Abolition of work?

[Red Flag Waver]

What do people mean when they call for this? I take it they're not talking about work in a broad sense.

[Skyhilist]

Generally they are referring to the automization of undesirable work to the largest extent possible.

In other words, imagine machines alone could build cars instead of people being required (with future technology). Then the collective burden of undesirable work wouldn't be as much under socialism.

[human strike]

They mean the abolition of wage labour. The abolition of the division of labour is also generally assumed as being advocated when the demand for the abolition of work is made. Communism abolishes work as a concept since our doing is no longer valorised.

[tuwix]

What do people mean when they call for this? I take it they're not talking about work in a broad sense.

I think it refers to this Marx's quote:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

It is certain to me that is possible only when automation will go far enough that not money won't be any incentive.

[o well this is ok I guess]

No, they're talking about work in the broad sense.
Work isn't just the subordination to a boss and the meagerness of ones given wage, as some posters would suggest. Simply put, the work itself is more boring than it really ought to be, and often borders on total uselessness. The idea of the abolition of work is not merely to reduce human involvement in productive activity, but to structure remaining productive activity in such a way that someone would actually want to do it.

[Akshay!]

It means you're free to do what you want.

[Palmares]

It's a reference (at least in part) to Bob Black's essay:



The Abolition of Work

"The Abolition of Work" is an essay written by Bob Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Black) in 1985. The essay was part of Black's first book, an anthology of essays entitled The Abolition of Work and Other Essays published by Loompanics Unlimited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loompanics).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Work#cite_note-pubdetails-1) It is an exposition of Black's "type 3 anarchism" – a blend of post-Situationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International) theory and individualist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism) – focusing on a critique of the work ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_work_ethic).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Work#cite_note-porton-2) "The Abolition of Work" adopted Situationist tropes that had recently been re-popularized (or recuperated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation)) by pop bands of the time


(Bow Wow Wow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_Wow_Wow) in particular having earlier featured "demolition of the work ethic" and "there's no need to work ever" among similar lines in their lyrics). In attempting to round out the concept from his discovering it in popular culture[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], Black draws upon certain ideas of Marshall Sahlins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Sahlins), Richard Borshay Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Borshay_Lee), Charles Fourier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier), William Morris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morris), and Paul Goodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Goodman_%28writer%29).
Although "The Abolition of Work" has most often been reprinted by anarchist publishers and Black is well known as an anarchist, the essay's argument is not explicitly anarchist. Black argues that the abolition of work is as important as the abolition of the state. The essay, which is based on a 1981 speech at the Gorilla Grotto in San Francisco, is informal and without academic references, but Blacks mentions some sources such as the utopian socialist Charles Fourier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier), the unconventional Marxists Paul Lafargue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lafargue) and William Morris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morris), anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kropotkin) and Paul Goodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Goodman_%28writer%29), and anthropologists such as Marshall Sahlins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Sahlins) and Richard Borshay Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Borshay_Lee).


