Shorter Work Time and Socialism

[h9socialist]

Comrades --

I've started this thread with the hope of stimulating discussion on the issue of shorter work time because I think it is a critical step toward socialism. So did Marx -- in Volume III of Das Kapital he is very explicit that "the realm of freedom" begins when the working day ends, and that shorter work time is the prerequisite of "the realm of freedom." In my opinion most of the groundwork for making socialism possible will come about by creating social space outside the market system, outside the battleground that only capital can dominate. To create that "social space outside the market" functional free time for workers is a necessity. Also, without such space I can only imagine that revolution will suffocate -- workers cannot carryout the revolution if they are working for the capitalists, or if they have no functional socialization to replace the existing order with.

Moreover, with the stresses on the environment, I suspect that consumption will have to retreat in the 21st Century (eventually --- or we face ecological collapse). It seems to me that "functional free time" (meaning compensated and with opportunities for functional socialization -- as opposed to the capitalist prescription of "unemployment") makes for a viable substitute for increased consumption. It also sets up the possibility for the development of a socialization free from the market (which I see as a prerequisite for revolution --- please note: I said "the possibility," not "the certainty.")

I'm interested in your opinions.

[Psy]

Well I think society would have to become more efficient in its consumption, capitalism has consumption for the sake of consumption as capitalists make money from selling consumers commodities thus capitalists just care about selling as much as possible. No capitalists really cares about the use value of the commodities they sell, for example General Motors doesn't think about the use value of a car over the use value of a bus even though both fill the same function (buses just do it on a much larger scale thus has economy of scale were applicable).

In Socialism we probably think about use values far more and try to fill those uses efficiently.

[Dimentio]

Comrades --

I've started this thread with the hope of stimulating discussion on the issue of shorter work time because I think it is a critical step toward socialism. So did Marx -- in Volume III of Das Kapital he is very explicit that "the realm of freedom" begins when the working day ends, and that shorter work time is the prerequisite of "the realm of freedom." In my opinion most of the groundwork for making socialism possible will come about by creating social space outside the market system, outside the battleground that only capital can dominate. To create that "social space outside the market" functional free time for workers is a necessity. Also, without such space I can only imagine that revolution will suffocate -- workers cannot carryout the revolution if they are working for the capitalists, or if they have no functional socialization to replace the existing order with.

Moreover, with the stresses on the environment, I suspect that consumption will have to retreat in the 21st Century (eventually --- or we face ecological collapse). It seems to me that "functional free time" (meaning compensated and with opportunities for functional socialization -- as opposed to the capitalist prescription of "unemployment") makes for a viable substitute for increased consumption. It also sets up the possibility for the development of a socialization free from the market (which I see as a prerequisite for revolution --- please note: I said "the possibility," not "the certainty.")

I'm interested in your opinions.

I think automatisation will force us to lower the working time eventually. According to the North American technocrats, optimal production could be reached if everyone between 25 and 45 works 16 hours a four-day week (4 hours a day).

[h9socialist]

As Marx saw socialism as being, "Freely associated labor engaged in production for use rather than exchange," one might hope that people would begin to perceive use values as taking greater importance than exchange value. But that alone does not emancipate labor -- and it is esoteric to say the least. The important point -- in Marxist terminology -- is that the working class begins to view the social accumulation of surplus value as a means to enable free-time, rather than more and more material wealth. Not only does that result in the emancipation of the working classes -- it denies capitalism the air to breathe.

[NecroCommie]

I think automatisation will force us to lower the working time eventually. According to the North American technocrats, optimal production could be reached if everyone between 25 and 45 works 16 hours a four-day week (4 hours a day).
This will not be the case. It is already evident that when production rates go lower, the capitalists fire the extra people and the rest will have to work longer. Having few but slightly expensive workers is cheaper than having many cheaper workers. This equation only works in monetary system however.

After the revolution things would be different however, and your suggestion would propably become realistic as well as true.

[h9socialist]

Go read Volume I of Das Kapital -- historic conditions can open doors for workers to make progress even in capitalist society. That's the reason Marx discussed the "Ten Hours Law" in depth.

[Dimentio]

This will not be the case. It is already evident that when production rates go lower, the capitalists fire the extra people and the rest will have to work longer. Having few but slightly expensive workers is cheaper than having many cheaper workers. This equation only works in monetary system however.

After the revolution things would be different however, and your suggestion would propably become realistic as well as true.

