UKC

http://www.artthesystem.com/2013/11/the-best-short-movie-has-ever-made-102....

Ain't that how life as a wage-slave is?

In reply to Chambers:

Not really.. I enjoy my work..

Whats your job?

In reply to Chambers:

Are you a wage slave? I'm not, I get paid very well to do a job I absolutely love.

Try something different, life's to short!

In reply to IainRUK:

Me? I'm Head Chef at a gastropub. I don't enjoy my work. I don't even recognise it as work, you see? It isn't work to me. But then, I'm not a wage-slave. No kind of slave at all, really.

But that's how 'work' is for most people. And i can't help thinking that you've missed the point of the film, somewhat. No doubt the guy who is a doormat thinks that he enjoys his work.

What do you do, Iain?

In reply to Tony the Blade:

So do I. As I've already pointed out above. But most people spend their lives taking orders from shitheads whose only qualification is having more money and more authority than those they command. You and I are lucky, Tony. Most workers aren't.

I've done a lot of jobs over the decades. Most of them were shit. And I think life's too long!!

In reply to Chambers: research

In reply to Chambers:
But most people spend their lives taking orders from shitheads whose only qualification is having more money and more authority than those they command.

Or more experience, expertise, hard earned qualifications and perhaps intelligence.

In reply to Chambers: My boss has more money than me. And more authority than me.

That's why he's my boss.

I'm willing to bet your boss has more money and authority than you.

That's because he's your boss.

Am I missing something here?

P.s. i love my job (and my boss, in case he's looking,)

In reply to Robert Durran: Occasionally that's true. But mostly it isn't.

In reply to Chambers:

How can you back that up? How old are you? experience in various industries?

In reply to Oceanrower: Yeah, you're missing something. And I think I know what it is. But we'll come to that shortly...

I don't have bosses. I treat everyone as an equal, even when it's a f*cking stretch to do so. Got to make the effort, see? There are two rules in kitchens that I run. Rule One: I know how to do my job. Leave me alone. Rule Two: I know how to do my f*cking job. Leave me the f*ck alone.

Any employer who doesn't obey those rules will very soon be looking for a new chef.

Does my employer have more money than me? Possibly. Couldn't tell you and don't care. I have more money than I know what to do with. So I just give it to my wife. Does my employer have more authority than me? No way. Do I have more authority than my employer? Yes, when it comes to producing fantastic food, I do.

In reply to IainRUK:

Well, Iain, I can back it up in a thousand anecdotal ways and still have stories to tell! But the thing with anecdotes is that it doesn't matter how funny or entertaining they are they're still just anecdotes and don't constitute hard evidence. Nevertheless, I'm happy to provide a quick quackulum vitae for you...but tell me, what do you do research into? I do research as well. Today I was doing research into the caramelisation of sugars. Working on a new marmite and stilton cheesecake recipe.

In reply to Chambers: Sounds great.. I'm sort of all over marine zoology, ageing research, stress, demographics, climate change..

In reply to Chambers: I just realised you're Shona's latest incarnation.

In reply to aln:

Yeah, apparently so, or so I'm told. Although I've looked at some of 'Shona's shit and 'Gudrun's too. I can't believe I ever wrote any of that stuff, though, unless my headteacher in primary skool made me write it whilst he had me bent over a table for reasons of personal satisfaction.

In reply to IainRUK:

Fascinating stuff, Iain. I'm sure we could find a lot to talk about after a day on the crag. But what happens if you decide not to go to work tomorrow?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Nice to be in agreement with you for a change.

In reply to Chambers:

This is better...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKsR_wUSfA

In reply to Chambers: Not much.. I work on short term contracts.. and am purely research, no teaching.. so work when I want..

In reply to IainRUK: Good for you. Do you get much climbing in?

In reply to Chambers: No, I live on the NE German plain.. got back into climbing a few years back in Wales, but then the running really took over..

In reply to IainRUK: Have you always been a freak of nature?

In reply to Chambers:


So let me get this straight - are you or are you not one of the mythical band of oppressed workers you go on about ? if you aren't doing a real job presumably you aren't.

In reply to Chambers: See what you think of this, Comrades!
Bring back Shona the Soviet!

In reply to Chambers:

Why the constant aliases? You might get more respect on here and less piss taking replies if you were honest about who you were.

