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

61–70 of 222 posts

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#61

Post by kelseyfrog »

least wrote: post #31
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…

> The concept of "wage slavery" is basically, "you are not free to not earn a wage because you will starve". This is the baseline for basically pretty much all life on earth. You will die unless you perform labor to interrupt death. Your body itself must perform labor in order to generate the energy and to allocate the resources you provide it to survive as well. If you expand the definition of slavery to encompass l…

It might help to read more about Marxism to avoid a reductio ad absurdum.

The general argument as laid out in Capital vol 1 is highlighted in the working day[1]. This section introduces the contradiction between laborer and capitalist, namely, that a laborer is paid for his or her time, while the capitalist in turn receives the product of creation.

The point is that this is a rather strange exchange. Instead of the laborer's product of creation being bought as a commodity, the capitalist pays the laborer for their time. The capitalist makes a profit (in their subsequent transactions[2]) because the the money gained by reselling what the laborer produces nets a profit[3]. Were that this was a fair trade, there would be no profit to make.[4]

Extending this to all labor is evidently disingenuous as the argument is contingent on the exchange of money and I hope at this point, given the above, you can see why. All life on earth doesn't participate in economy of labor and earn wages. If you agree, and I hope you do, that such a proposition is absurd, then I kindly refer back to the first sentence of this comment as we're now on the same page.

1. Vol 1 Chapter 10. Section 1

2. The C-M in the M-C-M circuit.

3. Yes, even when accounting for raw materials and the investment in the instruments of production.

4. If you're yelling at the screen, "But that's the point!" then yes, we're also in agreement. This maybe one of those "so so so close" moments.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#62

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #56
ok_dad wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There lies the problem: in todays society, I’m not free to choose how I live outside of a pre-approved selection of careers due to a small portion of people deciding they wanted this specific setup.

There are an incredible variety of careers to choose from and there are countless unconventional jobs out there that people have never heard of. There is no small portion of people creating a pre-approved selection of roles that we have no choice but to follow. Even if there were, it definitely begs the question of 'who are these people' and 'how do they have this power'?

They're called "investors", and they choose what kind of pursuits receive monetary compensation.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#63

Post by nonrandomstring »

archarios wrote: post #57
nonrandomstring wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. As a 'victim' of the Protestant Work Ethic, or maybe personality traits of the industrious/conscientious type, I find it the struggle is fighting for my right to be active in a world that increasingly lionises a passive, convenient and dependent life-stance. I just want to shake people sometimes. Look around you and see what needs to be done and the duty life demands of you!

Yeah I suppose if we had fully automated space communism already I may have a different viewpoint..

Makes me wonder. If we did have automated luxury communism, would people like me just not be satisfied and struggle to find new "problems"? Alexis De Toqueville described the "American Spirit" as one of "restiveness"... itching to change and move (FWIW I'm British but tarn with the same brush).

There's a funny line in "Analyse This" where Bully Crystal's character says innocently to Robert De Niro...

  "What are you going to do this summer?"
And the Mafioso gangster (De Niro) replies;

  "About What?!"

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#64

Post by nradov »

armchairhacker wrote: post #33

Roughly how much "work" does every person in the world need to do so that every person in the world can live a minimal but decent lifestyle? Of course, some people will want and take more than "decent", some people are disabled so its unreasonable to expect and unfair to demand for them to contribute the same amount, some people genuinely like to work all sorts of jobs (including hard labor), and speaking of, there a…

You're asking the wrong question. Regardless of the specific number of work hours that would be necessary to live a minimal but decent lifestyle (however you choose to define that), some people will always choose to work longer and harder in order to raise their social status. That status is often denominated in money but it can also take the form of possession of scarce resources, athletic skills, physical appearance, or fame. Most people are very status conscious and will then work harder themselves in order to keep up with the competition (or at least not fall too far behind).

You might claim that this status seeking is irrational or unhealthy or whatever, but that's a moot point. It's fundamental human nature and will never change.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#65

Post by BizarroLand »

archarios wrote: post #24

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!

I feel like the point is that we shouldn't be goaded into activity for the sake of capitalism, that we should have the right to be lazy even if we never use it.

It would be nice if I could just walk out of my job for 2 weeks and get rested and refreshed and then come back like it was nothing without first having to make an appointment for said vacation and possibly take calls and deal with issues remotely the whole time, you know?

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#66

Post by mgrthrow »

kazinator wrote: post #60
heavyset_go wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a dichotomy between wage labor and living in the woods picking berries. You can have extremely similar production and economies that we have now, but without wage labor. One other option is worker ownership, as owning the fruits of one's own labor is not the same thing as wage labor. There are plenty of examples of historical and contemporary worker ownership, and none of them involve living in the woods.

