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

The Abolition of Work (2002)

theanarchistlibrary.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 236 posts

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#51

Post by roenxi »

daenz wrote: 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…

And calling for the abolition of work is like calling for the abolition of death. Great idea, difficult to argue against. Difficult to implement too.

Given the current state of technology, it seems quite likely that all the actual plans for abolishing work will devolve into a small group of low status, probably socially voiceless, people being picked out and made to do all the work.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#52

Post by eyelidlessness »

mehrdadn wrote: post #35
eyelidlessness wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I probably should’ve picked up on the fact that you’re probably a youngn too. You’re right. It isn’t about legal adulthood or even legality.

Children and young adults who still live with or depend on their parents/guardians are usually under their authority to some extent, even for completely arbitrary things like “go play”.

As we get older and more capable those things usually relax but there’s definitely a transition.

An adult who has full autonomy would probably weigh a decision like you described and decide whether to voluntarily go play with their younger sibling even if it wasn’t play for them. Some will do it, others won’t.

I’ll put it another way. I’m getting older(ish, I’m 38), I don’t have all the energy in the world, but I have a puppy. She loves to play and she benefits from it. Sometimes I just don’t feel up to it. I could always decide not to, my only strict obligations are don’t abuse or neglect her. But I usually play even if I don’t want to, by choice, because I want my puppy to be happy and healthy too. That’s a kind of decision making that most young children don’t engage, and gradually becomes more common in early adulthood and becomes more solid as we get more of our own autonomy.

It’s totally voluntary. It’s just not always play for me. And with that said, my puppy wants a play :)

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#53

Post by jariel »

lordwarnut wrote: post #2

The quote that stands out to me the most is: Work makes a mockery of freedom. The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other unfortunates who aren’t free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or-else, no matter how arbitrary. The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The officia…

It 'stands out' for it's dystopian naivete.

'Work' is an essential ingredient in the continued creation (and improvement) of the machine form which we develop our standard of living.

While we can strive for 'free as in liberty' - nothing material in this universe is 'free as in beer' - we still must make do with 'work' - which means an intelligent and conscientious choice to do it.

We actually are 'free as in liberty' to chose to live in material poverty, or to make the effort to improve our condition.

Let us radically simplify:

1) Your household will become 'messy' as you live in it. 2) Nobody is going to 'clean it' but you. 3) 'Cleaning' is 'work'.

So you can chose to A) live in an ever dirtier and dysfunctional household or B) clean it (i.e. work) and enjoy the fruits of your labour.

In other words, there is basically no 'magical cleaning robot, that doesn't require fuel or maintenance'.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#54

Post by smnrchrds »

djrobstep wrote: post #44
smnrchrds wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Check out the correlation between poverty and lower life expectancy, and it will become clear that poverty is indeed a death sentence (not to mention its effects on quality of life).

Again, you are absolutely right, but moving the goalpost once more. The lower life expectancy is not due to starvation to death. It is mostly a result of health issues, which is in all likelihood more due to the lack of access to healthcare than food.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#55

Post by setgree »

roenxi wrote: post #51
daenz wrote: 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…

And calling for the abolition of work is like calling for the abolition of death. Great idea, difficult to argue against. Difficult to implement too. Given the current state of technology, it seems quite likely that all the actual plans for abolishing work will devolve into a small group of low status, probably socially voiceless, people being picked out and made to do all the work.

> calling for the abolition of work is like calling for the abolition of death

subbing out death for aging, which is far and away the leading cause of death, I think this is a good metaphor. The first step is to persuade people that work, like aging, is bad [0], and that abolishing work is a comparatively neglected social cause relative to the harms caused.

We might have to live with work for a long time now, because scarcity abounds; but there's no point pretending that's good, or lionizing work for its own sake. It sucks to work at "a job that slowly kills you" [1], just like it sucks that we get old and die.

[0] https://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html (discussed previously here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24770566)

[1] Radiohead, No Surprises: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5CVsCnxyXg

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#56

Post by andrewjl »

lordwarnut wrote: post #2

The quote that stands out to me the most is: Work makes a mockery of freedom. The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other unfortunates who aren’t free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or-else, no matter how arbitrary. The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The officia…

Anarchism is akin to that annoying team member who wants to do a ground up rewrite of a crufty yet more or less functional codebase whilst insisting on repeating every mistake possible and developing a case of excess earwax when someone tries to talk some sense into them.

One point that I do agree with is that play is better than work as it's currently conceived for our long-term wellbeing. We should strive to make work more play-like by focusing on creativity, autonomy, and linking both to accountability for results and automating drudgery as much as we can. That's how many parts of the tech industry function and it can be carried over into other sectors of the economy too. There's no need to "abolish" work in order to do this.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#57

Post by HuwytNashi_002 »

Something tells me this 'academic' will consider himself above the game of labour when work is abolished. Surely backbreaking work is below somebody who manages to cite a philosopher every other sentence!

He's a thinker. He's too pretty to work.

I'd be willing to bet he's over-educated, has spent large periods of his life on welfare, wears a cravat to the supermarket, and was always told how clever he is.

But he never really got anywhere. Now his bank account is dry, it's 3 days until his next benefits payment, and the 'idiot' who left school at 16 to get his heavy machinery licence as a teenager makes more in an honest work year than this guy has ever had the privilege of declaring in his life.

His counsellor (or mum) is on his back to get a real job, and this is his response.

Ironically, it's never the bricklayer's labourer arguing for the abolition of work. It's types like the author, whose hands have never borne a callous.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#58

Post by spacedome »

HuwytNashi_002 wrote: post #57

Something tells me this 'academic' will consider himself above the game of labour when work is abolished. Surely backbreaking work is below somebody who manages to cite a philosopher every other sentence! He's a thinker. He's too pretty to work. I'd be willing to bet he's over-educated, has spent large periods of his life on welfare, wears a cravat to the supermarket, and was always told how clever he is. But he neve…

As an 'academic' who has done plenty of physical labor, I find this argument reductive and offensive. You can disagree with the author without painting this negative picture of them.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#59

Post by postingpals »

alangou wrote: 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.

I find people who argue scarcity more often than not don't have actual numbers to back it up. Amongst human beings biggest necessities, what are actually scarce?

Food? Not at all, tons and tons are thrown out daily. Housing? Well there's enough of that for everyone we just don't know how, and don't want to, distribute it. Clothing? Even though people burn through clothing almost as quickly as food, it is produced in surplus so much that we invented fashion.

What necessity exactly is scarce in 2020? Classical economics has no explanation for this modern surplus of production.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#60

Post by postingpals »

charlesu wrote: post #37
alangou wrote: 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.

We actually can give everyone a phone since there are well over 8 billion in circulation.
Post reply on HN