In reply to aln:

What on earth are you talking about?

In reply to GrahamD:

Mythical?

In reply to aln: Incidentally, if I ever need any advice on how to conduct myself on a public forum I'll bear you in mind. Don't be checking your e-mails every hour, though. It won't be happening anytime soon!

As far as getting more 'respect' and having less 'piss-taking replies' are concerned, these are not things that interest me at all. I come on here for a number of reasons, but I will say that I derive a great deal of pleasure from the ludicrous ad hominem attacks!

I realise that a number of people think that I might be someone else. Every time I get accused of being someone's alter-ego I go off and check out the writing of the person I'm accused of being. That amuses me terribly, as well. I mean, all people need to do is a bit of textual analysis. There's no-one on here who writes like me, and there's only one other person who expresses similar ideas to me. And his style of writing is very different than mine.

Honest about who I am? Never been anything else. I'm Jonathan Chambers. Live in Staffordshire, just around the corner from The Roaches. Want my phone number?

Tell you what, I'll tell you exactly where I'll be at two o'clock today. I'll be at the Unicorn pub in Manchester giving a talk about the ways in which capitalism degrades our food in the interests of profit.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/whats-dinner-manchester-200pm

So you know where to aim the cross-hair sight! My identity is verifiable. Is yours?

In reply to Chambers:

It’s odd you are so against the capitalist system as you seem to have done fairly well out of it. You have a good position within your work place and you're presumably quite good at what you do as your bosses trust that you know best how to operate your kitchen and give you the relative freedom to do it how you wish. Also it would seem you earn a decent wage out of it, I'd assume above the average and as such it sounds like you're in a pretty stable situation financially which gives you further freedom in that you could leave your job if boss made demands of you that you refused to obey and be able to bridge the gap until you found a better one without too much worry.

Now despite being a pretty full on supporter of the capitalist system I think you'd be surprised that I actually share many of your views on it. There are wage slaves; there are people who don't have any freedom. Often they are low skilled workers or people who've made a poor set of financial or personal choices along the way. Working in a job they hate day in day out but they need the money so badly they'll put up with anything to keep the job. There may well be some working in your kitchen, the pot wash guy, some of the waiting on staff, the cleaners etc. They are not doing those jobs because they like them or because that's there ambition, they are doing it because it’s a job and they need the money. Be it to pay the rent, to feed their children or make those loan repayments, it doesn't really matter what matters is they have trapped themselves and for a lot of them they won't escape they are in a situation where the cost of living is equal to their wage, and they’ll never save enough to break free. What awaits them is a life of crap jobs, no money, no power and no freedom.
So why do I support the capitalist model then? Well it’s because it enables people like you to rise above and do well. Everyone has the chance and the freedom to go out there and make something of themselves, to be free and succeed in what you wish to do. But it’s not an easy thing to achieve, not everyone will win and there are harsh and often permanent consequences to making the wrong choices along the way and there will be many temptations to make those wrong choices. The ones who succeed are the ones who are skilled, intelligent and dedicated, who make the sacrifices and have the patience to wait until the right moment to act. Those who can plan for the future and have the drive to succeed will be the ones who end up with the most freedom; whether they are in jobs they enjoy like you or have started their own enterprises and are in control of their own fates controlling their own set of ‘Wage slaves’.

I too am in pursuit of freedom from the system, a freedom you gain by beating it at its own game. So far I’m half way there; I used to work 8-5, 5 days a week. I had to be there on time and do what I was told each day. But I was never a trapped as most of the others, I’d amassed substantial savings and lived well within my means meaning my job wasn’t the be all and end all, if I was sacked, so what? I have the skills to get more work if I want and plenty of cash to live life in between. As such I could take a pretty relaxed approach to work, I did what was required of me and to a high standard but I didn’t sweat the small stuff and did stuff very much on my own terms, much like yourself I suspect. But I still felt to trapped, I was spending my days inside a box in front of a computer, when it was sunny I want to go out climbing but I couldn't. Work freedoms aside they still controlled my time, I knew I wouldn't achieve anything if I had to spend so long trapped in a box all day.

