Live data from Hacker News

The Abolition of Work (2002)

theanarchistlibrary.org

31–40 of 236 posts

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#31
Work can at times be the obstacle or challenge that helps us attain a higher level of capability, and with it, satisfaction.

Pointless work, such as work on a small part of a large software system which is obviously doomed or moving in the wrong direction, can be incredibly demoralizing. On the other hand, there are still some lessons to be learned. To be honest, I'd rather _never_ have those experiences. But they do teach me things.

There's a mind experiment I like to play sometimes (and an interview question I like to ask candidates): What if you never needed to worry about money; your bank account always had what you needed. What would you do?

This question can unfortunately illustrate how your mind is wired/trained. In my case, I devolve into logistics puzzles of how to ensure the right sized private jet is within close reach and able to take me to the travel destination of my current whim. (And further, how to optimize the resource/jet allocation to keep the planes full of friends, family, or other passengers when they are being relocated.) Point is, I suspect we always like to do some kind of work. In my case, I like to find solutions which balance concerns and provide situation-optimal results.

Ultimately it is likely that individual human life is pointless. Certainly from a macro time or macro universe perspective it is. So we gaze at our own navels in our own entertaining ways.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#32
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.

He'd probably say that if it's not voluntary then it's not really play.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#33
post #19

This argument has a lot of big words, but in the end, we humans run up against the hard wall of reality in a world of scarce resources. To say that the nearly all misery arises from how we currently work is laughable. Let me know when winter stops being cold and food falls from heaven onto our dinner tables.

It's estimated that around half of produced food is wasted/thrown away so maybe we aren't that far from what you're describing

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As far as I’m aware, all welfare in the US (e.g. SNAP and unumeployment benefits) have some sort of work as an eligibility requirement.

I suppose you could add “move to a country with a better social safety net” to the list. But it doesn’t change the overall point, which is that every alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Haha, well it was quite recently when the mom of a friend of mine (over 18) with a sibling (under 18) made them go do some recreational activity, despite neither of them really wanting to do so. Legally I suppose nobody was obligated to do anything here, but practically speaking I'm not sure how "optional" this was; they basically did as their mom said despite not otherwise wanting to. It's not like families ties instantly break at 18 years old.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#36
post #31

Work can at times be the obstacle or challenge that helps us attain a higher level of capability, and with it, satisfaction. Pointless work, such as work on a small part of a large software system which is obviously doomed or moving in the wrong direction, can be incredibly demoralizing. On the other hand, there are still some lessons to be learned. To be honest, I'd rather _never_ have those experiences. But they do…

[deleted]

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#37
post #19

This argument has a lot of big words, but in the end, we humans run up against the hard wall of reality in a world of scarce resources. To say that the nearly all misery arises from how we currently work is laughable. Let me know when winter stops being cold and food falls from heaven onto our dinner tables.

What resource is scarce? We can’t give everyone an iPhone or a McMansion, but we could probably feed everyone.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#38
post #13

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…

We will never have an abundance of land, at least not without colonizing the galaxy. In a post-work society, people who own all the land will effectively own everyone else. How will people afford rent?

I don't get this. Go out and drive on a highway sometime.

I do, and I'm not in a particularly big state (small New England one.) Yet I pass empty miles and miles of forest, often without a single building in site. Even in normal streets I can go fifteen minutes down my road by car, and the houses thin out to nothing.

Unless you restrict the world to maybe what, the 100 most dense megacities, there's insane amounts of empty land out there. We are not that dense. The owning and restricting of land through law in many ways seems to be more a part of capitalistic society than a requirement; people have to own land to make money or not make money.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#39
post #8

Reminds me of a line by Mark Fisher (1): "Real wealth is the collective capacity to produce, care and enjoy." 1. https://repeaterbooks.com/abandon-hope-summer-is-coming-kpun...

Too bad he killed himself - though it seems entirely in-line with his pessimistic projections of capitalism (that there is "no alternative")

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As far as I’m aware, all welfare in the US (e.g. SNAP and unumeployment benefits) have some sort of work as an eligibility requirement. I suppose you could add “move to a country with a better social safety net” to the list. But it doesn’t change the overall point, which is that every alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down.

> very alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down.

Oh, yes, absolutely. But this is moving the goalpost. The question was not whether one could stop working without having to make changes to their lifestyle. The question was whether one could stop working without literally starving to death. In most developed countries, the answer is yes. No one really starves to death due to poverty in developed nations anymore.

I am not too familiar with the situation with the poverty in the US. Do people there still die from poverty-induced starvation in the 21st century?

Post reply on HN