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

211–220 of 222 posts

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#211

Post by pdimitar »

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.

It's also an indication that the corporate squeezes that are being done on people are nothing new as well and they are just as problematic today as they were 140 years ago.

So yeah, perspective. Your take seems to defend companies, my take wants people to have more leisure time. Guess you already picked your poison.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#212

Post by kelseyfrog »

least wrote: post #150
kelseyfrog wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I am saying that extending the definition of slavery to simply include any process that is being thrust upon a living being is idiotic. All living beings are required to perform labor to live. Performing labor for wages is an extension of that t…

Can you rephrase this in

1) a way that doesn't resort to name calling?

2) in a way that instead of simply rebutting, attempts get more curious instead.

The response simply isn't very hacker newsy and it's coming across that you simply don't like Marxism so I must be wrong. Please take the emotional reaction out of it. Thanks.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#214

Post by least »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #212
least wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I am saying that extending the definition of slavery to simply include any process that is being thrust upon a living being is idiotic. All living beings are required to perform labor to live. Performing labor for wages is an extension of that t…

Can you rephrase this in 1) a way that doesn't resort to name calling? 2) in a way that instead of simply rebutting, attempts get more curious instead. The response simply isn't very hacker newsy and it's coming across that you simply don't like Marxism so I must be wrong. Please take the emotional reaction out of it. Thanks.

I don't like Marxism but it shouldn't come across as me simply disliking Marxism. I've provided plenty of ideas supporting why I disagree with both Marx and you that you are more than welcome to respond to (so far, you've chosen not to).

Your original comment was worthwhile responding to, but the rest have largely been performative rhetoric. If you don't have any actual refutations to my ideas, then please refrain from responding at all.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#215

Post by heavyset_go »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #198
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wage labor was a deal that many, many people freely accepted, because on net it was better than subsistence farming. Serious question: If you aren't doing wage labor, how are you going to live? Subsistence farming? Welfare? How?

They "freely accepted" it as an alternative to starvation when they were forced off of the land they were previously farming so that it could become a large private farm.

A lot of the land that was enclosed wasn't even productive after privatization. Some of it just stood (and still stands) idle, despite previously providing sustenance prior to enclosure. Big estates with an abundance of non-productive land was a popular thing at one point.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#216

Post by kelseyfrog »

least wrote: post #214
kelseyfrog wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you rephrase this in 1) a way that doesn't resort to name calling? 2) in a way that instead of simply rebutting, attempts get more curious instead. The response simply isn't very hacker newsy and it's coming across that you simply don't like Marxism so I must be wrong. Please take the emotional reaction out of it. Thanks.

I don't like Marxism but it shouldn't come across as me simply disliking Marxism. I've provided plenty of ideas supporting why I disagree with both Marx and you that you are more than welcome to respond to (so far, you've chosen not to). Your original comment was worthwhile responding to, but the rest have largely been performative rhetoric. If you don't have any actual refutations to my ideas, then please refrain fr…

Likewise, but please refute things you're actually familiar with. You've been arguing against what you think Marx has said rather than what he actually said. I think you could make some really compelling arguments against Marxism, but it would require you to read something you disagree with. You come across as a rational and intelligent person. I think you're fully capable of reading something you dislike in order to craft better arguments against it.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#217

Post by janef0421 »

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…

Even if humans would continue to attempt to gain social status by training to become buff pole-vaulters, I think it would be a massive improvement if that status seeking was decoupled from the economic system.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#218

Post by HyperSane »

jocaal wrote: post #144
M95D wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Romania has the second highest GDP/h in EU. Why? Because of undeclared employment / illegal work.

I am guessing you mean GDP/capita-hour, if it was only gdp/hour that would imply Romania is the second largest economy in Europe

Sorry, I meant GDP/hour-of-labor.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#219

Post by int_19h »

nullfield wrote: post #138
ruined wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 direct…

> for what else does “more social status” bring, if not more resources.

Different treatment from other people.

Re: The Right to Be Lazy (1883)

#220

Post by int_19h »

WalterBright wrote: post #208
NoThisIsMe wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your scheme of society (government) deciding everyone's wages. I'm not (necessarily) suggesting that the government decide everyone's wages. Leaving it to the market is just another way for society to determine wages. > you appear to subscribe to the Labor Theory of Value, where someone's effort and time determine their wage That's not what the LToV says. To start, a wage is a price, and Marxists draw a distinction…

The company's profits are not taken from the worker. The company provides a framework within which the worker can produce value, and the company therefore gets a share of it. Otherwise, the worker could do the work outside of the company and get it all.

You're just saying that the company collects economic rent from the worker for the privilege of accessing the "framework", in different words.
Post reply on HN