So I recently went freelance, now I still do much of the same work I used to but I do it on my terms and in my time. Because of this I’ve now got the freedom to do one of my other ambitions, I’ve brought a house and I’m now close to finishing the renovation and will let that out at a profit in the new year (the rent probably being paid by some wage slave). Then next year I intend to expand my business, taking on more clients and moving into new areas, if it goes well I may take on staff to do the work for me. Each step gives me a bit more freedom, brings me closer to being able to do what I want without having to work any more. And the fact the system we live in is one that enables anyone to do that if they have the dedication is a system I’m very happy with.

In reply to Chambers:

A wonderful example of how peoples lives are inter linked. Actually probably closer to India than the UK where labour is cheap (though that may be starting to change) and people are employed in all manner of menial tasks. It took 5 people to install a TV in my hotel (in Nepal but India is similar) one to carry the tv, one to screw the plug on, one to tune it in, one to dispose of the box it came in and on to supervise.
There are all manner of low paid boring jobs in the world, that's the price of industrialisation, however often the way you view a job dictates the way you see its merits, boring or fun.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

This possibly the first post of yours that I am in general agreement about.
my gob is well and truly smacked.
However as I said above it also depends on how you see work.
My prime example is a chap I know whom I have worked with. He can not read and is not well educated or even the most intelligent, in the conventional sense, and yet he has boundless enthusiasm for work and life. He works Saturdays as a litter picker, gardens in the week, makes and sells gates from old palates he collects from various places, blags stuff to sell on car boots on Sundays, cleans windows, does odd-jobs, and just about any simple job you can imagine. He lives in a very nice semi now but grew up on one of the roughest estates I know. He attitude is that if he losses his job it is a worry, but worrying won't help him so he will just go and find something new. Those who don't know him think him brash and rude but he isn't. He just doesn't understand tact and there is no malice in him. If I was an employer I would employ him in an instant

In reply to aln:


Chambers is not Shona/Gudrun . Although both nominally of the "left" and despise capitalism that is about all they share.
Shona is an authoritarian Statist. Chambers is a happy clappy anti State dreamer.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The SPGB aren't anti-state, they aim to bring about revolution through parliament.

In reply to nastyned:


And then abolish the State

In reply to Chambers:

Fair enough. I take it back and I apologize.

In reply to Chambers:

"When the producer sold his labor, he sold himself.
He lost his dignity as a person, as he became a slave.
A wage slave...”
Noam Chomsky-What is Anarchism?
youtube.com/watch?v=oB9rp_SAp2U&

In reply to Postmanpat:



It's just the evolution of the characters he creates, lacking consistency is his benchmark.

We all know who he really is...

http://www.robertlindsay.net/images/28.jpg

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


The way you say society works would be very nice if it was true, but I'm afraid you have to be a complete idiot to believe that we live in a simple meritocracy. Do you actually believe that there is there no correlation between people's achievements and those of their parents?

Opportunity is unequally distributed in our society. I was brought up by middle class parents who were both education professionals. As such, I had a very easy time at school, getting top grades the whole way through leading to a good degree. I never had any real drive to make money, but given my level of education I found it pretty easy to get a well-paid job in which I didn't work particularly hard. I did not get into the position of having a high-responsibility, well paid professional job through dedication, I got there through apathy!

Those who come from a different background where hard work and bettering oneself financially is a central value - perhaps more than educational achievement - are more likely to be more successful in different ways, e.g. in business, through dedication and hard work. It is this group of people who come from quite poor backgrounds (but whose parents worked hard) and who do well who are most likely to believe that we live in a meritocracy - IME anyway.

Those who come from privileged backgrounds where there's a lot of money, a strong ethic that wealth and success are synonymous, that working hard to get to the top is expected and where status is a big value, are likely to get the really top jobs with big salaries (/bonuses). Sure, those people work hard, but there's a lot more to it than that.

Those who come from backgrounds which are chaotic and the instilling of useful values just doesn't happen - because drink/drugs/stumbling from one awful crisis to the next take priority - are f^cked. They're very unlikely to achieve much (although there will be individual cases that buck the statistical I'm describing). The social care and school systems can do what they can, but it isn't ever going to be enough to give those kids anything like an equal start to the groups above.

This fallacy that we live in a meritocracy is the usual justification of right-wing politics. It's annoying that so many people are perfectly happy to live in a fantasy constructed to justify an approach to running society that is beneficial to themselves but harmful to others who are less fortunate.

