Situation Clarification G

 Having established the idea of consultative democracy in this example, there comes the question of how it can be maximised. Given the relative freedom conferred by instituting the principles of Modern Monetary Theory, I would suggest a centrally paid hour every week for everyone, at the time most convenient for them in each period, where they "engage with their democracy". Mostly conducted online, perhaps, with special provision made for those who lack the skills, or lack the necessaries, to engage in this way. You watch a transparently-prepared digest of the expert debates in parliament on the week's issues and then indicate your preference. Your representative then takes these to the administration, acting basically like an enumerator would in a census. In all but the most basic way, you are representing yourself. Their denomination as a representative is purely functional.

If you don't engage, you don't get paid. But there would have to be, I think, some sort of continuing promotion of engagement as a healthy aspect for our system, aside from pay. The building of it, much like not smoking is today, or being vaccinated, or driving safely, etc etc, as a responsible course of action - seeing it as a virtue.

The separating out of this hour for these purposes each week opens up a large new vista. How might our week look, and how might our lives be arranged? There is another critical part of Modern Monetary Theory called the Job Guarantee. This essentially says that if you are unemployed the public system can employ you, and you can have a living wage as a result. It has been explained as "the system being the employer of last resort". I think that might be language to appease private employers, as I can well imagine that it could be preferred employment by those whom it benefits. Of course, someone who is more money-motivated, that is, wants more than just a living wage, probably won't find it appealing - they'll want to stay in the private sector. All well and good - let's keep everyone satisfied.

There is, after all, so much to be done. There are a lot of us, and we have all sorts of needs which need meeting. There's no question at all that we can occupy everyone who can work, all of the time. Our current system is not maximising this in any way. And we have the result of course: a starved, clogged and denuded public purpose. 

I would like to think of this as potentially a template for quite significant change in our ideas about work. Given that you are someone who either is currently unemployed, or equally wishes to positively join this new system of Job Guarantee by preference, there is potential for quite innovative measures. Does your guaranteed work have to be all in the one place? Could you not, in a co-ordinated way, develop a working life spread among all sorts of tasks, if that variety would make a difference to your quality of life? Mondays and Thursdays doing A, Tuesdays and Wednesdays B, and Fridays C? Is variety the spice of life? I can only say for me it is. But of course there may be many who would prefer to concentrate on the one thing, specialising in it. 'Each to their own' seems to be workable in this scenario. With the proviso that if we're low in numbers in any essential thing, all those who can make shift to help, even if it's not their preferred activity.

Of course the above applies to work that could be called "generally skilled". Anything that requires specialist knowledge would need to be arranged differently. Portering at a hospital may be generally skilled; doctoring and nursing definitely not. But, given that those individuals may have higher stress and responsibility, and presumably will also have general skills, I don't see any reason why they can't say "I love my work, but I would also love to take Wednesdays off to do something less stressful, just to ease the load". 

Thus begins a quiet revolution - 'designed working lives' inaugurates the idea that how we spend our lives can be manipulated by us to make us a little more fulfilled, whilst retaining the idea of responsibility to the whole of the rest of us to get things done.

Sterling Karat Gold by Isabel Waidner (2021)

 This is a fascinating cartoon. Basically a comic of alternative heroism. I'm not all that much into all the new politics of the non-binary, though I would on principle support it when confronted with human beings who expect respect, which seems fair! What Waidner is doing here is setting up a fantastic scenario: a non-binary central character and their non-binary friend, who are residents of a Camden estate, and indulge in performance art-ish happenings, are in the mix of the area with various others, binary and not so. The bomb of the action is set off by "bullfighters" who (what can we call it?) "contend with" the central character on the street. This will indicate the remove at which events are described here. I think it can be read as an attack, and the assumption can be made that they are street yobs who have a go at someone who is different. But of course in the language of this piece there is a choreographed quality to how it's presented, and a slight separation from reality. From this a lot concatenates, with perhaps police investigators playing a part, though they are represented almost as secret agents. This develops a little further with an almost-reference to Kafka and a "trial" (some sort of mysterious legal case) that is brought about against Sterling, the main character. Also included is some politics, mainly to do with gender issues and those of refugees. Much of the narrative concerns the world as seen from these alternative points of view, all sieved through the language of fantasy - outfits, both humorous and street high fashion, are limned in detail; identities and histories wash in and out of focus, with wishes and desires as important and telling as realities; time telescopes and time-travel is possible, in order to right wrongs or see vanished loved ones; small poetic resonances are repeated for effect. All these things tumble in and out of one another intriguingly - the key thing being that, in the style of the piece, there is a really good economy: this is not flabby with all the excess of imagining - it's concentrated. The end is pretty dark, but, given what I think the piece is trying to say about how it feels when you are the one under attack, the violence in it seems....I hesitate to say appropriate.....perhaps accurate. The author appears to be asking: "how would this play if the boot were on the other foot?"