Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 278 posts

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#101

Post by claudiawerner »

perfunctory wrote: post #57
ooobit2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why the only alternatives to capitalism that come to mind are always China and Gulags? Is there absolutely nothing else we can imagine? (Maybe if we had some more leisure we could become more imaginative)

>Why the only alternatives to capitalism that come to mind are always China and Gulags? Is there absolutely nothing else we can imagine?

This is precisely Mark Fisher's argument in Capitalist Realism. Capitalist realism dictates that the majority of people have become incapable of imagining something outside of a kind of binary choice. There can't be an alternate future, because we can't imagine it in the first place. This was bessed summed up, rather ironically, by Thatcher: "there is no alternative".

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#102

Post by [deleted] »

perfunctory wrote: post #31
Barrin92 wrote: post #10

>we also need to challenge the cultural ethic that teaches us to value ourselves in proportion to our capacity for “economically productive” labour. Human beings are more than just workers. We need to learn how to value idleness. I think much more than valueing idleness it's also a massive indictement of the system we live in. The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work…

> The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering. The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in whic…

[deleted]

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#103

Post by jmole »

marta_morena_25 wrote: post #95
baddox wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering. I wouldn't look at that and conclude that these people are just domesticated livestock who have no self-worth beyond their job. A lot of legitimate hobbies and even just normal socializing are completely shut down or heavily restricted in a lot of places.

Isn't that exactly the point? It's just extended a little, with "legitimate hobbies" and "normal socializing" not available. So take that away and then they are domesticated livestock? If you don't have the ability to do something with your time outside of your normal environment, that is definitely an indicator that something is really off. There is SOOOO much you can do. I wouldn't even know where to start even if…

that's half the point though - the pandemic means we're all locked away as individuals, roommates, or family units, with few exceptions.

I'd love to go jam with my band, but we're all in lockdown mode. I'd love to go to the playground with my kids, but they're all closed. I'd love to have a playdate with my friend's kids, but everyone is self-isolating.

These are not normal circumstances.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#104

Post by subsubzero »

Reading the title and actually reading what Bertrand Russell was talking about are two different things. Russell when he refers to leisure isn't talking about sitting on a porch staring up at the sky(or binge watching netflix), he is talking about pursuing interesting hobbies and learning into subjects not core to ones occupation(but also a little plain idleness as well). With most people in tech jobs and especially if you have a family, time is extremely constrained. I would love to get more involved in astronomy, study into physics and just learn more about various areas of history. Due to the pandemic work has for me increased tremendously and become very stressful. I sometimes wish I was unemployed so I can focus on these side projects which I love, but couldn't deal with the loss of income. If I had the extra time I would be extremely busy so to speak, so its strange when I hear about people who are bored during the past few months who are not working.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#105

Post by renewiltord »

Xophmeister wrote: post #24

Why did Keynes believe that, say, a doubling of efficiency (through technology) would half work time for everyone? Sure it’s a solution to the equation, but so is what actually happened[1]: half the workforce gets laid off. This halves the costs, which facilitates price reduction and thus a competitive edge. Did Keynes believe that benevolence would win over profit? Don’t get me wrong, I wish it had, but that seems a…

Are there societies which have smooth scaling on workers? i.e. where the cost of adding a new worker for 20 hours is about the same as the cost of adding 20 hrs to a worker working under 20 hrs?

I like to think of what an amoral money machine would do as a base-case for what we set up the incentives to be. Then we can tweak the incentives to get the outcome, but we start with the machine. After all, moral outrage alone rarely has lasting change without policy change.

Things that encourage fewer-people w/ more-work-per-person are:

* Laws that explicitly disincentivize larger companies (that kick in at >24 people or >49 people, or that are flat per-person-on-payroll fees like medical benefits)

* The learn rate of individuals given sustained work

* Increased overhead with more individuals (i.e. communication costs, scheduling costs, hiring costs)

There's portions I can't immediately nail like the fact that if I share a desk with someone I can't spray my things all over it like I normally do. My hardware has to be out of the way and clean for the other guy.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#106

Post by chc »

marta_morena_25 wrote: post #95
baddox wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering. I wouldn't look at that and conclude that these people are just domesticated livestock who have no self-worth beyond their job. A lot of legitimate hobbies and even just normal socializing are completely shut down or heavily restricted in a lot of places.

