Who's going to do the dirty work in Utopia?

gentlerider7 said:Look, I said "less stress," not "zero stress." Even a utopia needs some kind of actual foundation in reality, otherwise, it's just an endless, mindless daydream.

The practical foundation of any utopia is right there in the name—you'd all end up drowning in filth.

Andrew Booth29 said:Then I’d tell you this: if we actually factor in reality, rotating people through different jobs is economically disastrous—whether it’s voluntary or forced. It comes down to that concept of opportunity cost I mentioned before. It isn't just about the money being wasted; it's about the fact that doing this would ultimately lower the standard of living and general welfare for the entire American public. I suppose I just can't figure out where exactly you've decided to draw the line between a workable utopia and pure delusion.

I don't even think job rotation is some kind of necessity—that was some other group's idea anyway—but if we're talking about doing things by choice, then yeah, that's entirely up to the individual. There's that famous quote from Marx:

"In a communist society, where no one has a single exclusive sphere of activity, but every one can carry out any activity he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus still permits me to do one thing in the morning, another in the afternoon, and a third in the evening; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and tend cattle in the evening; to criticize after dinner, precisely what I please, without ever becoming a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critic."

gentlerider7 said:I don't even think job rotation is some kind of necessity—that was some other group's idea anyway—but if we're talking about doing things by choice, then yeah, that's entirely up to the individual. There's that famous quote from Marx:

"In a communist society, where no one has a single exclusive sphere of activity, but every one can carry out any activity he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus still permits me to do one thing in the morning, another in the afternoon, and a third in the evening; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and tend cattle in the evening; to criticize after dinner, precisely what I please, without ever becoming a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critic."

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you want a communist utopia to actually work, people need some serious spiritual growth. You need individuals to step up their game. It’s about making choices voluntarily because they actually care about the end goal: the common good of the community. Without that internal shift, the whole idea just falls apart. When the community wins, I win. It’s that simple. Everything is connected. If things are looking up for everyone else, I’m doing just fine too.If people actually did their jobs, things would be different. It’s pretty simple. You wouldn't have all that resentment or frustration floating around. People wouldn't feel like they're being cheated, so they wouldn't spend all their energy trying to undermine the system. All those attempts at cutting corners, bribery, or just straight-up rebellion? They'd vanish. You'd just be left with a few bad apples instead of a massive headache.

Then you have the other side of the coin: how society actually organizes itself to make sure things run smoothly. We’re talking about the heavy lifting—the economic and logistical hurdles. Most people think we can just fix these issues with better tech, or even that our current tools are already advanced enough if we just use them more intelligently. But critics of centralized planning have always pointed out that it doesn't work like that. History from the 20th century pretty much proves it. It's a lot messier than people want to admit.

There are really two ways to look at this. One view is that we just need to wait. You just sit tight and let human progress unfold naturally. If these advancements are an inevitable byproduct of our spiritual evolution, then they’ll happen sooner or later—assuming we don't wreck the planet or spiral back into total chaos first. The other way is the "right here, right now" approach. That's where you get a revolution and a period of dictatorship by the proletariat. You'd have a transitional socialist phase meant to guide people until they actually develop the necessary mindset. The government would step in using schools, legal systems, and other institutions to oversee this growth, hopefully doing so in a benevolent way. Eventually, once technological and spiritual progress hits a certain point, you'd phase out the dictatorship and even the state itself. It becomes unnecessary. That would be the final step in reaching the communist utopia.

When Lenin spoke up about how we won't see socialism for at least 500 years unless everyone's intellectual development catches up, there really wasn't much room for debate. He hit the nail on the head. It was pretty clear where things stood.

steeleagle77 said:In a utopia, there is no such thing as dirty work, because an idealist will pay any price to live within it.

You scrape the bottom of the barrel willingly. You eliminate class enemies at will, hand over family members to the gallows at will, and so on...
It doesn't matter if it feels like hell on earth, as long as you are moving toward that collective goal—a freedom where everyone is a slave, an equality where everyone is destitute, and a brotherhood where everyone would rather kill one another.