...
Synopsis

In the essay Black argues for the abolition of the producer- and consumer-based (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism) society, where, Black contends, all of life is devoted to the production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_%28economics%29) and consumption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_%28economics%29) of commodities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity). Attacking Marxist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist) state socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism) as much as Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism), Black argues that the only way for humans to be free is to reclaim their time from jobs and employment, instead turning necessary subsistence tasks into free play done voluntarily – an approach referred to as "ludic". The essay argues that "no-one should ever work", because work - defined as compulsory productive activity enforced by economic or political means – is the source of most of the misery in the world. Black denounces work for its compulsion, and for the forms it takes – as subordination to a boss, as a "job" which turns a potentially enjoyable task into a meaningless chore, for the degradation imposed by systems of work-discipline, and for the large number of work-related deaths and injuries – which Black characterizes as homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide).
He views the subordination enacted in workplaces as "a mockery of freedom", and denounces as hypocrites the various theorists who support freedom while supporting work. Subordination in work, Black alleges, makes people stupid and creates fear of freedom. Because of work, people become accustomed to rigidity and regularity, and do not have the time for friendship or meaningful activity. Many workers, he contends, are dissatisfied with work (as evidenced by absenteeism, goldbricking, embezzlement and sabotage), so that what he says should be uncontroversial; however, it is controversial only because people are too close to the work-system to see its flaws.
Play, in contrast, is not necessarily rule-governed, and, more important, it is performed voluntarily, in complete freedom, for the satisfaction of engaging in the activity itself. But since intrinsically satisfying activity is not necessarily unproductive, "productive play" is possible, and, if generalized, might give rise to a gift economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy). Black points out that hunter-gatherer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer) societies are typified by play (in the sense of "productive play"), a view he backs up with the work of anthropologist Marshall Sahlins in his essay "The Original Affluent Society," reprinted in his book "Stone Age Economics" (1971). Black has reiterated this interpretation of the ethnographic record, this time with citations and references, in "Primitive Affluence," reprinted in his book "Friendly Fire" (Autonomedia 1994), and in "Nightmares of Reason" (a critique of Murray Bookchin posted at TheAnarchistLibrary.org).
Black responds to the criticism (argued, for instance, by libertarian David Ramsey-Steele) that "work," if not simply effort or energy, is necessary to get important but unpleasant tasks done, by contending that much work now currently done is unnecessary, because it only serves the purposes of social control and economic exploitation. Black has responded (in "Smokestack Lightning," reprinted in "Friendly Fire") that of all, most important tasks can be rendered ludic, or "salvaged" by being turned into game-like and craft-like activities, and secondly that the vast majority of work does not need doing at all. The latter tasks are unnecessary because they only serve functions of commerce and social control that exist only to maintain the work-system as a whole. As for what is left, he advocates Charles Fourier's approach of arranging activities so that people will want to do them. He is also sceptical but open-minded about the possibility of eliminating work through labor-saving technologies, which, in his opinion, have so far never reduced work, and often deskilled and debased workers. As he sees it, the political left has, for the most part, failed to acknowledge as revolutionary the critique of work, limiting itself to the critique of wage-labor. The left, he contends, by glorifying the dignity of labor, has endorsed work itself, and also the work ethic.
Black has often criticized leftism, especially Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Marxism), but he does not consider anarchism, which he espouses, as always advocating an understanding of work which is consistent with his critique of work. Black looks favorably, if critically, on a text such as "The Right to Be Greedy," by the Situationist-influenced collective For Ourselves (he wrote a Preface for the Loompanics Unlimited reprint edition), which attempts to synthesize the post-moral individualism of Max Stirner ("The Ego and Its Own") with what appears to be an egalitarian anarcho-communism. What has been called "zero-work" remains controversial on the left and among anarchists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

They mean the abolition of wage labour. The abolition of the division of labour is also generally assumed as being advocated when the demand for the abolition of work is made. Communism abolishes work as a concept since our doing is no longer valorised.Yeah this is how I see it.



It's a reference (at least in part) to Bob Black's essay:Interesting, thanks for posting this. I've heard people reference this but I've never read it myself. From the synopsis, I don't think I disagree with the ideal described or the spirt of it, but I think I might disagree on some of the specifics - particularly what the synopisis suggested was argued about "craft". The actual argument could be different, but on the surface it suggests a fetishization of induvidual labor over cooperative efforts, which IMO would mean creating more work actually and I think the only reason "craft" doesn't exist in modern manufacturing is because workers have no input - otherwise they would probably want to put "craftsmanship" and sort of personal touches into their work (and often due in small subversive ways despite the regulation of profit-driven manufacturing).

[Red Flag Waver]

So there are differing ideas about what constitutes "work," but the gist of it seems to be boring or unnecessary tasks that can be phased out, while necessary and enjoyable activities aren't really "work" as such?

[Brutus]

There would still be tasks that cannot be automated, and these would be done by volunteers and altruists.

[vizzek]

"'Labour by its very nature is unfree, unhuman, unsocial activity, determined by private property and creating private property. Hence the abolition of private property will become a reality only when it is conceived as the abolition of 'labour'." - marx

there has actually been a long history of commies glorifying "work" and acting as if it is something necessary for the building of socialism or whatever. the soviet union even had "communist sundays" and things of that nature.

some good things to read:

- http://endnotes.org.uk/articles/12
- http://www.krisis.org/1999/manifesto-against-labour

[tuwix]

"'Labour by its very nature is unfree, unhuman, unsocial activity, determined by private property and creating private property. Hence the abolition of private property will become a reality only when it is conceived as the abolition of 'labour'." - marx


And IMHO it is only possible when automation will get to level that almost all unpleasant work will be done by machines.