Technocracy is a non-capitalist system. There is'nt any money in the technocratic model.

[Psy]

As Marx saw socialism as being, "Freely associated labor engaged in production for use rather than exchange," one might hope that people would begin to perceive use values as taking greater importance than exchange value. But that alone does not emancipate labor -- and it is esoteric to say the least. The important point -- in Marxist terminology -- is that the working class begins to view the social
accumulation of surplus value as a means to enable free-time, rather than more and more material wealth. Not only does that result in the emancipation of the working classes -- it denies capitalism the air to breathe.

Focusing on use value is required for workers to become attached to what they are producing. We don't want people working simply because they obligated but because they want to create the use value for society.

[Labor Shall Rule]

As the productive forces are developed, there are easier ways to make what we need, so we can spend less time doing it. Provisions in guaranteed employment would increase the ratio of labor involved in activities, which would increase output.

[h9socialist]

"No one has yet wielded a hoe to the rhythm of the Sun, nor cut grain, with love and grace."

As Bill Winpisinger once noted: the idea of a happy factory is a concept that would only occur to an intellectual who has never been a factory worker! Even Che was overly utopian regarding the idea of workers suddenly becoming altruistic in their labors. That can happen, but only to a limited degree. Moreover if the goal is to produce more use values, there is no reason to abandon capitalism. The capitalists have perfected production to an art form. With apologies to Paul Baran, socialism is not likely.to out-produce the capitalists. Nor should it.

Socialism is about human dignity, fairness, and the ability of human-beings to avoid exploitative relationships. Those are higher values to socialism than economic output. In this century it may well turn out that economic growth will have to be abandoned as a social goal -- mainly due to environmental issues and resource depletion. Socialism is better able to cope with that scenario than capitalism, simply because the ethos and goals of socialism are based in human relations, not merely production relations.

The late British economist E.F. Schumacher once noted that socialism is worth nothing if it simply strives to out-capitalize the capitalists -- that socialism's main contribution is to human dignity and worker democracy. That is the ground that socialism will triumph on.

[Psy]

"No one has yet wielded a hoe to the rhythm of the Sun, nor cut grain, with love and grace."

As Bill Winpisinger once noted: the idea of a happy factory is a concept that would only occur to an intellectual who has never been a factory worker! Even Che was overly utopian regarding the idea of workers suddenly becoming altruistic in their labors.

That assumes workers experience in factories would be similar in socialism as it is in capitalism.



That can happen, but only to a limited degree. Moreover if the goal is to produce more use values, there is no reason to abandon capitalism. The capitalists have perfected production to an art form. With apologies to Paul Baran, socialism is not likely.to out-produce the capitalists. Nor should it.

There is a huge reason and that is the reoccurring crisis of over production in capitalism. If you want to grow the use value in society the crisis of over production is a huge obstacle since long before you get near meeting everyones needs capitalist markets violently contracts due to over production.

In the long run every industrial socialist society would be able to out-produce capitalist societies as socialist societies would reach over production much later then capitalist societies and even then it is not a crisis but simply a sign that socialism has accomplished the task of meeting the needs of everyone and there is no longer a reason to produce at the same intensity. For example if the we had a major socialist state right now, while all the industrial capitalists are scaling back their ability to produce the socialist factories would be unaffected by the crisis and still producing use value as if the crisis never took place.



Socialism is about human dignity, fairness, and the ability of human-beings to avoid exploitative relationships. Those are higher values to socialism than economic output. In this century it may well turn out that economic growth will have to be abandoned as a social goal -- mainly due to environmental issues and resource depletion. Socialism is better able to cope with that scenario than capitalism, simply because the ethos and goals of socialism are based in human relations, not merely production relations.

The problem is many people have unacceptably low living standards, many regions of the world have unacceptably low infrastructure and many capitalist cities require complete overhauls to meet the needs of a socialist city. Yes we'd have to address environmental issues but socialism would get rid of alot of waste in society without reducing the production of use value.



The late British economist E.F. Schumacher once noted that socialism is worth nothing if it simply strives to out-capitalize the capitalists -- that socialism's main contribution is to human dignity and worker democracy. That is the ground that socialism will triumph on.
Capital is not use value, if a socialist society builds a rail line that is not capital but use value.

[Sentinel]

Thread moved to Theory.

[cyu]

socialism is not likely.to out-produce the capitalists. Nor should it.