In order to own the fruits of your labor, you have to pay for all the tools and materials you need, and the space where you apply the tools to the materials. The material suppliers and toolsmiths also own the fruits of their labor, and don't owe them to you. Capitalism exists because individual worker ownership doesn't scale beyond simple trades. If a worker gets enough wherewithal to scale his or her operation to ju…

I'd encourage you to read The Conquest of Bread for some high level thoughts on other ways we could arrange things that a) aren't primitive and b) aren't capitalism.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#67

Post by nradov »

heavyset_go wrote: post #55
kazinator wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People engage in wage labor because they find it preferable to alternatives like hunting and gathering berries. However meager is their lifestyle, it's better than what it would be under the alternatives. That's what people are slaves of: consumption. People engage in wage labor because it sustains a certain level of consumption that alternative activities wouldn't.

It isn't a dichotomy between wage labor and living in the woods picking berries. You can have extremely similar production and economies that we have now, but without wage labor. One other option is worker ownership, as owning the fruits of one's own labor is not the same thing as wage labor. There are plenty of examples of historical and contemporary worker ownership, and none of them involve living in the woods.

Worker cooperatives are legal and there are some around today. There's nothing stopping workers from owning the fruits of their own labor. Yet most workers choose not to join or start cooperatives, and instead prefer wage labor. Why is that?

It seems that most workers prioritize a steady wage without the risk of being an owner. And it's difficult for worker cooperatives in capital-intensive industries to attract outside investors; investors who put in significant amounts of money quite rationally want some control over the enterprise rather than leaving the decisions up to workers.

One of the most prominent examples of employee ownership was with United Airlines. Employees gained majority ownership in 1994. That kind of worked for a while but ultimately failed, ironically partly due to labor union disputes. It seems the workers had trouble deciding how to share the fruits of their labor.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#68

Post by eyelidlessness »

luckylion wrote: post #21
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…

> 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…

> Slavery usually includes ownership and force.

Ownership applies very specifically to chattel slavery, and does not apply to the vast majority of extant slavery today.

> 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.

No, it’s a much more sincere concept than that, from an analysis that workers are forced to do labor which enriches others—in an involuntary exchange for a disproportionately small fraction of the fruits of that labor—rather than doing either the direct labor which would satisfy their own needs or the collective labor whose fruits would be shared by all.

The force is rooted in private property; importantly: private in this usage is jargon, meant as ownership of productive means, not as individual personal ownership of arbitrary stuff. To the extent productive property ownership is concentrated and pervasive, which is a nearly total extent in most of the world, this force is practically unavoidable for the vast majority of workers.

Your likening, along with several others, of waged labor to basic labors like nutrition or shelter is not wrong but misses the point. For “wage slaves” (quoted not to dismiss its validity but to indicate I’m still engaged with clarifying the term), the only options available to acquire food and shelter are:

- work to enrich others in exchange for a fraction of their productive output

- become an owner of productive private property and an employer of other “wage slaves”

- become an owner of some productive private property and voluntarily share it with others (to the extent that’s achievable, practical and sustainable)

- reject productive private property claims (which itself may be punishable by more explicitly forced labor! but in any case is a high risk to other aspects of one’s autonomy however limited)

If there truly are fruits to eat and woods around from which to build a shelter, from which anyone could freely choose that lifestyle rather than wage labor, then the term “wage slavery” would definitely be as sensational as you suggest. But for, well, nearly everyone who works for wages, that isn’t true. The options above are the only ones available, and acquiring private productive property is an exceedingly limited pursuit regardless of how one wants to use or share it. For the nearly everyone else remaining, they must toil so others profit or they must do crimes.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#69

Post by nradov »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #59
kazinator wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People engage in wage labor because they find it preferable to alternatives like hunting and gathering berries. However meager is their lifestyle, it's better than what it would be under the alternatives. That's what people are slaves of: consumption. People engage in wage labor because it sustains a certain level of consumption that alternative activities wouldn't.

> People engage in wage labor because they find it preferable to alternatives like hunting and gathering berries. They don't exactly choose. If a person wants to live by hunting and gathering, or by subsistence agriculture, he first has to acquire fertile land. And all that land is taken. In the United States, you don't even have the Right to Roam. Nor, on the public rights-of-way, do you have any right to so much as…

Now you're just making excuses. In the USA at least, there are still small parcels of fertile land available very cheaply in isolated rural areas where no one else wants to live. Look for places in Alaska or Appalachia. If someone wants to live the 18th Century subsistence farmer lifestyle then it's totally possible. Get off the Internet and go live your dream.
Post reply on HN