What was just described is socialism... we've been through it, and honestly, we'll probably see some version of it again...
A true utopia just can't happen. Beyond basic biological needs, most human desires are totally individual—it's almost impossible to satisfy them all at once. Capitalism tries its best to make that happen, often by basically inventing new needs just to open up more markets... which just leaves us with piles of junk based on "individual choice," plus a massive side order of injustice and inequality...
A utopia wouldn't work because it clashes with the fundamental nature of life itself—where everything is constantly shifting and flowing from one state to another... trying to force a utopia would be like going to war against biology, spirituality, and the sheer evolution of life...
Society, no matter how hard it tries, just doesn't have the resources to meet every single need or freeze them in time. That's why all systems are messy and constantly evolving—they rise and fall as needs shift and new ideas pop up...
At the end of the day, society is just the sum of a bunch of individual wants and needs. If a system manages to get close enough to satisfying them, it stays alive... but if there's too much distortion, it loses steam and eventually cracks or changes...

Donna White50 said:What was just described is socialism... we've been through it, and honestly, we'll probably see some version of it again...
A true utopia just can't happen. Beyond basic biological needs, most human desires are totally individual—it's almost impossible to satisfy them all at once. Capitalism tries its best to make that happen, often by basically inventing new needs just to open up more markets... which just leaves us with piles of junk based on "individual choice," plus a massive side order of injustice and inequality...
A utopia wouldn't work because it clashes with the fundamental nature of life itself—where everything is constantly shifting and flowing from one state to another... trying to force a utopia would be like going to war against biology, spirituality, and the sheer evolution of life...
Society, no matter how hard it tries, just doesn't have the resources to meet every single need or freeze them in time. That's why all systems are messy and constantly evolving—they rise and fall as needs shift and new ideas pop up...
At the end of the day, society is just the sum of a bunch of individual wants and needs. If a system manages to get close enough to satisfying them, it stays alive... but if there's too much distortion, it loses steam and eventually cracks or changes...

Well, some people swear by that logic, but then you've got the other crowd arguing that, deep down, we’re all cut from much the same cloth and driven by pretty much the same core desires.

gentlerider7 said:Well, some people swear by that logic, but then you've got the other crowd arguing that, deep down, we’re all cut from much the same cloth and driven by pretty much the same core desires.

There’s a massive distinction between being similar and being identical...
Take human drive, for example—we’re all driven by those basic instincts, sure, but one person might feel that way once every few months while someone else feels it three times a day. That’s a huge gap right there.
You could honestly draw those kinds of comparisons for pretty much any part of life...
The whole American capitalist system tries to let everyone do whatever they want within the legal lines, but there's always a heavy price tag that we all end up paying collectively... otherwise, a capitalist wouldn't even have an incentive to cater to what people actually need...

Gerald Jackson48 said:I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you want a communist utopia to actually work, people need some serious spiritual growth. You need individuals to step up their game. It’s about making choices voluntarily because they actually care about the end goal: the common good of the community. Without that internal shift, the whole idea just falls apart. When the community wins, I win. It’s that simple. Everything is connected. If things are looking up for everyone else, I’m doing just fine too.If people actually did their jobs, things would be different. It’s pretty simple. You wouldn't have all that resentment or frustration floating around. People wouldn't feel like they're being cheated, so they wouldn't spend all their energy trying to undermine the system. All those attempts at cutting corners, bribery, or just straight-up rebellion? They'd vanish. You'd just be left with a few bad apples instead of a massive headache.

Then you have the other side of the coin: how society actually organizes itself to make sure things run smoothly. We’re talking about the heavy lifting—the economic and logistical hurdles. Most people think we can just fix these issues with better tech, or even that our current tools are already advanced enough if we just use them more intelligently. But critics of centralized planning have always pointed out that it doesn't work like that. History from the 20th century pretty much proves it. It's a lot messier than people want to admit.

There are really two ways to look at this. One view is that we just need to wait. You just sit tight and let human progress unfold naturally. If these advancements are an inevitable byproduct of our spiritual evolution, then they’ll happen sooner or later—assuming we don't wreck the planet or spiral back into total chaos first. The other way is the "right here, right now" approach. That's where you get a revolution and a period of dictatorship by the proletariat. You'd have a transitional socialist phase meant to guide people until they actually develop the necessary mindset. The government would step in using schools, legal systems, and other institutions to oversee this growth, hopefully doing so in a benevolent way. Eventually, once technological and spiritual progress hits a certain point, you'd phase out the dictatorship and even the state itself. It becomes unnecessary. That would be the final step in reaching the communist utopia.

When Lenin spoke up about how we won't see socialism for at least 500 years unless everyone's intellectual development catches up, there really wasn't much room for debate. He hit the nail on the head. It was pretty clear where things stood.