Isn't that exactly the point? It's just extended a little, with "legitimate hobbies" and "normal socializing" not available. So take that away and then they are domesticated livestock? If you don't have the ability to do something with your time outside of your normal environment, that is definitely an indicator that something is really off. There is SOOOO much you can do. I wouldn't even know where to start even if…

Sure, in the strictly technical sense, there's "SOOOO much you can do" — but that's not really useful information, is it? Just because you could pound sand, or eat dirt, or bang your head into a wall, that doesn't mean those activities are enjoyable or enriching. The challenge is not finding something you can do, it's finding something you can do that's more rewarding than staring at your phone, and there are a lot fewer things that fall into that category, and they're not all the same for everyone.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#107

Post by throwaway45349 »

rainonmoon wrote: post #90
throwaway45349 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self organizing doesn't work because everyone wants what's best for themselves. Every grassroots activity has figureheads and leaders. Hierarchy is literally older than civilisation and observed in most animal life.

While this is a familiar Peterson talking point, society has in many ways sublimated our nature for the broader collective good. Addressing the problems of capitalism would be another step in that progress.

Nah, I disagree. Capitalism is the most natural system because it accepts what we are - selfish beings in a competitive environment. If we didn't specialize and trade skills/products/services, we'd still be a hunter-gatherer species. The system is what kept us going, not what holds us back. It only looks like oppression in 2020 because of how easy the rest of life is.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#108

Post by dragonsky »

xwdv wrote: post #98
Barrin92 wrote: post #10

>we also need to challenge the cultural ethic that teaches us to value ourselves in proportion to our capacity for “economically productive” labour. Human beings are more than just workers. We need to learn how to value idleness. I think much more than valueing idleness it's also a massive indictement of the system we live in. The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work…

If someone is going to say human beings are more than just workers it would be helpful to say exactly what else they can be that doesn't involve work.

I think the point is that you can be whatever you want. It's a change from being forced to do something just to pay the bills to doing what you want because you want to do it due to personal interest. It seems to me that many people need to be told what to be interested in. It is the reason we have fads of interest, driven by media exposure or personalities. It is very rare for somebody to decide to do something without some type of stimulus.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#109

Post by renewiltord »

tehjoker wrote: post #61
vslira wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, what's funny is that we'll never be sure if that's the case[0]. What guarantee is there that the median socialist voter wouldn't vote for more work for everyone because they want fancier tvs, or more dazzling musical spectacles, or fancier video games, bigger homes, etc? What if society doesn't democratically vote for idleness and quality of life / tranquility? [0] I mean unless there's a real and successfu…

What if the workers actually controlled the factory and not a commissar sent by central planning? There are lots of different ways to do this. For central planning, one proposal I saw offered that the workers could be organized into sectoral unions that participate as a sector in government. This weight and common interest allows them to counter the weight of voters that ask for too much. It's also large enough of an…

Well, we have one big agglomeration in the US for policing workers. That hasn't led to positive results for society.

Re: Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

#110

Post by renewiltord »

vslira wrote: post #35
tehjoker wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If workers controlled the workplace, this is precisely what would happen. It's only because the people doing the work don't control the work that this seems fanciful.

You know, what's funny is that we'll never be sure if that's the case[0]. What guarantee is there that the median socialist voter wouldn't vote for more work for everyone because they want fancier tvs, or more dazzling musical spectacles, or fancier video games, bigger homes, etc? What if society doesn't democratically vote for idleness and quality of life / tranquility? [0] I mean unless there's a real and successfu…

Well there are worker co-ops. Lots of farming is as co-operatives. Sunkist is a cooperative, for instance. https://growers.sunkist.com/
Post reply on HN