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

91–100 of 222 posts

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#91

Post by AnimalMuppet »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #62
BitwiseFool wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope. Customers choose what kinds of pursuits receive monetary compensation.

You have something you want to do (and get paid for) that investors won't pay you to do? Can you get customers to pay for it? Then just go do it. Nobody's stopping you.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#92

Post by kazinator »

mgrthrow wrote: post #66
kazinator wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless demonstrated otherwise, this sort of "could" is indistinguishable from "couldn't".

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#93

Post by WalterBright »

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…

> 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?

It turns out people have to work harder for that than they do working under a free market system, where they get to keep what they earn.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#94

Post by drekipus »

balsam wrote: post #45
mjfl wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so you're saying he's bourgeoisie. Yeah that's the irony. The irony is that he's rich enough to have that lifestyle and still have food, while poor people would not.

Nope, according to the wikipedia linked, the only time Lafargue came close to being an owner (i.e. petit bourgeois) was when he tried running that photolithography workshop.

Sounds a little bit like the fox and grapes.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#95

Post by least »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #85
least wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You made a clear rebuttal to my original comment, supported by what Marx wrote. I'd ask that you take ownership of your own argument rather than shifting it over to Marx. Your assertion was this:

> 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.

In order for me to agree with your assertion, I'd have to agree with the basis for it, which was Marx's writing. I made a point as to why I think it's wrong because I think Marx is fundamentally wrong. Asking me to read Das Kapital or talk to Marx is non sequitur.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#96

Post by drekipus »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #85
least wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're trying to pass off someone's arguments as your own and then distancing yourself from it when someone points out a flaw.

It doesn't add anything to the conversation. others are trying to discuss ideas.

You should read Marx more so you can argue his ideas better if you really want to double down on his take.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#97

Post by drekipus »

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.

This really is the same as the YouTuber "how I bought a house within a week of watching this video"

"Ownership is so easy, imagine if you not only have to work, but also have to deal with ownership problems such as maintenance, insurance, business and real-estate, logistics, marketing, depreciation, and management. - and, best of all, you don't own any of it if you stop working!"

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#98

Post by WaxProlix »

WalterBright wrote: post #93
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…

> 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? It turns out people have to work harder for that than they do working under a free market system, where they get to keep what they earn.

> they get to keep what they earn.

And 'earn' what they're allowed -- 'earn' is kind of a weasel word in that sentence.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#100

Post by biglost »

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?

I would be dead if i was born 20 years before. Also, working gives hobby a meaning. I don’t know a translation for this: El ocio es la madre/padre de todos los vicios. Too many free time would kill us. We are a specie which evolve through work. But it shouldnt mean: bad job = ugly death
Post reply on HN