It's unrealistic and way too complicated, which makes it impossible to pull off in the real world...
All animals—including humans, since we're basically just animals—use up resources until they're gone...
Saving the planet is kind of an illusion unless society creates a real incentive to do it. If clean air disappears, suddenly there's a massive demand for it, and the price goes through the roof...

But the big question is, who gets to decide what people need and define what's actually in the best interest of the community?
By definition, people are too shortsighted for that, and capitalists know it—so they manufacture needs just to turn a profit...
But then again, who gives anyone the right to punish dissenters just because their ideas are "dangerous" to the system? Doesn't that sound awfully familiar? It's starting to look a lot like the old versions of socialism we've seen before...

Sam Martinez9 said:Women.

It’s the same pattern we've seen throughout history. Women handle the cooking, change the diapers, care for aging parents, tend the garden, clean out the barns, scrub the toilets... and the list goes on.

Hmm... I think it really depends on how she carries herself with her husband. If she's acting like everything is her responsibility, then she's basically screwed.

Harold Doyle3 said:Oh, sure!
So, a neurosurgeon spent years sweating over Latin textbooks and memorizing every obscure detail of brain anatomy while some other guy was busy chilling out and selling nothing but hot air—and now you think it’s "fair" for them both to be out there shoveling manure in a pigpen? Give me a break.

Would you actually walk up to a surgeon while he's cleaning out a barn and say, "Hey, look, my neighbor really needs your help, so I'll take your shift instead," you absolute hypocrite?

It’s fair because it follows the basic principle that no one should be stuck doing jobs they hate forever. From where I'm sitting, NOBODY has actually offered a single decent argument against the rotation principle proposed by the roadworker. All we get are pathetic anecdotes like yours. Anecdotes aren't arguments. They aren't even typical cases—they're just extreme outliers pulled from current reality, whereas we're talking about how a future society *should* function. We need to speak in terms of PRINCIPLES, at an Abstract level, especially when discussing a society that doesn't even exist yet. Besides, any principle can have exceptions if it serves the greater good—it’s just stupid to debate those specifics now, since we aren't anywhere near building that kind of society and we can't possibly see every tiny detail right this second.

ruggedraven36 said:It’s fair because it follows the basic principle that no one should be stuck doing jobs they hate forever. From where I'm sitting, NOBODY has actually offered a single decent argument against the rotation principle proposed by the roadworker. All we get are pathetic anecdotes like yours. Anecdotes aren't arguments. They aren't even typical cases—they're just extreme outliers pulled from current reality, whereas we're talking about how a future society *should* function. We need to speak in terms of PRINCIPLES, at an Abstract level, especially when discussing a society that doesn't even exist yet. Besides, any principle can have exceptions if it serves the greater good—it’s just stupid to debate those specifics now, since we aren't anywhere near building that kind of society and we can't possibly see every tiny detail right this second.

No job is undesirable if the pay is high enough. Someone with limited skills might be happy sweeping streets for $50, while someone else would be miserable even at $150.

But we should still force that second person into work they hate... because forcing anyone into unwanted labor is inherently unjust.🤣

ruggedraven36 said:It’s fair because it follows the basic principle that no one should be stuck doing jobs they hate forever. From where I'm sitting, NOBODY has actually offered a single decent argument against the rotation principle proposed by the roadworker. All we get are pathetic anecdotes like yours. Anecdotes aren't arguments. They aren't even typical cases—they're just extreme outliers pulled from current reality, whereas we're talking about how a future society *should* function. We need to speak in terms of PRINCIPLES, at an Abstract level, especially when discussing a society that doesn't even exist yet. Besides, any principle can have exceptions if it serves the greater good—it’s just stupid to debate those specifics now, since we aren't anywhere near building that kind of society and we can't possibly see every tiny detail right this second.

I'll give you this: predicting how society evolves and what kind of future awaits us is a tall order.
But one thing is certain—if we actually want societal progress, we have to manage our resources more efficiently and economically. And I mean everything: intellectual, creative, material, spiritual... you name it. If someone is highly intelligent, it’s a total waste to have them performing manual labor where they can't contribute anything compared to their intellectual potential. On the flip side, someone with a frail build isn't going to tackle heavy lifting as effectively as an athlete.
Technological advancement will eventually solve the issue: the dirty, monotonous, mind-numbing, dangerous, and unappealing jobs.
In our pursuit of fairness, we shouldn't be unfair ourselves, and indiscriminate rotation? That’s just an unfair approach.
A much more humane and equitable solution would be something like specialized benefits or adjusted hours. For instance, someone cleaning up lead waste could work one month and then take eleven months of paid leave... personally, I’d sign up for that job in a heartbeat.

