Live data from Hacker News

The Abolition of Work (2002)

theanarchistlibrary.org

61–70 of 236 posts

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#61
post #43

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 i…

I think that's a very strange way of looking at the real estate industry. They don't determine who gets to live where at all. They simply gather and withhold information that they then offer for a fee. In most situations the same information can (or at least could) be gathered in different ways also, leaving out real estate industry from the loop. Also just to clarify what I mean: real estate owners =/= real estate i…

"They simply gather and withhold information that they then offer for a fee."

That's not even 100th of what they do.

One of the most important services they provide is that they are the ones who make sure the deal comes together, which means coaxing the buyers and sellers in to agreeing, without which the deals would just fall apart.

They show houses for people, which means sitting and wasting time some stranger's home, then showing the people who come there around while telling them about the house and answering their questions. This takes hours and hours of their time.

They drive buyers around neighborhoods and go with them to see houses.

They arrange and attend engineers' inspections of the house.

In the midst of this pandemic these alone are life-threatening tasks. But even when there's no epidemic, real estate agents have to go to strangers' homes and be there alone, and for women (who make up the majority of real estate agents) this is not always safe.

Then they guide and give advice to buyers and sellers. I guess you could call this "giving information for a fee", but it's not the kind of information that you're going to get from a database. It includes negotiation advice, advice on what kind of offers are or are not likely to be accepted and why, what problems there are with the house and what needs to be done to fix it, etc. Depending on the agent, that information could be the fruit of decades of experience in the business that the clients are getting.

They'll also get their clients in touch with reliable professionals who can do the work that their clients require (like fixing some part of the house), etc.

They often read over contracts that their clients sign, explain them to them, and advise them regarding them (you'd think it's the lawyers job to do this, but lawyers often don't).

They often advertise for their sellers... for free. That means the real estate agents pay advertising fees out of their own pockets, and they don't get that money back until and unless the house sells.

They also have to put up with asshole buyers and sellers, and clients who lie to them.

They take calls at night and on weekends from clients that have absolutely no respect for their time.

...and best of all, they often do all the above (which takes a lot of time and effort) completely for free, as many clients will take all these services, advice, and help and then change their mind and not want to buy or sell after all, or change their mind and go with another agent... after using dozens of hours of the real estate agent's time, for which the real estate agents don't get paid a penny (as they only get paid if the house is sold).

Someone very close to me is a real estate agent, and I just constantly feel so bad for them because they're constantly getting screwed by their clients and slaving away for absolutely no money.. occasionally they get lucky and actually eventually get paid.. usually after many months of effort, but so much time is wasted for absolutely nothing.

And then on top of all that, so many people hate and look down on real estate agents, so they have to put up with that too.

Not that it's all bad. Some clients are decent, and even nice people.

But I'd still never, ever want to be a real estate agent and put up with all that shit. Just not even remotely worth it.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#62

Ok, so do it. Get some like-minded people who want to live free of industrial society and go hunter-gather in a national park, or the deep Amazon rainforest or some other out of the way place.

Or we could restructure society a little bit so we don't have to work as much, freeing up time for us to explore our ideas and thus improving the economy in the long run. Authors like this take things to their logical extreme as a form of rhetoric when what they really want is to get you to think about the necessity of work on a deeper level than what you've read in your economics 101 textbook.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My entire contribution to this thread has been an attempt to move the goalposts :) If the question is “is it possible to stop working without literally starving to death?” the answer is trivially yes, but I don’t think that’s particularly interesting.

Getting thrown in jail will get you fed without working. But most people would consider that an absurd tradeoff. So we pretend it’s not an option, moving the goalposts in order to have a more interesting discussion about how to stop working without upending your life or withdrawing from society.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#64
post #46

Besides the fact that work, even the must rudimentary kind can be very fulfilling and rewarding in many ways ... The real problem is that play creates nothing . Play is just play. 'Creative output' is still 'work', just with a hint (maybe 1%) of creative input. Those with the most ostensibly aspirational jobs are grinding! Does anyone think Lady Gaga (or Bach), any tech development, any real research, making Star War…

In practise none of this is correct. We already 'do what we want', what we want happens to be improving ours and others lives by making things. The great issue since the division of labour has been to figure out how to distribute products. If products are distributed to people who can then free up their time to 'play', in practise they free up their time to create things as this is what the author really means by 'play'. It's just an anarchists way of talking.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#65

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…

How can one be 'over-educated'? Is that a bad thing?

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#66
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")

Despite the claim that there is no alternative, there is something invisibly worthy in claiming that the way we live now is not the only way humans can live. Who knows what that inertia may lead to?

The anti-capitalist project - based off my brief and limited political philosophy reading - seems to be an infinite one: not only is there much to build but more imperatively, there is an entire world to destroy.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#67

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…

My entire contribution to this thread has been an attempt to move the goalposts :) If the question is “is it possible to stop working without literally starving to death?” the answer is trivially yes, but I don’t think that’s particularly interesting. Getting thrown in jail will get you fed without working. But most people would consider that an absurd tradeoff. So we pretend it’s not an option, moving the goalposts…

Seconded. Move the goalposts, because the question without moving them is absurdly uninteresting. I can live a horrible, miserable, shorter life, but it's not a literal death sentence? So, OK, that's better than them taking me out and shooting me, but...

So we concede. smnrchrds wins the point. It's not a point we cared about, though, and we're going to move on to talk about a question we find more interesting: Can a person live a decent life without working?

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#68

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…

How can one be 'over-educated'? Is that a bad thing?

Imagine the type who is still studying at 34 with a range of loosely-related degrees and qualifications, still with no real direction and without any actual experience.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#69
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…

[deleted]

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#70
post #51
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.

For more than 20 years I have advocated and pursued the idea that society should abolish work. I am astonished that in 2020 most of our production is not automated.

We have had the ability to automate most work for two decades. Food, clothes, furniture, electronic devices, all of these could be produced with close to zero human labor. Why don't we?

After exploring a market (agriculture) in order to launch my own automation company, I have come to the conclusion that it is not the tech that we lack, it is the will. A culture change is needed in order to make people realize that a work-less society is:

- possible

- desirable

- is not going to make them poorer

Post reply on HN