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

61–70 of 278 posts

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

#61

Post by tehjoker »

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…

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 agglomeration that the workers still represent society as a whole to a great degree.

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

#62

Post by perl4ever »

jxramos wrote: post #42

All this thought about the economy and working and idleness doesn't take things far enough. What we really need to abolish is human metabolism. The fact that we need to eat and hustle to grow and acquire calories and nutrients is the real oppressor. We need to scientifically find out how to stop metabolism so we all don't need to work and will never starve. Attack the root of the problem. Next in line is mortality.

I'm not sure if you're serious or presenting what you think is an absurdity, but I instantly knew human photosynthesis must be an existing science fiction trope, even though I don't actually know a title offhand.

Frankly, I expect this sort of thing before fusion power that is "too cheap to meter".

See:

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/151099/story-inclu...

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

#63

Post by perl4ever »

throwaway7281 wrote: post #18

I distinguish at least two kinds of work: one where you earn money because you have no other sources of income. And work that relates to whatever you are doing on you own behalf - which can be very productive as well. The first kind of work is a productive factor, like capital or land. It's just the brains and hands of a piece of flesh that does what it is told. A worker is always subordinated to capital, you are wor…

>You never get the full reward

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that

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

#64

Post by silveroriole »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #16

FIRE (Financial Independence/Retire Early) is now a popular goal among the young. If you retire early, however, you're going to have to figure out what to do with all the leisure time. It would perhaps be better to have people working fewer hours, but over more years - a longterm 3-day workweek would allow for plenty of leisure as well as work.

Yeah, if you get a 4-day week job or a remote job you can work a lot fewer hours and it’s much easier than FIRE. Other people are ‘hustling’ or scrimping and saving nonstop so they can have leisure time later. Why not skip the hustle and go straight for the leisure time? Like the old story about the fisherman and the businessman. Works great for me.

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

#65

Post by grecy »

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 day I drove into Mexico it was a huge shock to see so many people around just enjoying their time - paying with their younger relatives on the beach, playing guitar, singing and dancing. My fascination and disbelief at the amount of leisure time everyone has continued for two years through all of Latin America, and then for another three years when I drove right around Africa.

Having come from years grinding at a desk job, it was startling to see that many millions (probably billions) of people live extremely happy and fulfilled lives without the need for menial jobs and "a career". Money is useful, but if you can shortcut straight to happiness why bother with the inefficient middleman.

We in the West tend to think our way of life is the "best" or the "only", but that is very far from the truth, and I urge anyone who is curious to spend time in parts of the world where work is not the meaning of life. Spend a summer in Spain and enjoy siesta.

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

#66

Post by perfunctory »

marcusverus wrote: post #59
perfunctory wrote: post #31

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. 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…

I'm not sure that this little nugget of wisdom has withstood the test of time. The average number of hours worked has fallen dramatically since the 30s[0] even as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed. [0] https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

> as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed

I would like to see some data on this. It may seem like it but I would say it's quite the opposite.

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

#67

Post by brushfoot »

The article sets up a bit of a false dichotomy. It's partly inherent in using idleness as the alternative to economically productive work. Did Russell himself use that term (edit: yes :-))? I'm guessing it's supposed to be provocative, to make it stick. But I'd imagine that's part of the problem. Many people would balk, and I think rightly so, at the connotations. There's nothing positive about undirected free time over a long period. And the article doesn't help with glosses like "Netflix in pyjamas."

The best alternatives to economically productive work are equally productive in different domains. For example, take gardening. You might be surprised at the quality of aerobic exercise you get working a large yard and garden. I recently took a heart rate monitor and found I could replace my morning jog. My heart rate was actually higher on average, and the sense of purpose was a welcome distraction from the work.

Unfortunately few are taught these kinds of healthful alternatives. I can only imagine what a difference in health and cognition there would be if schools taught hands-on agriculture and gave students garden plots.

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

#68

Post by ardy42 »

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?

The answer is that it's effective propaganda. Starvation and gulags are terrible evils. If you can plant the idea in someone's mind that they are what you get when a society questions capitalism, then you've created a zealous foot-soldier for capitalism who feels he's fighting for good against evil.

Someone who zealously fights starvation and gulags is fighting for good against evil, but those were mainly the result of particular alternatives to capitalism: radical Soviet-style central planning and dictatorship. That's not the only alternative: there are others, including many that haven't been thought of yet. Also, it's not like capitalism is over and we know how it ends. Maybe it too will find its way to starvation and gulags.

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

#69

Post by josho »

marcusverus wrote: post #59
perfunctory wrote: post #31

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. 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…

I'm not sure that this little nugget of wisdom has withstood the test of time. The average number of hours worked has fallen dramatically since the 30s[0] even as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed. [0] https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

The core of it stands that 'urban populations have become mainly passive'. Perhaps I'd consider revising to replace passive with consumers. So, we've been taught and continually urged to spend our idle hours consuming. So, it isn't a surprise to me that most folks don't know any other way to spend their time.

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

#70

Post by silveroriole »

brushfoot wrote: post #67

The article sets up a bit of a false dichotomy. It's partly inherent in using idleness as the alternative to economically productive work. Did Russell himself use that term (edit: yes :-))? I'm guessing it's supposed to be provocative, to make it stick. But I'd imagine that's part of the problem. Many people would balk, and I think rightly so, at the connotations. There's nothing positive about undirected free time o…

Thank goodness we can get aerobic exercise in while gardening. If ‘twere not so, gardening might be - horror - unproductive! “The modern man thinks that everything ought to be done for the sake of something else, and never for its own sake.”

I know “nobody reads the article” is an HN joke, but surely asking whether Russell uses the word idleness in his essay titled “In Praise of Idleness” is taking the mick...

Post reply on HN