As for all that talk regarding freedom, justice, fairness, and society... I'll leave the Abstract stuff to the Abstract man, since my own examples might be a bit meager.

steeleagle77 said:No job is undesirable if the pay is high enough. Someone with limited skills might be happy sweeping streets for $50, while someone else would be miserable even at $150.

But we should still force that second person into work they hate... because forcing anyone into unwanted labor is inherently unjust.🤣

Only if you're strictly chasing the bag—otherwise, no. A "dream job" is something you'd actually want to do even if you were sitting on a mountain of cash..

Sandra Murphy33 said:Who exactly is cleaning your toilet?

I’m fairly certain you’ve already ascended far beyond that level of labor with your own "talents"—at least, that's how you sound.

Look, we’re talking about professional sanitation here, not some debate over who scrubs their own bathroom at home.

ruggedraven36 said:It appeals to anyone who actually gives a damn about fairness—including the surgeons themselves.

So he's just dreaming of a world where he isn't the one holding the plunger.

Not just him—nobody.

Wait, you're claiming to speak for neurosurgeons now?

So, I guess you know how to perform brain surgery *and* clean toilets. Poor Peter, though—he only knows how to clean toilets. How on earth would you two split the workload fairly?

Harold Doyle3 said:The practical foundation of any utopia is right there in the name—you'd all end up drowning in filth.

👍

Alexander Thompson said:Look, we’re talking about professional sanitation here, not some debate over who scrubs their own bathroom at home.

Wait, you're claiming to speak for neurosurgeons now?

So, I guess you know how to perform brain surgery *and* clean toilets. Poor Peter, though—he only knows how to clean toilets. How on earth would you two split the workload fairly?

👍

No—more like someone standing up for what’s actually fair.

Harold Doyle3 said:The practical foundation of any utopia is right there in the name—you'd all end up drowning in filth.

Look, even if it all falls apart, isn't the whole point of dreaming up these perfect worlds just to kickstart the imagination? That's how you actually get new ideas to work with, right?

Alexander Thompson said:Look, we’re talking about professional sanitation here, not some debate over who scrubs their own bathroom at home.

Wait, you're claiming to speak for neurosurgeons now?

So, I guess you know how to perform brain surgery *and* clean toilets. Poor Peter, though—he only knows how to clean toilets. How on earth would you two split the workload fairly?

👍

Basically, Peter handles my bathroom, and I'll handle his brain surgery.

gentlerider7 said:I don't even think job rotation is some kind of necessity—that was some other group's idea anyway—but if we're talking about doing things by choice, then yeah, that's entirely up to the individual. There's that famous quote from Marx:

"In a communist society, where no one has a single exclusive sphere of activity, but every one can carry out any activity he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus still permits me to do one thing in the morning, another in the afternoon, and a third in the evening; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and tend cattle in the evening; to criticize after dinner, precisely what I please, without ever becoming a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critic."

Turns out that high-society type was an even bigger idiot than I originally thought.

gentlerider7 said:I don't even think job rotation is some kind of necessity—that was some other group's idea anyway—but if we're talking about doing things by choice, then yeah, that's entirely up to the individual. There's that famous quote from Marx:

"In a communist society, where no one has a single exclusive sphere of activity, but every one can carry out any activity he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus still permits me to do one thing in the morning, another in the afternoon, and a third in the evening; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and tend cattle in the evening; to criticize after dinner, precisely what I please, without ever becoming a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critic."

Bravo. Killer quote. 👍

gentlerider7 said:Look, even if it all falls apart, isn't the whole point of dreaming up these perfect worlds just to kickstart the imagination? That's how you actually get new ideas to work with, right?

To me, utopian thinking just looks like an overactive imagination hitting a brick wall of reality.

I mean, I'll give you this much—imagination can certainly do a lot of things.

Harold Doyle3 said:To me, utopian thinking just looks like an overactive imagination hitting a brick wall of reality.

I mean, I'll give you this much—imagination can certainly do a lot of things.

But honestly, why bother with the reality check? It’s not like anyone here is actually out there trying to force some perfect paradise onto the world anyway.