or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Abolish Restaurants
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Abolish Restaurants - Page 2

post #16 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc237
The logic is that dining out is an experience. My wife is a good artist, that does not obviate the desire to visit museums. The need is to prevent folk from committing suicide from sheer and absolute boredom!

Of course it is, that's one of the reasons why I go to the restaurants. But if there were no restaurants, I would still get food and even good food and I doubt I'd commit suicide if I had to cook for myself. There is a strong historical precedent to this
post #17 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quint
I'm not interested in really defending "large public kitchens" necessarily. I think there are a number of possibilities as to how people could feed each other in a communist society. I don't think you can figure all the specifics out in advance. What I am arguing is that the restaurant, the institution we know today, will not exist. And it will be the people who work in restaurants who tear this institution apart.

This doesn't mean the building will necessarily be burned to the ground. It doesn't mean, people won't cook for each other. It just means that these activities won't be forced on us for a wage, won't be directed toward making a profit, and won't be bought and sold.

Che wanted capitalism where the government was the boss... not communism.

Communism is not a program to be put into effect at some time in the future. It is a movement that exists today.

You're always going to have people willing to work for not a lot of money, be it illegal immigrants or otherwise. Living in the real world would probably be a good idea for people buying this BS. If you don't want to work for what a restaurant pays, I'm sure there are plenty of others who do.
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by WN2
Of course it is, that's one of the reasons why I go to the restaurants. But if there were no restaurants, I would still get food and even good food and I doubt I'd commit suicide if I had to cook for myself. There is a strong historical precedent to this

Strongly disagree. It is a well documented historical fact that the collapse of the Aztecs was caused by the closing of ALL restaurants and inns during a period social experimentation. The middle class revolted and sided with the invading Spaniards, whom the middle-class wrongly thought were prepared to open restaurants in exchange for gold. Similar attempts to close restaurants in the midday and mandate boxed lunchs from home led to the infamous Boxed Rebellion in 19th Century China.

It is never, ever a good idea to interfere with a man's inalienable right to dine out.
post #19 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by WN2
Umm, why? Not that I would be against restaurants or agree about the politics in the thread's first post, but on what kind of logic you _need_ to have restaurants if someone's in your home all the time?
I'm defining a restaurant simply as someplace to get food outside of the home; so, unless everybody has someone at home to cook for them, there will by definition be restaurants.

I'm reminded of what the bricklayer (or was it a fishmonger?) said to the Cambridge don: "Communism's an ism. Capitalism is just what 'appens."

Trying to get communism to work with human beings (barring some sort of chemical behavioral modification) is rather like trying to build a perpetual energy machine. Some things, like human nature and the first law, are rather hard to change.
post #20 of 31
I waited tables for many years. I worked in several different restaurants, ranging from relatively high end to not so high end (TGI Fridays.)

I made good money as a waiter and enjoyed myself. Waiting tables can be a lot of fun and can also be quite lucrative assuming you're working in the right environment.

Based upon my experience working as a waiter, I disagree with a number of the assumptions and conclusions of this paper. I also think that waiting tables provides a unique opportunity for an enterprising person with no specialized job skills to make decent money.

I also enjoy patronizing restaurants.

So, I'm not about to vote for the abolition of restaurants.

Quint's post also reeks of
post #21 of 31
But then what will kennethpollock complain about? I find many of the illustrations humorous.
post #22 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by mano
Free Che Guevara!
(with the purchase of any large sandwich)
post #23 of 31
Some people clearly have very poor grasp on history and reality.
post #24 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Appleby
I'm defining a restaurant simply as someplace to get food outside of the home; so, unless everybody has someone at home to cook for them, there will by definition be restaurants.

..and you couldn't cook for yourself because of..?
post #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by mano
Free Che Guevara!
Or at least eat at The Che Guevara Cafe.
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quint

Restaurants are capitalist.
So are most ISP's and computer manufacturers.
And grocery stores.
And farmers' markets.
And farms.
post #27 of 31
On a slightly more serious vein, there is nothing that stops a restaurant from running as a worker's collective. Each staff member would share proportionally in the profits of the establishment.
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc237
Strongly disagree. It is a well documented historical fact that the collapse of the Aztecs was caused by the closing of ALL restaurants and inns during a period social experimentation. The middle class revolted and sided with the invading Spaniards, whom the middle-class wrongly thought were prepared to open restaurants in exchange for gold. Similar attempts to close restaurants in the midday and mandate boxed lunchs from home led to the infamous Boxed Rebellion in 19th Century China.

It is never, ever a good idea to interfere with a man's inalienable right to dine out.
post #29 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc237
On a slightly more serious vein, there is nothing that stops a restaurant from running as a worker's collective. Each staff member would share proportionally in the profits of the establishment.
But then it would still be capitalist, which apparently is a no-no.
post #30 of 31
I thought the beauty of the collective is that each would share in the proceeds according to their work?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Abolish Restaurants