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

151–160 of 222 posts

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#151

Post by eternityforest »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #124
eternityforest wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, clothes from Target might be relatively durable considering the price. But you need more clothing now. In a lot of places, it is socially unacceptable to wear the same thing for days in a row, even if you change your undergarments. You also don't have a realistic choice to make your own clothing. Cloth, thread, buttons and zippers aren't cheap and it became more out of reach in the late 80s and through the 90's…

I'm pretty sure it is cheaper, but it might not be cheaper for people who wear nicer clothes regularly, or people who are really into sneakers.

Apparently the average is $300 a year for an average man, but it's possible to spend much less.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#152

Post by abecedarius »

heavyset_go wrote: post #23
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.

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 be…

That's an interesting quote from Douglass. If you follow the reference, it continues

> It gives the shopkeeper a customer who can trade with no other storekeeper, and thus leaves the latter no motive for fair dealing except his own moral sense, which is never too strong. While the laborer holding the orders is tempted by their worthlessness, as a circulating medium, to get rid of them at any sacrifice, and hence is led into extravagance and consequent destitution.

> The merchant puts him off with his poorest commodities at highest prices, and can say to him take these or nothing. Worse still. By this means the laborer is brought into debt, and hence is kept always in the power of the land-owner. When this system is not pursued and land is rented to the freedman, he is charged more for the use of an acre of land for a single year than the land would bring in the market if offered for sale. On such a system of fraud and wrong one might well invoke a bolt from heaven red with uncommon wrath.

> It is said if the colored people do not like the conditions upon which their labor is demanded and secured, let them leave and go elsewhere. A more heartless suggestion never emanated from an oppressor. Having for years paid them in shop orders, utterly worthless outside the shop to which they are directed, without a dollar in their pockets, brought by this crafty process into bondage to the land-owners, who can and would arrest them if they should attempt to leave when they are told to go.

I can think of modern power relations this reminds me of, but an ordinary job in the U.S. is not one of them.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#153

Post by throwayyy479087 »

I_complete_me wrote: post #139
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

Howd that go for them?

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#155

Post by mejutoco »

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

I just learned that this quote is attributed to Jostein Gaarder, author of Sophie's world.

I think "ocio"/being idle is some older quotes has a meaning of doing absolutely nothing with oneself (not working, not studying, not having any interests). Interpreted in this light it makes more sense, to me at least.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#156

Post by shanebellone »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #124
eternityforest wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, clothes from Target might be relatively durable considering the price. But you need more clothing now. In a lot of places, it is socially unacceptable to wear the same thing for days in a row, even if you change your undergarments. You also don't have a realistic choice to make your own clothing. Cloth, thread, buttons and zippers aren't cheap and it became more out of reach in the late 80s and through the 90's…

I wear the same jeans almost every day. Move past social convention.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#157

Post by shanebellone »

zozbot234 wrote: post #149
agalunar wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like rich food, idleness only seems desirable when you don't get enough of it. I think we were designed to work, just as we were designed to eat a certain amount of fiber, and we feel bad if we don't. This is certainly not a new perspective; it's what I was taught growing up. It sounds profound, but I take some umbrage with it, because it stops short. What kind of work? How much? For whom? It's a terribly convenien…

What's the point of "being focused, exerting mental effort, being creative, having long-term goals or engaging in long-term endeavours, &c." if it's not beneficial to society in some way? Also, PG is explicitly talking about people doing things that they enjoy at least to some extent. That's what motivates them to stay active. Not very different from your example of sports - except that sports are rarely helpful to o…

"What's the point of "being focused, exerting mental effort, being creative, having long-term goals or engaging in long-term endeavours, &c." if it's not beneficial to society in some way?"

Self-fulfillment?

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#158

Post by shanebellone »

heavyset_go wrote: post #30
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?

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.

Unpopular opinion in the startup community. I'm always shocked to see how inefficiently business chases efficiency.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#159

Post by shanebellone »

mjfl wrote: post #20
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…

he asserts that it can be met with 3-4 hours of work per day, he doesn't prove it or demonstrate it.

I work a 3-4 workday because I'm able to maintain the standards I've set.

Obviously, this is just my personal experience.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#160

Post by mcBesse »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #124
eternityforest wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, clothes from Target might be relatively durable considering the price. But you need more clothing now. In a lot of places, it is socially unacceptable to wear the same thing for days in a row, even if you change your undergarments. You also don't have a realistic choice to make your own clothing. Cloth, thread, buttons and zippers aren't cheap and it became more out of reach in the late 80s and through the 90's…

> In a lot of places, it is socially unacceptable to wear the same thing for days in a row

This piques my curiosity as it's definitely not the case where I live. Can I ask what sorts of places?

Post reply on HN