Who supervises and dictates commands to kindergarten teachers or paramedics or pilots?
If you were in the process of being treated by a paramedic, would you want the paramedic to experiment on you by testing out a medical hypothesis invented by the paramedic?
Do you want a worker in a factory that manufactures parts for airplanes to improvise with creative new ideas that may cause an airplane that you are flying in to malfunction? During flight, there’s no opportunity to disassemble the airplane and test all of the parts. Parts have to function according to specifications.
Upon casual, visual inspection, two parts may appear identical to the worker, but the two parts may function differently. A production process can have unintended side-effects on what has been produced. You cannot afford to experiment with a production process unless you have access to the manufacturing equipment that won’t interfere with regularly scheduled production, and access to materials that can be dedicated to making new prototypes.
You misunderstood my point a bit. Of course they shouldn’t experiment with untested things, but the guy who works in the factory for airplane parts might not always want to work on the same part of the assembly line producing the same part. He might want to shift around a bit. He may not always want to produce airplane parts either. Sometimes he might want to work in a different factory, or be a baker, or a cleaner. Performing the same activity everyday is demoralizing and boring, and doesn’t allow you to develop multiple skills.
“Further, the division of labour implies the contradiction between the interest of the separate individual or the individual family and the communal interest of all individuals who have intercourse with one another. And indeed, this communal interest does not exist merely in the imagination, as the “general interest,” but first of all in reality, as the mutual interdependence of the individuals among whom the labour is divided. And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.”
And, of course, having things dictated to you doesn’t just imply the methods you use. The hierarchical setting of work isn’t enjoyable - my work hours, my breaks, and other things are dictated to me. I have very little freedom in the workplace. It would be better if I could decide those things myself, if nothing in my labour was dictated to me. I choose whether I want to work there today, I choose for how long, and I choose what labour I perform.
.154–168 On the other hand, Beevor noted the often extraordinary bravery of the Soviet soldiers in a battle that was only comparable to Verdun, and argued that terror alone cannot explain such self-sacrifice.[31]