[human strike]

there has actually been a long history of commies glorifying "work" and acting as if it is something necessary for the building of socialism or whatever. the soviet union even had "communist sundays" and things of that nature.

some good things to read:

- http://endnotes.org.uk/articles/12
- http://www.krisis.org/1999/manifesto-against-labour

It's a problem that infects most of the left, not least anarcho-syndicalism:

"In the factory we are not seeking friendship. ... In the factory what interests us above all is that our fellow worker knows his job and does it without complications because of his inexperience or ignorance of the functioning of the whole. ... Salvation is in work, and the day will come when workers want it. The anarchists, the only tendency which does not seek to live at the expense of others, fight for that day." - Diego Abad de Santillán

[Craig_J]

No, they're talking about work in the broad sense.
Work isn't just the subordination to a boss and the meagerness of ones given wage, as some posters would suggest. Simply put, the work itself is more boring than it really ought to be, and often borders on total uselessness. The idea of the abolition of work is not merely to reduce human involvement in productive activity, but to structure remaining productive activity in such a way that someone would actually want to do it.

Spot on.

Work is dehumanising through the division of labour. Most of the jobs in today's capitlist world involve doing the same reptitive task every day. It alienates us from our true creative human characteristics. I'm sure there's all things we want to do or learn about but the current work system means you have a responsibility for lets say, operating the same amchine at all times. Or an even more extreme example is if your working in a sweatshop you sew on the same part to a trainer, pass it on afterwards, then sew on the same Nike tick or what ever it is your doing, then pass it on again.

For most of us we don't want to do our job but it pays. We have to do it. We're offered the incentive of forcing ourselves to do something we don't really want to be doing for 5 days so we can reap the rewards at the weekend. But this is just dehumanising in every sense of the word when any self-respecting human has something they want to do or achieve in life. We don't need a forced upon us rota do this.

For me, I have to go to college and study then I work at the weekends behind a bar. I pour pints all day when what I really want to do is increase my lefitst knowledge. In an ideal world I'd rather spend my time helping my fellow humans actually achieve something, such as gathering food for my community or producing things of use, and devote the rest of my time to enjoying myself and politically educating myself on lefitst ideas. I could be doing things that actually help people, and help myself to imrpove as a human being, but instead I waste my time pouring drinks.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

Physically man lives only on these products of nature, whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, a dwelling, etc. The universality of man appears in practice precisely in the universality which makes all nature his inorganic body – both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activity. Nature is man’s inorganic body – nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature. In estranging from man (1) nature, and (2) himself, his own active functions, his life activity, estranged labor estranges the species from man. It changes for him the life of the species into a means of individual life. First it estranges the life of the species and individual life, and secondly it makes individual life in its abstract form the purpose of the life of the species, likewise in its abstract and estranged form.
For labor, life activity, productive life itself, appears to man in the first place merely as a means of satisfying a need – the need to maintain physical existence. Yet the productive life is the life of the species. It is life-engendering life. The whole character of a species, its species-character, is contained in the character of its life activity; and free, conscious activity is man’s species-character. Life itself appears only as a means to life.


Labour cannot be 'abolished' because without labour our species is doomed.



Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway.


The exchange between Man and Nature produces use-values. Without use-values Man cannot live. Labour cannot be 'abolished' for it is essential for every society (could not find the Marx's quote where he says that).

[melvin]

I am all for this idea but you really can't make all work enjoyable. sometimes people need to suck it up. you can't just make a fun game out of all work.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Labour cannot be 'abolished' because without labour our species is doomed.

The exchange between Man and Nature produces use-values. Without use-values Man cannot live. Labour cannot be 'abolished' for it is essential for every society (could not find the Marx's quote where he says that). It's not about abolish labour, it's about abolishing work. "Labour" refers to the productive activity itself, whilst "work" refers to the occupation.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

It's not about abolish labour, it's about abolishing work. "Labour" refers to the productive activity itself, whilst "work" refers to the occupation.

Riiight! I posted that because someone quoted Marx on labour.

Sorry :crying:

[Comrade #138672]

There would still be tasks that cannot be automated, and these would be done by volunteers and altruists.We can simply rotate those tasks. You will clean up on Tuesday and I will do so on Wednesday.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I am all for this idea but you really can't make all work enjoyable. sometimes people need to suck it up. you can't just make a fun game out of all work.

Bullshit. Under capitalism, of course work isn't going to be enjoyable, because in order to make a profit, wages need to be kept low. And who gets paid lower wages? Skilled or un-skilled workers? Un-skilled workers. Whilst the idea of de-skilling obviously isn't universal, there is certainly a trend towards more hours being worked (empirically proved) and de-skilling.

In the UK, for example, certain elements of the educational literature (mainly from the economic perspective) have been arguing that there has been an over-education of the workforce in recent years, hence why the burden of initial investment in education is being pushed from the government (in the form of subsidies, grants, free tuition) to students (in the form of deferrable loans). Now, why would there be too much education? Can one have such a thing? If the output of education is knowledge, then surely not! But if the output of education is in fact usable skills, then of course in capitalist labour markets too much education is a bad thing; it increases the power of labour relative to the production process. In other words, a very highly skilled labourforce that has invested shitloads of time and money in their own quest for skills, is in a better position to demand higher wages, which of course eats into the profit margins of the capitalist, and therefore their ability to accumulate capital over time.