In reply to stroppygob:


Being banned many times would necessitate name changes prior to each new inception which you seem to confuse with a change of character.


Power to the people hehe

In reply to aln:


No need.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

You might well be very happy with capitalism, Ash. (I call no-one lord!)And you might perceive yourself to be doing very well out of it. Your business enterprise may succeed. Many don't. I might be considered to be doing alright out of it. But that's not the point here.

If my only concern was my own well-being, and I was able to remain insulated from the problems that capitalism throws up I quite possibly wouldn't be a revolutionary socialist. But the material world that we live in cannot be ignored. Capitalism, with its endless drive for expansion and the pursuit of profit is destroying the planet. I am swamped by the unnecessary suffering and misery of millions of people. I might get killed in one of capitalism's wars.

You see, it's not just about you and I.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Right. So the guy who has to sit by a machine all day and is nothing more than a part of the machine who hates every moment of it but has no choice about doing is just looking at it wrong?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Wrong again. I'm as hostile to the left as I am to the right. And I don't despise capitalism. I do think it's become dangerously obsolete.


Happy clappy? I think not.

In reply to Chambers:

So "socialism" is not of the left?

In reply to Chambers:

correct.
Incidentally what would you replace him with? another machine? He has a choice to work or not work. In this country at least that is not a life or death decision

In reply to Postmanpat:


You're getting there, comrade. It's a joy to behold. All political parties on the left support capitalism. Left wing, right wing. Same f*cking bird.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:



Boring, dull and repetitive work is - almost by definition - something that we have the technology to automate.

A choice to work or not to work? I don't know which country you live in, but in the UK no such choice exists. If you can't prove you are looking for a job you get no money.

In reply to Chambers:

We certainly do have the technology to automate it and in fact the vast majority are. Which was the cause of much riot and strikes back in the past when workers saw automation as a threat to their livelihood. So we automate and someone loses their job. No choice there.

So all you have to do is prove that you are looking for a job. In other countries that won't get you very far. I honestly do not know of anyone who is starving in this country except possibly by virtue of extreme mental disturbance.

Do you perceive of a time when there will be no boring repetitive work and then what do the people who want boring repetitive work do?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Nah they told the SPGB to sod off as well. Its the Millwall of politics.

In reply to Chambers: "If my only concern was my own well-being, and I was able to remain insulated from the problems that capitalism throws up I quite possibly wouldn't be a revolutionary socialist."

Revolutionary socialist? You might be a socialist I suppose, it's nice to have a hobby, but revolutionary? Which revolution is that? Is someone a murderer before they've killed?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


He means his many and varied attempts to forment revolution by creating ranting sock puppets on this, (and probably other,) forums. A man of action he isn't.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/52320000/jpg/_52320876_001686620-1.jp...

In reply to Chambers: :



Remind me: was Marx a socialist and was he left wing? (in your not necessarily humble opinion )

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Not within capitalism, no. Although widespread automation increased production and created jobs in other sectors. There are still many jobs, however, that could be automated but aren't because it's cheaper to employ wage-slaves.


But it's a lot more coercive than you seem to think. Unemployed people can have their benefits sanctioned for turning down horrendous jobs with appalling pay, for example.

Your assertion that there is no-one starving in the UK depends entirely on how you define 'starving'. Not having access to enough nutritious food to remain healthy is a reasonable definition, I think. That covers huge swathes of the population. Witness the recent rise in the number of food banks.


No, look, sometimes engaging in mindless, repetitive work can be beneficial. But when someone is forced to do it in return for subsistence wages the charm rapidly disappears.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Marx was a socialist, yes, but to describe him as 'left-wing' is erroneous.

In reply to Chambers:


Ah, I see. Are you part of Coel's collective dedicated to the creation of self serving definitions of terms? Tell me, how do you define "left wing"? (Ps. No pedantry about seating positions allowed, nor a diatribe about Leninism).
I just know the answer and know I shouldn't have asked.........

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well, it puzzles me why you would ask a question that you think you already know the answer to.

On the subject of the creation of self-serving definitions of terms it's important to recognise that the ruling class have re-defined the term 'socialism' in a host of different ways, and all of them render the term interchangeable with capitalism.

