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

71–80 of 236 posts

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#71

Post by TeeMassive »

> That doesn’t mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way of life based on play; in other words, a ludic conviviality

I can't help but feel like this is a very naive view of how the world and people works, almost child like.

Large organizations of people capable of mass producing useful products efficiently will always out-compete everyone else and push the "ludic" workers to the side because they involve 1) selecting who can and can't be part of the organization because the fun "things that need doing" will be in high demand and the others will need on the things that need doing that are as much if not more necessary and 2)it involves delaying and abstracting the direct reward of the work which is hard to put in play with any kind of reward system outside of money.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#72

Post by Iv »

avl999 wrote: post #45
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…

> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. For a large number of people not working is likely to directly lead to literally death. For most people it is not a choice at all.

In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work.

The fact that starvation is possible in a rich country is by design. It is not a necessary fact of the economy.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#73

Post by paconbork »

postingpals wrote: post #65
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…

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

It is if you see any available work as beneath you as a consequence

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#74

Post by taxcoder »

Iv wrote: post #72
avl999 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. For a large number of people not working is likely to directly lead to literally death. For most people it is not a choice at all.

In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. The fact that starvation is possible in a rich country is by design. It is not a necessary fact of the economy.

While that is an incredible number, have you factored in any workers for agricultural supplies and equipment, or for processing, distribution, or preparation?

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#75

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

Someone who confuses a workplace with a police state is someone who almost certainly has never lived in a police state.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#76

Post by gfxgirl »

> Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world

This is utter nonsense. Many people enjoy their work immensely. To take a HN hero I'll bet Steve Jobs enjoyed changing the world via his work and through that loved his work. I'll be Steven Spielberg loves (loved?) his work.

Further, short of AGI, there will always be work. Let's imagine no one had to work anymore. What would we all do? We certainly wouldn't make TV shows and movies because those require work to make but we just said we live in a world without work. We could all have twitch channels talking to our fans but their'd be no games to play on them because making a game is seriously hard work. Maybe some hobbiest would make some 1 person indie game and not call it work but there are few TV shows, movies, and games that don't require a small army of people, most of which have to do "work".

Not sure how we're going to take the work out of nursing, cooking, cleaning (clothing, buildings, kitchens, hospitals, parks, streets) etc...

Replicators, if they ever exist, won't remove the need for work. Even in Star Trek (post scarcity) what do think the 1000+ crew members each ship do? They do work.

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#77

Post by nobody9999 »

smnrchrds wrote: post #40
jakelazaroff wrote: post #34

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…

>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?

I think the question needs to be a little more nuanced than that. Here are a few resources to get you started:

https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/understand-food-i...

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/912486921/food-insecurity-in-...

https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/food-insecu...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistic...

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/11/23/hungry-at...

https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/54-million-people-america...

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#78

Post by musicale »

gfxgirl wrote: post #76

> Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world This is utter nonsense. Many people enjoy their work immensely. To take a HN hero I'll bet Steve Jobs enjoyed changing the world via his work and through that loved his work. I'll be Steven Spielberg loves (loved?) his work. Further, short of AGI, there will always be work. Let's imagine no one had to work anymore. What would we all do? We certainly wouldn't…

> Many people enjoy their work immensely.

According to CNBC, 85% of US workers were happy with their jobs:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/01/85percent-of-us-workers-are-...

And according to the Washington Post, 13% of people (surveyed from 140 countries) were "engaged" in their jobs:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2013/10...

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#79

Post by AnimalMuppet »

50 wrote: post #66
Der_Einzige wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah... um... how about making sure we have an alternative that not only works, but works better, before we get to the destroying part?

Re: The Abolition of Work (2002)

#80

Post by nobody9999 »

smnrchrds wrote: post #54
djrobstep wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It is mostly a result of health issues, which is in all likelihood more due to the lack of access to healthcare than food.

Is it? What statistics do you have to support that? And do those statistics track poor nutrition due to poverty as a component, or do they just ignore that?

Post reply on HN