Actually, it should - at least in some respects. Of course, I'm not talking about the sectors of the economy producing luxury goods consumed only by the wealthy: yachts, golf courses, helipads, limos, etc etc.

The thing to remember is that it's just a matter of resource allocation. When capitalists have a lot of wealth, a far greater percentage of the economic resources are allocated to producing goods for them to consume.

If they didn't have all that wealth, then their consumption wouldn't be taking up such a large percentage of the economic resources. And because those economic resources are now freed up to serve everyone else, then in fact there would be more stuff being produced for the rest of the population.

[h9socialist]

First, somewhere in "The German Ideology" (I think -- I am mobile and not near my library), Marx discusses the material pre-requisite, that is a level of production which supplies "enough" for everyone as being needed for socialism to proceed. I would argue that humanity passed that level a long time ago. The big problem is that the social arrangement of bourgeois society is allergic to a just distribution of wealth because it would undermine the notion of capitalist priviledge and hierarchy.

Second, environmental and resource depletion concerns are likely to limit economic growth in this century -- the only way out, I think, is through speculation and virtual production which would increase legal wealth on paper, but not in terms of real wealth. The hope for capitalism is that an economy can be maintained on such a basis for extended periods.

In any event, I am convinced that the world does not need increased production as much as a more just distribution. (I am purposefully leaving out population growth at this point -- in order to keep the subject matter from getting too complex. I will happily deal with it later).

Socialism can address this imbalance in ways that capitalism can't. But it can only do so by putting a great deal more emphasis on matters of social justice. Merely competing with capitalism to see who can produce the most means that socialism is simply a collectivized form of capitalism. It also means that the Greens will develop into the "Left" of the future, not the socialists and communists.

Finally, I would point to the sub-title of Das Kapital, the "Critique of Political Economy." Contrary to bourgeois misrepresentations, Marx was not arguing for economic determinism, but an emancipation from it. Therefore, "economics" is the other end of this dialectic. In my opinion, the triumph of socialism coincides with the defeat of political economy. That is why socialism must be driven by an ethos other than economics. Interestingly enough, that is why shorter work time is so vital to socialism -- it creates increased space for social life to proceed outside the economic sphere.

[Nwoye]

Keep in mind that many jobs in america will become obsolete after capitalism. Bankers, real estate agents, stock traders, people in financial institutions, insurance companies, etc are all now joining to produce actual tangible wealth. This increase in the job pool will cut down everyone's hours. And yes, as others have said, automation will play a large role in increasing production, mostly of actual useful goods as well, like food and clothing.

[h9socialist]

I agree that capital is not use value -- it is the accumulation of exchange value to the point of creating political power over the labor of others. BUT, it sure does create a lot of use values in the pursuit of exchange value. Marx was rather explicit that commodities included use as well as exchange value.

[h9socialist]

I have the suspicion that if socialism is to be successful in coming generations, its success will be in large part due to the establishment of a new pattern of consumption -- one that brings human consumption into harmony with the environment. Socialism will be necessary because it can facilitate a more just distribution, and not rely on constant growth of commodity production. Capitalism can't do that without committing suicide.

[Psy]

I have the suspicion that if socialism is to be successful in coming generations, its success will be in large part due to the establishment of a new pattern of consumption -- one that brings human consumption into harmony with the environment. Socialism will be necessary because it can facilitate a more just distribution, and not rely on constant growth of commodity production. Capitalism can't do that without committing suicide.
Capitalism is based around the consumption of commodities, socialism would be based around the consumption of use value. Socialism will not rely on constant growth of commodity production because planning would be looking at use values, thus production would be driven by needs and not by accumulation of value. Therefore socialism would only experience constant production growth if there is constant growth in demand which over production in capitalism shows is not the case.

[h9socialist]

Okay Psy -- I agree but only in theory. In practice I suspect there may be some debate over the qualifications for "use value." Consequently, a little superfluous production might sneak in. But more importantly for aggregate consumption, I tend to think that the natural environment is under no obligation to accommodate socialist production, any more than capitalist production. Socialism will have to adapt to environmental reality. Thus, I think "steady state" economy is in the future of the human race -- whether human institutions are socialist or capitalist. My point is that because it is not driven by commodity production and accumulation, socialism should be able to accommodate a steady state economy better than capitalism. I said "should be" -- whether it does or not depends upon whether future generations imbue the proper wisdom in their socialist institutions.