Socialism, as defined by Marx and his forerunners, will be a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Now, if you accept that definition, rather than the one you've been taught by those who have an interest in discrediting socialism, it becomes very clear that there is not a single party on the left advocating socialism, irrespective of what they think or what they call themselves. They are groups who want to run capitalism. Thus it is also clear that when we talk about the left wing and the right wing we are talking about pro-capitalist parties.

The SPGB has nothing in common with either the left or the right.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Going back to your 20:48 post last evening, even though you seem to be living in a bubble that insulates you from the misery around you, socialists accept that things are a bit better for workers living in developed capitalist country. But that's not the point.

Socialists also recognise that all of the problems that appear to have been ameliorated in some places still exist elsewhere. That's because capitalism is global. So is the solution.

In reply to Chambers:

Socialists seem to have difficulty actually defining workers. Managers work, are they not workers ? Capitalist pig investment bankers work, are they not workers ?

In reply to GrahamD:

We have no difficulty at all in defining workers, Graham. We've been through this before, but I'm happy to repeat myself. Class is defined in capitalism by one's relationship to the means of production. If you are working for a wage or salary out of economic necessity then you are a member of the working class.

In reply to Chambers:

And incidentally, 'capitalist pig' is not a term I would use.

In reply to Chambers:




Yere, yere, yere, but any chance you could answer my question???

In reply to Chambers:

OK, so investment bankers ARE workers. Just checking

In reply to Chambers:


I find that difficult to believe in the West. Certainly in the far East and Asia.


Well I personally know several people who haven't worked in years and they are far from starving. Once in a while they get told to go for a job, they go they don't get it they come home. Define a horrendous job.


I define starving as dying of malnutrition. To be honest people not getting nutritious food is often a life choice. Incase it may have escaped your notice we are apparently in an obesity epidemic amongst the poorest of our population.



Precisely! No body is forced to do it. Unless they are here as an illegal immigrant under to power of a workmaster.

In reply to Chambers:


I lifted myself out of my misery. I'd had enough of it it was dragging me down.

>socialists accept that things are a bit better for workers living in developed capitalist country. But that's not the point.


Now I am in agreement there. Our lifestyle is bought on the backs of others, our phones are made from poisonous materials, mined by people on wages that barely keep them alive, in conditions that would give a health and safety consultant a heart attack. In comparison with that people in this country are living the life of Riley.
It is also the reason why we don't have a manufacturing industry as it is far cheaper to import from countries that treat people like shit than from Britain where we enjoy various health, safety and wage rights, like a minimum and living wage.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I did. What's wrong with your head? Left wing parties support capitalism. Right wing parties support capitalism. Left wing, right wing? Same f*cking bird. Wake up.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Then I'd suggest that you go and have a look round some factories. Especially ones that use power presses. There you will find people who spend eight hours a day repeating the same limited movement over and again for the minimum wage. Or go to any supermarket. Practically everyone who works there looks like a robot. Traffic wardens? Automatons. People working in MacDonald's? Come on. Open your eyes. Nobody needs to do that shit, and don't tell me that if they just changed their mindset and turned it into some kind of zen experience it'd all be ok. That's just nonsense.


And they've all got the latest mobile phones and drive expensive cars, don't they?

>Define a horrendous job.
One that doesn't need to be done by humans, is tedious and low-paid and detrimental to health, for a start.


It astonishes me that people are so ignorant when it comes to matters of nutrition. I define starving exactly the same way you do. But you need to realise that obesity is malnutrition. 50% of the planet is malnourished. And if you think that consuming re-arranged corn, soy, fat and sugar is a 'life choice' then you have a good deal to learn.



So you don't think that the threat of losing your house, for example, constitutes coercion?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


No I do believe there is a correlation between the status of ones parents and the odds of the child succeeding. In that respect you are completely correct. Although I would say its probably not as strong as you think until you get right down to the extreme cases such as abusive, criminal drug addicts etc which I suspect as a percentage of the population are pretty small.

The point is though that, success, education and money are all intergenerational asserts and you can't expect to just jump up from nothing to having in all in one generation you have to work hard and do the most with what you've got to improve your life and hopefully lay down a better foundation for your children so they may progress further than you.

Its surly one of the main motivators for progressing in life, to provide a better future for your children. I'm from working class roots, my grandfather was a taxi driver but provided a good start for my farther, he started as a floor fitter but went into property and made a decent life for himself, I was the first to gain a degree and get educated and will progress further still and hopefully my children (if I have some) will go further still.

