Live data from Hacker News

The Abolition of Work (2002)

theanarchistlibrary.org

21–30 of 236 posts

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#21
There are a lot of flaws in the article, so I’ll just pick one. The author casually lists a vast swath of jobs that are a priori deemed completely useless, with no reasoning given as to why they have no use other than that they are “paper pushers”. I think that every single one of those jobs is only useless if you don’t think deeply about it at all.

Take one example, real estate. The article states everyone working in real estate is useless.

Ok, let’s imagine we have zero real estate industry. How do we determine who gets to live where? There are 8 billion people in the world, that is a huge organizational problem. We are going to manage that just by doing what we want?

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#22

I am a capitalist libertarian, with anarcho-capitalist sympathies, and I too support the long-term abolition of "work" as we know it. Ending toil is, in principle, impossible with our current level of societal wealth. We will need major, non-trivial technological innovation in order to truly escape our toil (through capitalism, of course :). Teams of innovators will need to build out AI & robotic infrastructure (amon…

[deleted]

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#23

I am a capitalist libertarian, with anarcho-capitalist sympathies, and I too support the long-term abolition of "work" as we know it. Ending toil is, in principle, impossible with our current level of societal wealth. We will need major, non-trivial technological innovation in order to truly escape our toil (through capitalism, of course :). Teams of innovators will need to build out AI & robotic infrastructure (amon…

[dead]

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#24
post #6

>Such is “work.” Play is just the opposite. Play is always voluntary. What might otherwise be play is work if it’s forced. This is axiomatic. Work and play are both voluntary to different degrees. You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. You can also survive without playing, but again, your existence will also likely be miserable. Play is something we prefer to do voluntarily…

Even play isn't always truly voluntary... when your mom tells you to go play with your sibling or another kid... it's not really voluntary is it.

I’m not sure where Bob Black stands on childhood autonomy, but anarchists tend to agree with non-anarchists that there are and should be limits to it.

Autonomous adults generally aren’t compelled into recreation by an authority.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#25
post #4

The author is a friend of mine. His work is interesting but it can be pretty snarky. One of his influences is the Church of the Subgenius, an offshoot of Discordianism, of all things. He was apparently sent a mail bomb by another alt.slack user a few years ago...

Do you think he'd be interested in participating in the thread? (If so, please email hn@ycombinator.com so I can tell the software to be nice to him.)

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#26
post #6

>Such is “work.” Play is just the opposite. Play is always voluntary. What might otherwise be play is work if it’s forced. This is axiomatic. Work and play are both voluntary to different degrees. You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. You can also survive without playing, but again, your existence will also likely be miserable. Play is something we prefer to do voluntarily…

> Calling work non-voluntary reveals more about the author than it does about the system they describe: that they feel that they have no choice. Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? I could beg, although that’s still work in the sense that I’d be trading my time for money. I could go around to places that offer free meals to homeless people, but that seems unreliable. And I could steal…

> Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options?

Welfare in most developed countries is enough not to starve and not to become fully homeless. But in many countries, it does not go one inch beyond this. Subsisting on welfare is indeed a very uncomfortable life. But it is not literal starvation to death.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#27
I've long been a fan of this essay, as something to strive for over the next, say 500 years, assuming that civilization lasts that long, technological "progress" continues, and all the surplus humans that are no longer necessary for work don't get wiped out by the elites who want more of the world to themselves.

However, this essay has always seemed to be heavy on idealism and light on practical or concrete solutions to very obvious problems.

Even if we assume that all work could be gamified, it's not clear that everyone will want to play such games. I love games, and have spent way too much of my life playing them, but I've gone months and years without playing any games at all, and don't see how being forced to play a game would be any better than being forced to work.

Also, its difficult to imagine how the most undesirable of jobs could be gamified. Who's going to want to play the garbageman game? Or the fix the sewage system game?

The products and services of our modern world also requires sustained, multi-year efforts by trained specialists. Something like the mass production of medicine isn't something you can just play with once in a while and still get it made in high enough quantities with serious quality control.

Some believe that robots will eventually do all these things for us. Maybe. That remains to be seen.

Whether the economic whip is really necessary to get people to do the jobs that need to be done today is an open question, but simply telling people to play instead of work doesn't seem to be a very practical solution for many jobs.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#28
post #6

>Such is “work.” Play is just the opposite. Play is always voluntary. What might otherwise be play is work if it’s forced. This is axiomatic. Work and play are both voluntary to different degrees. You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. You can also survive without playing, but again, your existence will also likely be miserable. Play is something we prefer to do voluntarily…

> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable.

Miserable, but—be relieved!—short. Because you will die without food, and shelter, and the other things which you can't magically summon from nothingness: in the current society, you need to work to get them, or had to work in the past to amass appropriate wealth, or someone else has to do this for you. Few are lucky to be gifted it from their birth. As are those who can get those necessities incidentally from play, without deliberate planning in fear of not succeeding.

That's basically what this philosophical essay has to tell about the (non) “choice” that you are given: you work, or else you suffer. You do have this choice though, for sure. The play is when you don't have to choose.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#29

I am a capitalist libertarian, with anarcho-capitalist sympathies, and I too support the long-term abolition of "work" as we know it. Ending toil is, in principle, impossible with our current level of societal wealth. We will need major, non-trivial technological innovation in order to truly escape our toil (through capitalism, of course :). Teams of innovators will need to build out AI & robotic infrastructure (amon…

> The leftist desire to redistribute wealth (which I think is strongly misplaced and immoral) will become irrelevant once we achieve a certain level of abundance that is unlike anything we are accustomed to today.

What even is wealth if such abundance exists? I think you may misunderstand the left’s goal of redistribution. It isn’t about divvying scarcity equally, it’s about sharing and enabling the bounty you seem to be describing.

> It will be like wanting to redistribute oxygen or dirt -- two resources so abundant they are essentially free.

But not all oxygen or dirt is equal. Some people experience a greater abundance of safe, clean air and rich, profitable soil. They tend to be the same people who experience a greater abundance generally.

Post reply on HN