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

81–90 of 222 posts

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#81

Post by least »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #77
least wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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] > 3. Yes, even when…

I regret to inform you that this argument is not mine; it's Marx's. You're more than welcome to direct your complaints to him, but he may take a while to respond. Be assured though, if you take the time to read Capital, your criticisms are addressed. I'd encourage you to read it. It's a much better way to understand the argument than a HN comment section. Good luck!

If it were simply about Marx's argument, then you wouldn't suggest that we (you and I, not Marx) could be in agreement, which you mentioned in your previous comment.

This is like me telling you to go read a textbook on economics. Obviously it's a better way to learn about economics than from me, but that's not really the point, is it?

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#82

Post by [deleted] »

klipt wrote: post #71
giraffe_lady wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Okay how about modern medicine then? If you got a cancer that only became treatable in the last ten years, would you trade your life away so that everyone in the last century could work 15 hour weeks and most likely never discover the treatment which was the cumulative result of a century of people working 40 hour weeks?

[deleted]

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#83

Post by Zircom »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #22
RobotToaster wrote: post #18

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. 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.

HN skews pretty neo liberal. A lot of holy-than-thou proselytizing of Western exceptionalism, as if Western culture actually earned it's place as the dominant culture on Earth through the virtue of simply being better than everyone else, who I guess just didn't want it bad enough, rather than a combination of luck, ruthless exploitation, and general disregard for the well-being of their fellow man.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#84

Post by eternityforest »

throwaquestion5 wrote: post #74

This is from 140 years ago but feel very modern "The manufacturers have lost their bearings and know not which way to turn. They can no longer find the raw material to satisfy the lawless depraved passion of their laborers for work. In our woolen districts dirty and half rotten rags are raveled out to use in making certain cloths sold under the name of renaissance, which have about the same durability as the promises…

On the other had, we are a lot better at making things out of cheap materials. Clothes from Target are relatively durable considering the price, especially if you do basic repairs like they would have back then.

Even the food is probably better now.

It's not perfect, but modern products are pretty amazing. A shirt can sell for $2 and last 20 years in some cases.

Of course sweatshops and pollution are still awful.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#85

Post by kelseyfrog »

least wrote: post #81
kelseyfrog wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regret to inform you that this argument is not mine; it's Marx's. You're more than welcome to direct your complaints to him, but he may take a while to respond. Be assured though, if you take the time to read Capital, your criticisms are addressed. I'd encourage you to read it. It's a much better way to understand the argument than a HN comment section. Good luck!

If it were simply about Marx's argument, then you wouldn't suggest that we (you and I, not Marx) could be in agreement, which you mentioned in your previous comment. This is like me telling you to go read a textbook on economics. Obviously it's a better way to learn about economics than from me, but that's not really the point, is it?

I'm sorry, but did I do something to offend you?

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#86

Post by ruined »

nradov wrote: post #64
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 appearanc…

social status is, by definition, cultural, and cultural values are malleable.

i think it's also worth pointing out that work is perhaps not so connected to status as may be assumed. there is plenty of work that provides no status, and it seems to me that higher-status people work less.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#87

Post by supriyo-biswas »

While the article definitely speaks to me, I don't see how being lazy can be practically ingrained in society, as some amount of labor is required for basic human needs, even in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

From there, a hierarchy of power would also be nice-to-have, since it can help with conflict resolution and efficient organization of resources, but we could argue at that point, it's starting to resemble capitalism somewhat.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#89

Post by lezojeda »

ruined wrote: post #86
nradov wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 appearanc…

social status is, by definition, cultural, and cultural values are malleable. i think it's also worth pointing out that work is perhaps not so connected to status as may be assumed. there is plenty of work that provides no status, and it seems to me that higher-status people work less.

Social status is indeed cultural, but the search for it comes from deep instincts found in a lot of other mammals besides us. Trying to go aginst the search of a higher social status is trying to stop gravity.
Post reply on HN