But don't forget, it can just as easily go the other way too. It only takes one generation to mess up in their lives and all a families wealth can be wiped out leaving the generation after to start from pretty far down the ladder again.

In reply to Chambers:


What's wrong with my head is that i read what you said rather than what you imagine you said. You should try it yourself!

In reply to Chambers:


With proper breaks. there is a legal limit to the amount of time you can perform a repetitive job.

Not at the ones I use. The staff always chat to me.


Great job if you don't mind the social stigma.

> People working in MacDonald's?

You get to met people and have a chat. Not for me you understand but I know people who do work for McDonalds and like it.

Come on. Open your eyes. Nobody needs to do that shit, and don't tell me that if they just changed their mindset and turned it into some kind of zen experience it'd all be ok. That's just nonsense.

au contrarire. That is exactly the point of my original post. The main things that make a job good or bad are, aside from obvious health issues, the level of autonomy you have and the people you work with. The same people can do the exactly same job and have wildly different experiences of it. More often than not it is how you view it and your place in it.


Nope. They live in run down council flats, default on their rent, catch the bus, buy their clothes from Primark and last saw a job in the 80's



Detrimental to health is reasonable. In this country at least that should be covered by the health and safety at work act. If you were in Bangalore things would undoubtedly be different. But by definition most low paid work will be unskilled and therefore tedious to a lot of people, doesn't necessarily mean that it is horrendous.


So how much is a bag of carrots? How much is a bag of frozen fish? Fresh veg etc. etc.? A damn sight less than a ready meal. If anything is wrong it is education about food. I could and do eat healthily for less than most people spend in iceland. Seriously it's not difficult.


Nope. For the simple reason that the people you describe as wage-slaves do not own their own houses in the first place.
People make choices based on their resources and their mental outlook, I choose to work because I like the benefits that money brings in terms of shelter, food, security. Some people do loose this and become homeless, and slip through the net of society. But often they have other problems too that put them into that state. Beyond basic needs happiness is down to outlook. I know people who exist on less than the minimum wage (muscians) who are very happy I also know people who earn vast amounts who are miserable. I will grant you that certain things will contribute or detract from ones happiness but for most of the time it is all in the head.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


There's bags of research on this, I don't have time to find it, but believe me the correlation is depressingly strong. One quite valid argument against left wing politics isn't that that they aren't needed, it's that they don't work and nothing changes no matter how much redistribution is attempted by the state.



Not really. I'm not having kids. I want my own life to be fulfilling, and I think that people born lower down the socio-economic ladder than me have an equal right to that.


Exactly as I said, the group most likely to believe in the illusion of a meritocracy.


Just as easily? I think not. If your parents are rich and can bail you out, it's actually pretty hard for you to make a mess of your life. A completely different situation from people who are clawing their way up against the odds.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:
In the real world it doesn't actually work that way.You get miniscule breaks but the repetitive work goes on all day with long hours.Complain and you are labelled a 'troublemaker',who will be the first person out of the door,I have witnessed this on numerous occasions.
Off the top of my head,picking,recycling work,van delivery/Comet,warehouse stacker driving,on call recovery driver,mass production operators,night shifts for time,overtime without pay.There are millions of people on zero hours contracts with no idea if they will have a job or pay tomorrow which is pretty horrendous don't you think?What of the millions of people struggling in part time work who desperately want a decent full time job?
There are two point five or three million unemployed people in Britain who don't have the luxury that you seem to think they do.Tell me do your musician friends own their own homes/live with Mummy and Daddy/have financial back up?

In reply to Gelstat5:

Some good points there which I may have to address later as I am off to work.
But for the record my muscian friends, do own their own home, which they built themselves for around £8,000 in partnership with their neighbour, a sustainable living designer. Previously they lived on a boat. Other than that they are self-financing.

Workers over 18 are usually entitled to 3 types of rest break.
Rest breaks at work

Workers have the right to one uninterrupted 20 minute rest break during their working day (this could be a tea or lunch break), if they work more than 6 hours a day.
Daily rest

Now none of this applies to zero hours work which is one thing I am campaigning against.
The first point you make is a good argument for unionisation as the only means for workers to avoid exploitation.
So really what you are complaining about there is lack of autonomy in the work place.