[Psy]

Okay Psy -- I agree but only in theory. In practice I suspect there may be some debate over the qualifications for "use value." Consequently, a little superfluous production might sneak in. But more importantly for aggregate consumption, I tend to think that the natural environment is under no obligation to accommodate socialist production, any more than capitalist production. Socialism will have to adapt to environmental reality. Thus, I think "steady state" economy is in the future of the human race -- whether human institutions are socialist or capitalist. My point is that because it is not driven by commodity production and accumulation, socialism should be able to accommodate a steady state economy better than capitalism. I said "should be" -- whether it does or not depends upon whether future generations imbue the proper wisdom in their socialist institutions.

Yet socialist planners would have the advantage of not having to care about re-production like capitalist planners for example when designing a forklift socialist engineers could design it for around 50 years of constant use before having to be rebuilt, capitalism can't design equipment to last long as the point of capitalism is to sell commodities and if commodities last longer it means less commodities can be sold. In other words socialism would have a far better chance of engineering itself past environmental limitations then capitalism since socialist engineers can actually extend life cycles of products along with finding cheaper ways to meet use value (and even being able to question the merit of a use value).

[Vincent P.]

I recommend you guys to read The Right To Lazyness by Paul Lafargue (Marx's son in law). It's a very powerful pamphlet written to give a blow to the ''live to work'' lifestyle.
It says that we should take the exemple of the Athenian society, in which work was done by human slaves and thus giving time to free people to think and create one of the greatest artistic and philosophic culture of history, but instead using machines as slaves in a communist background. According to him, people should work no more 3 hours a day to use and repair the slave-machines, and then use the rest of his time for learning, music playing and fucking.

It's a short and very interesting reading, highly recommended.

[cyu]

its success will be in large part due to the establishment of a new pattern of consumption

This part I agree with.



one that brings human consumption into harmony with the environment.


This part I don't. Fuck the environment!

Haha, only kidding - yes, I agree we shouldn't do stupid things to the environment, but I don't stay up late at night worrying about it. Sure, using environmental arguments is one way you can attack capitalism (and I am thankful for the Green movement for keeping it up when the Red movement was being persecuted), but still I only see it as a tool against capitalism, but not as important as other issues.

The main thing about ending capitalism is decoupling the relationship between work and pay. In a democracy, you don't first ask "What's your job?" before allowing a person to vote - everyone votes regardless of their job. The same should be true about pay.

If everyone gets the same pay, then obviously you have to change consumption. People shouldn't feel that because they "worked" hard, they "deserve" to consume more. Personally, I would prefer it if they didn't even want to consume more.

How do we get from here to there? The main tool I see in achieving this would be advertising: replace all advertising for consumption with advertising for doing things.

If you're "lazy" and don't feel like doing anything, nobody forces you to work. You are free to stay at home and watch TV or surf the internet all day. However, instead of being constantly bombarded with ads trying to get you to want more stuff, you are instead bombarded with ads trying to get you to want to go out and do stuff that society thinks needs doing.

[Lamanov]

I've started this thread with the hope of stimulating discussion on the issue of shorter work time because I think it is a critical step toward socialism. So did Marx -- in Volume III of Das Kapital he is very explicit that "the realm of freedom" begins when the working day ends, and that shorter work time is the prerequisite of "the realm of freedom."

Actually, this part of Capital is rather confusing since it's not in complete accordance with other thoughts Marx may have written elsewhere. We shouldn't forget that 2nd and 3rd volume of Capital were put together by Engels who used Marx's manuscripts, and we should take into account the fact that many of ideas there might not be worked out to the fullest and might be confusing or contradictory. So it is with this "least work hours" proposition.

Luckily, Castoriadis jumped in with his analysis in »Sur le contenu du socialisme II (http://classagainstclass.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=252:workers-councils-and-the-economics-of-a-self-managed-society-cornelius-castoriadis&catid=15:cornelius-castoriadissocialisme-ou-barbarie&Itemid=20)« (signed Pierre Chaulieu, in Socialisme ou Barbarie, XXII, 1957.):


In Capital -- as opposed to Marx's early writings it is not brought out that the worker is (and can only be) the positive vehicle of capitalist production, which is obliged to base itself on him as such, and to develop him as such, while simultaneously seeking to reduce him to an automaton and, at the limit, to drive him out of production altogether. Because of this, the analysis fails to perceive that the prime crisis of capitalism is the crisis in production, due to the simultaneous existence of two contradictory tendencies, neither of which could disappear without the whole system collapsing. Marx shows in capitalism 'despotism in the workshop and anarchy in society' -- instead of seeing it as both despotism and anarchy in both workshop and society. This leads him to look for the crisis of capitalism not in production itself (except insofar as capitalist production develops 'oppression, misery, degeneration, but also revolt', and the numerical strength and discipline of the proletariat) -- but in such factors as overproduction and the fall in the rate of profit. Marx fails to see that as long as this type of work persists, this crisis will persist with all it entails, and this whatever the system not only of property, but whatever the nature of the state, and finally whatever even the system of management of production.

