Who fixes toilets under communism?
Who fixes toilets under communism?
https://bsky.app/profile/brenthor.bsky.social/post/3krzc7fs77k2i
Best job i ever had was maintenance guy at a nursing home. Loved it. Rewarding. Fulfilling. Paid only $10.75/hr so i left it and 'developed my career' and now im 'successful' but at least once a week i have dreams where im back in the home hanging pictures, flirtin with the ol gals, being useful.
So when people ask 'who fixes toilets under communism?' my answer is a resounding 'me. I will fix the toilets.'
You're viewing a single thread.
Whoever is going to be using it. It's not fucking complicated. Under (actual) communism the populace is educated to take care of themselves, unlike in capitalism, which purposefully perpetuates the class divide through lack of education to preserve hierarchy.
"Under communism you fix your own damn toilet" is a bit of a hard sale I'd say
This is already the case if you're poor under capitalism. I have to fix literally everything if it's broken.
Not much of a difference there then
It's also terribly inefficient. We could do what we already know works better which is train some people who then help others. That way people can become a specialist at a skill they're suited for.
I dunno I mean a toilet's pretty uncomplicated and I don't see that changing too much. Just get the bean counters to run the numbers on making an idiot proof toilet that's made so like at least 1 in 3 people can repair it without formal training or instructions, against the expense of having a bunch of guys, maybe real plumbers, running around fixing all the toilets.
I disagree. First of all, a trained craftsment for sanitary and heating installations has to think about stuff like where to put pipes, which angles to observe, which diameters are necessary... All of this does not matter for fixing an existing installation.
And second, when people learn the basic principles of it, they also learn how to better maintain things so they need less fixing in the first place. Also if there is no profit incentive, there is no incentive to provide overengineered but easily breaking systems but rather straightforward and reliable ones. For instance the hardest part of fixing my washing machine by myself was finding what the god damn error code meant.
Last three times my toilet needed fixing I was the one that did it.
Well it sold me. I'd much rather be able to fix it than not.
That works for stuff like "how do I connect two pipes", but not so much for more complex matters like planning out a bathroom, or wiring a house. Or worse, things that actually require practice, like plastering a wall or bricklaying.
So skilled workers? You're afraid people will stop learning trades?
No, I'm saying that's smarter than doing everything yourself
Those are all things where you can learn to do them under the supervision of an expert. And given the productivity we achieved with automation we could have a 20 hour "efficient" work week and use the other 20 hours for our "inefficient" shenanigans.
These things can be learned, so they can be taught. Don't use the lack of education we've experienced as an excuse for further lack of education. That's super weak.
Of course you can learn them, you can learn anything.
But are you really going to learn every single skill you might one day need? Does this apply to everything, will you, for example, develop your own engine oil from the fractional distiller you hand-welded, with the metals you alloyed at home out of the ore you smelted yourself, just so you can lubricate the electric razor you assembled by hand?
No? Is that perhaps a bit inefficient? Of course it is, because no single human being can learn every skill we have available in society, and that's been true since we invented agriculture.
There is no shame in not knowing how to plaster a wall, because that's hard. Just like there is no shame in not being able to hand-weld and operate a fractional distiller. Now, not being able to unclog your toilet, or paint a wall, is up for discussion.
I actually do have to learn to plaster a wall, to fix my house. People should be taught everything they need to know to live on their own, sustainably. I can't believe you're trying to argue against that. Capitalism makes everyone weaker, top to bottom. Wake up.
You won't learn complex skills if you don't have a chance to exercise them often. In 10 years, you probably won't be in condition to plaster another wall, if the only time you have done it is now. So you need to continuously relearn stuff, if you can.
I don't see the problem if people specialize in certain trades and can contribute to the community with them.
I never said people can't specialize. You're totally ignoring the point, which is that basic life skills aren't taught because capitalism assumes the owner will pay somebody else, rather than being actually useful people themselves. Try listening sometime, it may do you some good.
You are simply moving the goalpost. Basically all the comments chain talks about advanced skills. I can see there is a general consensus (and I agree with this as well) about the fact that learning basic skills in multiple areas is both beneficial and achievable.
The whole point of this comment referred to complex skills, and plastering a wall was given as an example of such complex skills. To which you answered "I am going to plaster a wall". Try admitting that you might have made an overstatement or simply have been too geberic sometimes, nobody is keeping score.
Fixing a toilet should be considered a basic life skill, in my opinion. So is plastering, which is basically just large-scale patching. Toilets are important for quality of life, or are you going to try and disagree with that too? You're literally the one moving the goalpost and you admit that by referring to the comments rather than the post, which was what I was talking about, and have always been talking about. Maybe stop throwing a fit just because I said the people deserve better education and that capitalism sucks. Both are true whether you like hearing it or not. Anarcho-communism believes in strengthening the individual so that if the society fails, the people can still survive well. It's called self-sustainability. Be mad at it if you want, doesn't make it wrong.
Fixing a toilet doesn't mean much. Unclogging a toilet is a thing, replumbing it is a complete different thing. I would say plastering a wall is also complex. That said, my objection has nothing to do with not liking your opinion, I am very much a critic of capitalism myself and I consider myself a communist. I simply disagree with you in where the bar is with regards to what people "should learn" to do and what instead should be done by professionals who do that thing day in and day out. The argument is simple: you can technically learn anything but you won't have the time or the possibility to learn well everything. If society fails you will need to give up stuff, despite whatever this prepper version of anarcho-communism says, because you simply won't be able to be a competent farmer, electrician, builder, doctor, plumber, etc. This has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with the fact that complex skills need to be practiced to be maintained or acquired.
Actually, it has to do with hierarchy, and as a communist you should be able to see that. Capitalism itself is a hierarchy, and you're putting the professional over the individual. You're denying people the right to learn how to take care of themselves. You're also making it more difficult to cross-profession. You're perpetuating the system. You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself. I'm not talking about learning everything. I'm talking about learning to be self-sufficient, which I already said. If you are actually a communist, being such a clearly not anarchist one, you need to consider putting your focus on arguing with the right-wing instead of your comrades.