Of the jobs you mention none are horrendous, exploitive probably but not horrendous. To me a horrendous job is working without safety equipment in a uranium mine, scavenging through litter for a living, working in a kiln for 12 hours at a time.

Workers have the right to 11 hours rest between working days (eg if you finish work at 8pm, they shouldn’t start work again until 7am the next day).
Weekly rest

Workers have the right to:

an uninterrupted 24 hours without any work each week, or
48 hours each fortnight

A worker’s employment contract may say they’re entitled to more or different rights to breaks from work.
Work that puts health and safety at risk

An employer should give an employee enough breaks to make sure their health and safety isn’t at risk if that work is ‘monotonous’ (eg work on a production line).

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Duncan, you're still missing the point. It's all very well polishing the turd of being a British worker, but all of the hideous conditions that existed in this country as it was going through the process of industrialisation have been exported elsewhere.

In reply to Chambers:

>
Are you going to answer my question of how you define "left wing"?

I'm intrigued as to why most "socialist" parties are not socialist because they don't (you argue) share your vision, but most "left wing" parties ARE left wing because they don't share your vision.

In reply to Chambers:


What about if it is tedious and/or detrimental to health but well paid?

In reply to Postmanpat:



I've already answered it twice, but I'll try and make it even simpler.

Left wing parties that label themselves 'socialist' advocate state capitalism as a solution to working class problems. They think - like you, it's interesting to note - that state capitalism is socialism. So, whether they are aware of it or not, they are advocating the continuation of capitalism.

All political parties - with the sole exception of the SPGB - support the continuation of capitalism. Now, you can distinguish between left and right to your heart's content. Apart from the rhetoric, I can't see a difference between a member of the SWP and a member of the BNP.

In reply to Chambers:


>
You still haven't defined left wing. You've just repeated your definition of socialism. You've simply asserted that parties that label themselvesSocialist and left wing are not socialist but are left wing without justifying the latter.

Parties that label themselves 'socialist' and "left wing" advocate state capitalism as a solution to working class problems. They think that state capitalism is socialism. They are wrong. Therefore they are neither socialist not left wing.


But you can't distinguish because you won't define the term left wing.

In reply to Postmanpat:
No, the reason that I can't distinguish between a member of the BNP and a member of the SWP is because a fascist is a fascist.

I don't need to define the term 'left wing'. It means nothing to me. It's like making a distinction between Labour and the Tories. There's no distinction to be made.

In reply to Chambers:


I'll agree there.


But you said you'd defined it twice at least!! So I pronounce you both a socialist and left wing!

In reply to Chambers:

No not missing the point at all I am very much aware that hideous conditions have been exported elsewhere, in fact I have mentioned that on several occasions.

So we are clear now those hideous conditions are no longer a part of the British work force save in the black market and a few isolated industries.

I have more to add but I have some work to do so I will be back

In reply to Chambers:

But let's get back to my original point, or should I say points namely.

1) low paid, boring and sometimes repetitive jobs are a fact of industrialisation. We are approaching the point where the majority can be automated (machines that build machines that build machines etc.) but much low paid work will remain because it is hard to automate (cleaners, admin staff, etc.) or because the initial cost of installation is beyond the reach of some industries. In the communist utopia there will still be a need for someone to clean the toilets. It must also be taken into account that without such work those people would be unemployed. So for me the aim should be to ensure a fair wage for the work and a minimum set of conditions for those people to work in.

2) Also I stick by my view that ones perception of ones work dictates to a large extent if you like it or not. Two people can be doing exactly the same job and one person will love it while the other will hate it.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Patster, my love, I answered your question three times. It was a stupid question and I did my best. Now, where do we go from here? Why don't you define 'left wing'? xxx

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Hehe you are quite a funny guy who,obviously has never worked in any of the jobs i mentioned or you would definatly see things through different eyes.
Yes everyone knows the tea-breaks we get,how many rights we have,although if you want to keep your precarious employment then all that goes out the window.As you,would surely find out if you had the misfortune to be desperately chained to a job that physically wrecks your body whilst simultaneously providing you with the added worry of wondering if it will be there in the morning.Homelessness is not far away for the majority.Do you know how that feels from your smug position?