In certain passages of Capital, Marx is thus led to see in modern production only the fact that the producer is mutilated and reduced to a 'fragment of a man' -- which is true, as much as the contrary [n10] -- and, what is more serious, to link this aspect to modern production and finally to production as such, instead of linking it to capitalist technology. Marx implies that the basis of this state of affairs is modern production as such, a stage in the development of technique about which nothing can be done, the famous 'realm of necessity'. Thus, the taking over of society by the producers -- socialism -- at times comes to mean, for Marx, only an external change in political and economic management, a change that would leave intact the structure of work and simply reform its more 'inhuman' aspects. This idea is clearly expressed in the famous passage of "Volume III" of Capital, where speaking of socialist society, Marx says:

'In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labor which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus, in the very nature of things, it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. ... Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it... and, achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of their human nature. But, it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins ... the true realm of freedom, which however can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite.' [a12]

If it is true that the' realm of freedom actually begins only where labor which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases' it is strange to read from the pen of the man who wrote that 'industry was the open book of human faculties' that freedom could 'thus' only be found outside of work. The proper conclusion -- which Marx himself draws in certain other places -- is that the realm of freedom starts when work becomes free activity, both in what motivates it and in its content. In the dominant concept, however, freedom is what isn't work, it is what surrounds work, it is either 'free time' (reduction of the working day) or 'rational regulation' and 'common control' of exchanges with Nature, which minimize human effort and preserve human dignity. In this perspective, the reduction of the working day certainly becomes a 'basic prerequisite', as mankind would finally only be free in its leisure.

The reduction of the working day is, in fact, important, not for this reason however, but to allow people to achieve a balance between their various types of activity. And, at the limit, the 'ideal' (communism) isn't the reduction of the working day to zero, but the free determination by all of the nature and extent of their work. Socialist society will be able to reduce the length of the working day, and will have to do so, but this will not be its fundamental preoccupation. Its first task will be to tackle 'the realm of necessity', as such, to transform the very nature of work. The problem is not to leave more and more 'free' time to individuals -- which might well only be empty time -- so that they may fill it at will with 'poetry' or the carving of wood. The problem is to make of all time a time of liberty and to allow concrete freedom to find expression in creative activity.

The problem is to put poetry into work. [n11] Production isn't something negative, that has to be limited as much as possible for mankind to fulfill itself in its leisure. The institution of autonomy is also -- and, in the first place -- the institution of autonomy in work.I agree with these remarks and conclusions.

[NecroCommie]

Technocracy is a non-capitalist system. There is'nt any money in the technocratic model.
True, true... But then again, I was talking about pre-revolution society, and thought that you were too.

[h9socialist]

Dear Comrade Lamanov --

I really don't disagree with the ideas you express -- but as to "work becoming free," I think that will depend upon what we use as a definition of "work." I don't foresee the work of a garbage collector being quite so freely chosen and preferred, as compared to, say a writer or a musician. That would be where "the Statues of Daedelus" come in -- machines to replace human labor. Once that hurdle is behind, we are close to the same wave length, I do commend the Comrade who cited Paul Lafargue's famous essay, and would also recommend "In Praise of Idleness" by Bertrand Russell.

[Dave B]

As we are discussing the ‘realm of freedom’ quote we might as well have the whole thing I suppose. I think it is a great quote;

Capital Vol. III, Part VII. Revenues and their Sources, Chapter 48. The Trinity Formula





In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilised man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase.


Freedom in this field can only consist in socialised man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.

But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htm)


I have used it several times myself before of course eg
post 62 and from somebody who understood it, 65;


http://libcom.org/forums/theory/what-would-anarchist-society-look-20092008?page=2 (http://libcom.org/forums/theory/what-would-anarchist-society-look-20092008?page=2)