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

131–140 of 222 posts

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#131

Post by funnymony »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #107
least wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

Take a step back for a moment. The point your making is that wage slavery shouldn't exist as an interesting or separate category because all organisms have to work to live. This is like saying that sex trafficking isn't conceptually important because species must reproduce to survive. It's so wildly beyond the pale that it's difficult to categorize it as a particular breech of logic other than simply and fundamentall…

This analogy got me thinking, but only for a little bit.

Similarity: people are forced to do things which they would not choose to do. (Different form would be preferable or for some none).

Difference: level of freedom. Wage slave can choose a lot (whom to slave, what to do with the wage, if to change occupation or if to invest). Sex trafficked person has far fewer options.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#132

Post by kergonath »

mjfl wrote: post #4
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.

What an ironically privileged position, considering how much he calls out the bourgeoisie.

This is a fallacious position. The modern attitude of “you’re not one of us, therefore you cannot possibly have a valid opinion” is wrong on many levels.

It is not logically consistent (a variation of ad hominem arguments).

It is counter productive because having a range of opinions helps avoiding echo chambers and have a broader outlook and understanding, and ultimately find better solutions and strategies.

It opens the door to no true Scotsman sterile arguments that are very easy to use in bad faith against people you disagree with.

It creates counter-productive dissent when people who actually agree on an idea or policy don’t work together for ideological reasons.

Don’t do it.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#133

Post by kergonath »

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…

> This is from 140 years ago but feel very modern

The world has not changed that much since then. We are still the same apes and are still motivated by the same things (getting food, status, power, or accomplishment, in various orders of priority depending on your social position).

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#134

Post by IndySun »

cjfd wrote: post #128
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…

A very good thing to read to realize that when one hears this kind of complaining today there is nothing new in it and it is not a signal of the apocalypse coming or of a unique new age. Well, the apocalypse or a new age might be coming, but this is not an indication that it is. It always was the case that one should pay attention to from whom one is buying.

cjfd... >when one hears this kind of complaining today...

What complaining, and what kind of complaining is it?

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#135

Post by kergonath »

biglost wrote: post #100
klipt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> El ocio es la madre/padre de todos los vicios

I really don’t like this, because it is a moral view with no real justification (someone gets to decide what a vice is, which is historically a tool of oppression). For example, not that long ago lower-class people having outrageous hobbies such as reading or participating in politics was considered morally unacceptable.

However, there is a kernel of truth in that we need to have some meaning in our lives otherwise we just wither psychologically and then physically. Sometimes being forced to do something (“work”) helps us getting some of that. But the amount of stuff we need to do to live somewhat happy lives varies from person to person. Ultimately, this should be the absolute criterion: the right amount of activity is that which makes us live satisfying lives. Some people need a lot, some do not.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#136

Post by kergonath »

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.

I cannot voluntarily not work, and I don’t get to choose who gets the benefits of my work. And I am in a privileged situation because I could lose my work and still pay rent for long enough to find another one, but this is not the case for a vast class of people in western countries. These people are effectively bound to their employer because losing their job means losing their home and means of subsistence.

The world is not black and white, and the fact that a situation is not as absolutely terrible as a sex slave in Mauritania should not shut down any discussion. There are shades of involuntary work.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#137

Post by TeMPOraL »

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, by definition, cultural, and cultural values are malleable

Is it? It turns out it's usually easier to tackle "fixed" characteristics coming from biology or physics. Cultural / social aspects are usually near-impossible to change by any single person or group.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#138

Post by nullfield »

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.

After you acquire a certain amount of resources, you’re able to care less about increasing your social status-for what else does “more social status” bring, if not more resources.

I’m unable to avoid thinking back, again and again, as Shohreh Aghdashloo voices Avasarala in The Expanse talking about how they have UBI (Basic) because they can’t provide enough jobs-and if you take it you can’t work.

We’re heading directly there, not as we produce things off-world (for now), but as we automate and head more and more towards post-scarcity. Our current models of microeconomics (and maybe macro, I can’t say) only hold up under a scarce amount of resources. If we somehow let a combination of “not-scarce-resources” plus a level of centralization over control of production and delivery of those not-actually-scarce-to-produce resources, but which cuts out people who don’t do “X” (whatever “X” is), we’re going to have an especially nasty problem.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#139

Post by I_complete_me »

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!

"My young men shall never work. Men who work cannot dream; and wisdom comes to us in dreams." - Native American chief to the Europeans

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#140

Post by kergonath »

nradov wrote: post #69
FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is very short sighted. 10 billions people cannot live off the land like that, and the land won’t stay cheap or undefended for long if millions of people suddenly spread out of the cities to do what you say.

We’d just end up with tribes defending their land because isolated people are vulnerable. It won’t solve the issue of involuntary labour, if anything it would make it worse for quite a lot of people as it is easier for leaders of smaller groups to exercise absolute control. We’ve been there before and there is a reason why we ended up in our current situation. The life of the average urban dweller is still better than that of a medieval serf.

Post reply on HN