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


I know. What I want is for to throw to earth this misconception that the millions of people - nay! billions of people who are having a really shit time aren't having it in your back yard.


Well, no, we aren't clear on that at all.


I look forward to it. I do appreciate your contributions.

In reply to Gelstat5:

Just so. Nothing to add.

In reply to Gelstat5:

I have
and I do

In reply to Chambers:


No, you gave your definition of socialism and you told us that parties that (are called) left and right wing support capitalism. No definition of left wing there.

But parties that are called socialist also support capitalism. You've chosen a definition of socialism which means these parties are not "socialist". Fine, but how about you give your definition of left wing which means that such parties are left wing?

How about defining "left wing" as supporting social equality? There you go, it turns out you are left wing!

In reply to Chambers:

Let's stick with this one for the moment.
2) Also I stick by my view that ones perception of ones work dictates to a large extent if you like it or not. Two people can be doing exactly the same job and one person will love it while the other will hate it.

Now I did a job I hated. I was a wage slave if you will. But then I changed the way I saw the world and that I was choosing to do that job (it gave me money that allowed me to do things etc.) and that if I was obeying a boss it was because I was choosing to obey that boss. And then I found that I really enjoyed my work and that I had a choice in how I felt. The job didn't change but I did. Since then I have moved on to other things and have more work than I need and I put that all down to my change of attitude.
But hey I have the brains and drive to change what I want to do. I am lucky. so what of those people without any advantages in that respect. What of the people who do menial jobs. Well I talk to them and I find that a lot of them hate their jobs. But then I talk to others who love their jobs. Same jobs, no difference in the jobs but attitude? Well a big difference there. And so I say that perception plays a big part in how shit or not your job is and perception is dictated much more by the people around you than the actual job itself in most cases.
Let's be absolutely clear here. I am not saying that people should put up with shit and just be all happy clappy about it. It is important to fight exploitation and poor conditions. But I am saying that for the majority of us who don't crawl through the mud (unless we like mud), have a roof over our heads, food on the table and a relatively risk free life and reasonable working conditions then poor perception of work is a personal perspective not an environmental one.
Not a religious man but I always felt that this prayer was particularly apt.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

In reply to Gelstat5:

To elaborate a bit more. I have as you say worked in some of the jobs you mention and others equally "bad" or worse. I also have the privilege of knowing a wide variety of people who do such low paid, risky, some times tedious jobs which others dismiss but which are important and vital to them. Is it smug to suggest that people might find a way to rise above their drudgery and see it as a means to an end, if not a vital cog in a bigger machine. Or is it better to do as you do and turn them into victims with no hope of salvation and devalue what they do?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Apart from I am not sure Chambers is into that. Seems only to be for equality if you buy into the parties ideas otherwise theres the door.

In reply to dissonance:


Well there is that, yes

In reply to Chambers:
Even toilet cleaning ?

In reply to dissonance:


Well you have to give him a bit of leeway, after all it has not been a very good period for dogmatic marxists who will lead us to an earthly paradise (with a few very tortuous diversions and the odd "humane" massacre), recently.

First there was the "comradely" rape case (allegedly), then the 3 women slaves of Maoists (allegedly - that didn't fit the script at all when more was found out about it at all, gone very quiet now).

But of course, none of these are "true" socialists, not ideologically pure, not like the People's front of Judea.

In reply to Chambers:

>> We certainly do have the technology to automate it and in fact the vast majority are. Which was the cause of much riot and strikes back in the past when workers saw automation as a threat to their livelihood. So we automate and someone loses their job. No choice there.

>Not within capitalism, no. Although widespread automation increased production and created jobs in other sectors. There are still many jobs, however, that could be automated but aren't because it's cheaper to employ wage-slaves.

I had to re-post this one. It is quite enlightening that you are advocating the dream of capitalism.....automation.
Capitalists love to automate. Once the initial costs have been covered it is cheaper, faster and less trouble (machines don't strike). And what happens to the people it displaces? Why the ones who manage to find new employment are given more low paid jobs to do.
I am not knocking automation, it is what gives us the privileges we have today and it has certainly raised the standards of living to a point where the lowest paid British worker is massively better off than the lowest paid third world worker.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:



No you don't. You're way out of touch.

In reply to aln:

Alas you are wrong. I know you would like to be right but you are not. Simple