Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

marxists.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 222 posts

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#21

Post by luckylion »

mgrthrow wrote: post #15
matkoniecz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to Lafargue, wage labour is tantamount to slavery It does seem to be quite useless way to look at the world. It seems that they are unaware of what slavery actually means or deliberately mislead. Or Wikipedia is inaccurate.

Slavery means lots of things. Chattel slavery, yes, but also forced labor like in us prisons. Indentured labor, child soldiers, forced marriage, etc etc. The concept of "wage slavery" is basically, "you are not free to not earn a wage because you will starve". It's also easy to draw parallels between the commodification of ones labor and slavery. It's a term that is not new, is widely used, and debated plenty. The in…

> The concept of "wage slavery" is basically, "you are not free to not earn a wage because you will starve".

Slavery usually includes ownership and force. I believe "wage slavery" is mostly used today because of the connotations of slavery that the user wants to hang their idea on to, but also clearly knows that it's not really it. Like "chicken holocaust" isn't really a holocaust, even though some chicken farms are terrible places, but it's really not the same.

You wouldn't talk of nutritional slavery even though you're not free not to get nutrition, because you'll die. "Wage slavery" very much falls in the same corner, I think. Take away everything else, and imagine an individual being alone on earth. There's fruits to eat and wood around to build a shelter. If the individual doesn't reach for those fruits, and doesn't use the wood, they'll be hungry and cold, and eventually they'll starve. Are they a slave?

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#22

Post by giraffe_lady »

RobotToaster wrote: post #18
giraffe_lady wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is consistent with the meaning of bourgeoisie then, which transposed to modern systems means more like "the owner class" than the contemporary social connotation of well-compensated professionals. Owners benefit from more/harder work, both their own and that of others, and so it (reasonably) becomes a class value for them. A non-owner worker doesn't benefit in the same way, but many still value work in the same wa…

>It is consistent with the meaning of bourgeoisie then, which transposed to modern systems means more like "the owner class" than the contemporary social connotation of well-compensated professionals. That's still the definition used in Marxist circles today.

I know but HN is pretty far from a marxist circle in my experience. And it does also have, at least in american english, a connotation very similar to that of yuppie eg more about social class than relationship to the means of production.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#23

Post by heavyset_go »

matkoniecz wrote: post #5
spacKingChamath wrote: post #3

Some additional info. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Be_Lazy Definitely an interesting way to look at the world.

> According to Lafargue, wage labour is tantamount to slavery It does seem to be quite useless way to look at the world. It seems that they are unaware of what slavery actually means or deliberately mislead. Or Wikipedia is inaccurate.

The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass had this to say on the subject of wage labor[1]:

> [E]xperience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other

From Wikipedia[1]:

> Douglass went on to speak about these conditions as arising from the unequal bargaining power between the ownership/capitalist class and the non-ownership/laborer class within a compulsory monetary market: "No more crafty and effective devise for defrauding the southern laborers could be adopted than the one that substitutes orders upon shopkeepers for currency in payment of wages. It has the merit of a show of honesty, while it puts the laborer completely at the mercy of the land-owner and the shopkeeper"

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery#History

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#24

Post by archarios »

IDK about y'all, but being lazy generally makes me feel horrible. I love getting things done. I hate having to labor simply to enrich others and for me to survive. But I love doing work that I think is meaningful and makes a difference so much more than chilling all day. Chilling needs to happen, but not all the time!

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#26

Post by BitwiseFool »

>"The Right to Be Lazy reminds us that the urge to work is not always beneficial, let alone necessary. It can also be a “strange madness” consuming human lives."

To me, this is one of those things that is designed to be provocative while employing weasel words to great effect. In trying to type out a critique of it, I realize that "not always" and "let alone necessary" can be used to dismiss claims that this is anti-work. Despite the fact that it is highly critical of the "need" to for work.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#27

Post by heavyset_go »

kazinator wrote: post #16
mgrthrow wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery means lots of things. Chattel slavery, yes, but also forced labor like in us prisons. Indentured labor, child soldiers, forced marriage, etc etc. The concept of "wage slavery" is basically, "you are not free to not earn a wage because you will starve". It's also easy to draw parallels between the commodification of ones labor and slavery. It's a term that is not new, is widely used, and debated plenty. The in…

Struggle slavery; you're not free not to struggle on the face of the Earth, otherwise you will not survive. Man, how dare the universe spring forth creatures, yet foist that on them.

Wage labor is an imposition on people by people with power, wage labor is not a natural law or state of being. It is not unlike feudalism in that respect.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#28

Post by luckylion »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #19
klipt wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the needs of a society can be met with 3-4 hours of work a day That's a very subjective question. Suppose we could have maintained a 19th century standard of living for everyone with reduced work, but without the scientific and technological advancements that we got by using that time to do even more work. Would you prefer a society where everyone works 15 hr weeks but the internet was never invented?

> Would you prefer a society where everyone works 15 hr weeks but the internet was never invented? How is that even a question have you seen the internet recently. Slamming YES so hard the button breaks.

You also wouldn't get anything else that has been invented or understood since then. I'm pretty sure you can have the equivalent quality (and length) of life of the average 19th century person with very few hours of work in a week. In Germany, it requires zero hours, welfare here will make you live like a king compared to the 19th century -- it's only relative to today's standards that you wouldn't be rich.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#29

Post by Aunche »

laurentoget wrote: post #11
matkoniecz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to Lafargue, wage labour is tantamount to slavery It does seem to be quite useless way to look at the world. It seems that they are unaware of what slavery actually means or deliberately mislead. Or Wikipedia is inaccurate.

considering lafargue was born in 1842 in cuba on a coffee plantation and was of mixed race he probably had a pretty good idea of what slavery was.

You frame it as if he didn't have a highly privileged background. He was the son of a coffee plantation owner.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#30

Post by heavyset_go »

klipt wrote: post #14
tstrimple wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Automation, which had already come a long way in Lafargue's time, could easily reduce working hours to three or four hours a day. This would leave a large part of the day for the things we really want to do, such as to spend time with friends, relax, enjoy life, and be lazy. Lafargue argues the machine is the saviour of humanity but only if the working time it frees up becomes leisure time. The time that is freed u…

> If the needs of a society can be met with 3-4 hours of work a day That's a very subjective question. Suppose we could have maintained a 19th century standard of living for everyone with reduced work, but without the scientific and technological advancements that we got by using that time to do even more work. Would you prefer a society where everyone works 15 hr weeks but the internet was never invented?

Innovation doesn't require 40 hour work weeks or labor relations that divorce workers from the fruit of their own labor and the democratic decision making that's afforded to owners, but not workers. It's not a dichotomy.
Post reply on HN