Saturday, August 10, 2013

Who Cleans the Toilets?

Since I started with the whole Tangleball thing there's been one really important question that's bothered me. It's really bothered me. So today, I found myself cleaning the toilets...

Whenever I've asked, it's been the same old answer: "I think X cleaned them last". X is a constant. It hasn't changed. So I have absolutely no idea if X cleaned them once, back in the day, or if the toilets are being cleaned by one person regularly.

It's a pattern. It goes far further than the toilet. It speaks to a problem with communism. Communism is a system whereby the ultimate goal is that people work far lesser hours (as opposed to capitalism that seems to see us even more busy) and are equally respected as everyone else.

I was standing next to a project that I and 'Y' had been working on. Someone came up to me and said "is that 'Y's' project?". I was annoyed. It's related to Manaiakalani in which case, it being credited to solely 'Y' just annoys me given that 'Y' has only really been involved from sometime this year as opposed to my almost 3 years.

It doesn't work. And why doesn't it work? Because, if there is someone cleaning the toilets, then you have to respect them. There's someone who's figured out what's really needed, and despite how icky it might be, they're doing it. But the point is... no one cleans the toilets. All those left'ist elitists forget something. That people need some form of motivation.

But there's a whole other problem. Leadership. Take the "Occupy Wall Street" movement for example. Occupy Wall St was a mess. The media ate them up for all they were worth. As an anti-capitalist I liked and respected the message. As a human being capable of logic, I found the whole thing dumb.

Why dumb? Imagine Occupy Wall St actually got some traction. The American government wants to negotiate. They're willing to hold the bankers that caused the recession responsible (though I'm not convinced the recession existed due to bad financial decisions or if it was media inspired. Currently I think both. It existed in the States which lead to the media inspiring it in other places) but they don't agree to do something... whatever... It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. Who do they talk to? Despite it highlighting some really important issues (though because it was leaderless and had multiple demands and splinter groups etc. no one took them terribly seriously) it was designed to fail. No two ways about it. It wasn't a movement for change. It was a movement for the illusion of being involved in change.

So what happens when there is no leader? Someone takes on that role anyway. Even if it is to be all militant about it being a community driven thing. Someone does it. And the problem with that?

If that person isn't one of those militant "it's all collaboratively run" people, then they're probably not all that representative of the group.

But even worse are those "collaboratively run" people. It seems that open ended questions result in people going around in circles as a suggestion is made and then another and efforts are split into both or neither. And even worse than that is that they become so obsessed with it being community run that an individual's suggestion can't be heard because it limits options for the community in which case nothing ever gets done.

So, to all of you leftist elitists out there, who cleans the fornicating toilets?

2 comments:

  1. There should be a committee to decide consensus on this. It should be called the "Fornicating Toilet Committee".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoa! Dude! Impressive resume. Anyone reading this should click on Ira's link. Very very cool.

      I found myself doing it again recently - I didn't mind only that night there was a meeting and no one did a damn thing to maintain the space. Terribly disappointing.

      I think I'm going to have to dissolve any committees and stage a coup. A coup to clean the fornicating soup - which would almost be alliteration but then... I can't have everything my own way.

      Delete