to happen in the other industrialising nations over the next hundred years they'd have seen that there was another way to achieve many of their goals.


What we haven't seen is a monarch who was truly God's appointed which was what they claimed to be. In practice, actually, very few 'absolute' monarchs were indeed absolute. They relied on the compliance and support of their aristocracy and the acceptance of the populace.

I still contend that Communism does not require totalitarianism, in fact totalitarianism runs entirely contrary to the spirit and form of the communist ideal. Unfortunately, after the Russian revolution, other countries took the Russian system as the base model for communism. Consequently most other attempts at bringing about a communist state have followed similar patterns. But that wasn't inherent in the idea of communism.

It's not a caste system if you're capable of moving freely through the different castes.

And bruce, that is the one main problem with any socialist system is that it does require a job to be had. The life I live (or have lived) is semi-nomadic, so it's a little hard for me to accept... but living in a capitalist society you can't really get by without a job either...

Shush, you're messing with my livelyhood.

You do realize that there are many jobs out there that require so much extra effort and sacrifice that you'd practically need to make public alters to them in order to justify it, right? I could, conceivably, go along with a system that requires everyone to work exactly the same hours, gives everyone exactly the same amount of time off, and requires the same amount of accountability from everyone. So basically I would not be required to work a minute longer to be a doctor then to be a garbageman. This would be fair. However, our life spans are not long enough to get through med school like that. Big oops there, kind of hard to provide universal healthcare if you can't train docs. :3eye:

You can't get by without enough wealth to provide for your needs, which usually means a job.

The difference is that you can look for any type job, anywhere you wish. The constraints are only there being a job you're qualified for, where you wish to live.
I'd prefer that to having to live where the government feels I'm (my skills) are needed.

Got*da*yum this is some good stuff!
And to think I first came here for the funny pictures and goofy videos. Talk about your mental floss, whew.
Let me throw this in the mix...
Being civilized means to move past our nature.
Communication is the key to civilization,
and the Internet will be our saving grace.

The skilled person's added value comes from the fact that they are more difficult to replace. Think about it in terms of widgets. Harder to find, more complex widgets cost more than the simplest widgets.

I understand that Perry, but that only holds true if you are applying a supply and demand model.

That raises a good point - that in a communist society people are reduced to a set of skills - the person is not important, just what he/she can bring to the State. Not many people want to be regarded as a moveable, disposable commodity - a pair of hands with particular skills that are to be used to benefit an abstraction.

@Dana - sorry, I've been unable to sit down to answer your posts and likely won't get back to the computer for a couple of days. But thanks for the apology (I appreciate the clarification) and the thoughtful replies.

Morality for me isn't dictated by government nor religion.
That bad ass biker might have more of a moral base than the self righteous.


I found this quote that sums it up good enough for me.

"Where there is no free agency, there can be no morality. Where there is no temptation, there can be little claim to virtue. Where the routine is rigorously proscribed by law, the law, and not the man, must have the credit of the conduct." [William H. Prescott, "History of the Conquest of Peru," 1847]

The reason I chose the phrase I chose in my first post, is because my moral code is based primarily on my understanding of fairness and justice. I try, as much as possible, not to be unfair towards my fellows. 'Do onto others as you would be done by' might equally apply.

Way to generalize, Spexx! Of course every conservative thinks those things, if you've said so.

You may notice that many of your points relate to the morality of harming others. Do you feel that it should be an individual freedom to harm others? If I wanted to generalize, I could say that liberals want to tell:

a woman that she is free, at her whim, to kill another genetically distinct human being
husbands they can kill their wives who are mortally ill, even though the wife's parents are willing to care for her, so that the husband can carry on with his new lady-love and make off with all the insurance money
doctors that they must kill their patients when it's demanded (nice opening for relatives who don't want their inheritances used up on medical care, and for insurance (including, especially, government insurance in the case of universal health insurance) companies to cut their costs)
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you can have sex with anyone, even children (what else is prohibited??)
you that you can ruin the lives of those around you through drug use
you that your child must adopt (as a way of 'learning') the religious practices, and pray to the gods of (in certain California districts), any religion with the one exception of Christianity

as for the others, tossing out the definition of the most important legal relationship in our society shouldn't be done by activist judges; if it's done, it should be through the democratic process;
don't know of restrictions on buying sex toys ... are you talking about lethal ones??

But I don't generalize because I know that not all people who disagree with me on some things want to remove all my freedoms. So I favor actual discussion over categorizing and stereotyping with stupid lists.

Now we have a point of agreement, Dana! (I do know that this concept is found in many religions and philosophies.) We just differ on the means of implementing it ... ;)