We absolutely need people to acquire experience for developing resilient organization that can be generalized to other locations, and shared across broader coalitions.
Every skill is different from every other qualitatively.
Skills are not related by any natural ranking from their intrinsic attributes.
Their distribution across society is not a natural consequence of their intrinsic attributes, but rather results from processes that are social, relating to accessibly and desirability for individuals receiving training.
Social processes are not natural, because they occur in society, not in nature.
I am sorry that you are feeling confused as you try to follow, but further simplification would be impossible.
I think unfortunately a stage of deconstruction is often needed for each individual, if any space it to open for consciousness to take hold.
There is a curious tension between the prudence of conceiving a coherent plan versus the aspiration to foster a politics of participation.
I am often criticized, when advocating for transformative change, for not proffering a vision. It seems everyone is expecting to be led, as though conditioned to be no more than a follower.
It represents a profound challenge to transform our society away from adherence to fixed ideals and toward expression of individual agency.
Any such idea is possible in principle, but ultimately no configuration will be actual except the one constructed through general participation. Variation may be considerable across locality and over time.
As explained, I clarified the sense for which I invoked the term.
Beyond seeking such an answer, your question is not particularly coherent. No right is being asserted.
I invoked the term originally, and later clarified the meaning, which is not in my experience controversial.
How do you understand nature?
I think anarchists may support representation in the sense of delegation, but I have understood that most would be reluctant to uphold a representative body in which would be vested permanent power.
Capital and the state are two sides of the same coin. The state protects capital, and capital constructs the state.
Anarchism is the earliest socialist tradition, and the later concept of the workers’ state has always been problematic.
I feel doubtful that your criticism appropriately targets anarchism.
Anarchists rarely utilize or support voting, nor any prescribed system that would supersede the evolving consensus of a group.
Generally, a system is stable, if not by enforcement from a state, then only by being upheld from consensus.
Care work is just about as useless and unskilled as any, taking as the guide how work is valorized under current systems.
Workers’ agency already has been removed.
Their accomplishments already are being plundered.
Otherwise, the discussion would not be occurring, and the conditions from which it emerged would be only fictional.
I am interested in criticizing the systems that have produced the disempowerment, and in building new systems that empower everyone.
You are interested on avoiding criticisms of the systems in which problems are occurring, denying the deeper structure of such systems, fatuously asserting their benevolence, and obstructing possibilities for transformation.
Your accusation about denying reality is dishonest.
You live beneath particular social systems sustained by ideals of a particular historic period, and refuse to see further, while deriding anyone even for trying.
I think the observation is that little or no broad difference emerges between training for providing skilled labor, versus simply providing labor that may be considered as unskilled. In either case, one provides labor, with or without the intention of developing skill, but certainly converging toward such an effect.
The meanings of terms are often determined and enforced socially through particular systems that carry power in society.
Between us, I am the only attempting to provide a meaningful contribution.
If you have one of your own, please offer it. Otherwise, stop making noise.
Listen. The topic is terminology and constructs imposing on workers a division, of some being “unskilled”.
You had suggested that such norms have a “logistical” (e.g. natural) utility, as for example of career counselors seeking to process cases more efficiently. Your repeated insistence that I have invoked an appeal to nature, even in spite of my denial, is dishonest.
I sought to challenge your representation of the natural utility for the construct of the “unskilled worker”, and your representation of its occurrence in society. Constructs are not equally helpful to everyone. Society has structure.
Capitalists organize the division of labor, the recruitment of workers, and perpetuate the wage system.
The term “unskilled worker”, obviously, is a construct reproduced by capitalists, toward the effect of marginalizing a cohort of the working class, and keeping the class divided and therefore disempowered, against becoming conscious of being oppressed beneath the wage system.
There is no argument to be won, or grand solution to be proposed. There is no value merely in subjecting the privileged to “bashing”.
Value derives from being critical over how society is organized, and the processes by which it is reproduced, and from seeking the opportunities for meaningful change.
Answers and solutions cannot simply be passed to you, as though on a silver platter. You need to think and to learn, to ask questions yourself, and to try to answer them, with an attitude that is critical, not avoidant or assured.
What is abundantly clear is that if you are protected the construct of the “unskilled workers”, then you are protecting capitalists, and harming the working class.
Even so, it is not robust to extrapolate a level of skill strictly from the frequency of error.
Anarchists seek to replace the state with systems that are constructed through full participation, not to reproduce the state with a different one that may seem to some as more appealing.
Would you mind explaining your understanding over the incompatibility between consensus and mutual aid, and what you imagine may be neither coercive or consensual?