Furthermore, there's a statistical association between de-skilling and a number of negative social and health externalities (i.e. unemployment/under-employment, mental health problems and, above all, alienation). As Marx noted, the whole negative aspect of there existing an Industrial Reserve Army of Labour is that they are alienated from the production proces (if the IRA includes not only unemployment, but under-employment, short-term work, casual work etc.). Further, under the capitalist production process in general, labour is alienated from the labour process through the lack of ownership of their means of production; workers produce something that they do not own, and will probably never consume. Furthermore, workers in low skill jobs with little or no autonomy over what they are doing have no control over their jobs, hence total alienation, loss of dignity, which can seriously harm a worker's wellbeing if this is their full-time occupation over a number of years.

So no, workers don't need to 'suck it up'. They need to lay down their tools and show that they've had enough of this bullshit division of labour, that they're not going to have their wages kept at low levels, have their skill levels decreased continuously and be monitored like lab rats all day, every day. The whole point of work is that, under capitalism, it is a compulsion - we are compelled to work for fear of starvation (or, with the existence of welfare, for fear of a deprivation of our material standard of living, and any modicum of dignity we get from employment). Socialists should see work as something that shouldn't be a compulsion, shouldn't be a drag. It should be something that is enjoyed as much as is possible, which can be achieved by 'outsourcing' undesirable work to machines - automation. In a post-monetary, post-division of labour society, this is not only desirable but very much possible.

[Sotionov]

I don't get this slogan. If it's wage labor that's oppossed, why not say that- "abolish wage labor", or "abolish wage slavery", I don't see the point in calling for abolition of work.

[The Douche]

I don't get this slogan. If it's wage labor that's oppossed, why not say that- "abolish wage labor", or "abolish wage slavery", I don't see the point in calling for abolition of work.

Because "abolish work" allows us to include a critique of labor which is not waged, but is still alienated.

Compelling somebody to do some productive activity that they don't want to do is still alienated labor, despite not being wage labor, there are many people who claim to be communists who believe the power of social coercion is compatible with communism.

I always ask, in threads like this, under communism, who will be a miner (or other such highly dangerous or undesireable work)? Who would volunteer for such an outrageous risk when it isn't necessary to make a wage in order to support yourself/your family? The responses always fall back onto some hypothetical advances in technology that remove all the danger from mining, or in voluntarism.

I think the historical record is pretty clear on what will actually happen.

[Sotionov]

Because "abolish work" allows us to include a critique of labor which is not waged, but is still alienated.
Maybe that's why I don't get the slogan, because I don't use the word 'alienate' in some metaphysical sense, but only in the economic sense of transfer of ownership, ie de jure alienation of labor in the employment contract.


Compelling somebody to do some productive activity that they don't want to do is still alienated labor
Forced labor is surely not compatible with any form of socialism (thus communism), which I understand as emancipation of laborers.


I always ask, in threads like this, under communism, who will be a miner (or other such highly dangerous or undesireable work)? Who would volunteer for such an outrageous risk when it isn't necessary to make a wage in order to support yourself/your family? The responses always fall back onto some hypothetical advances in technology that remove all the danger from mining, or in voluntarism.

I think the historical record is pretty clear on what will actually happen.
Did anarcho-communist communities in Revolutionary Catalonia and Andalusia have miners and such workers?

[The Douche]

Maybe that's why I don't get the slogan, because I don't use the word 'alienate' in some metaphysical sense, but only in the economic sense of transfer of ownership, ie de jure alienation of labor in the employment contract.

Labor performed out of some "social necessity" or whatever has a portion of its value extracted to fill that social role. Obviously if people get this and volunteer their labor anyway there is nothing wrong with that.


Forced labor is surely not compatible with any form of socialism (thus communism), which I understand as emancipation of laborers.

Lots of people on here probably would not believe that social coercion/pressure would be "force".


Did anarcho-communist communities in Revolutionary Catalonia and Andalusia have miners and such workers?

Probably. (If they didn't have mines in that region I am sure the CNT organized miners, and organized the work of miners)

[svenne]

If you put it in a historico-theoretical perspective, the critique of work/labour makes a bit more sense. The Second Internationalists, the leninists (both Trotsky and Stalin), and even Marx and Engels at some times, has a tendency to be a bit productivistic - the point of socialism/communism is to efficiently organise the production to overcome the anarchy of capitalist market, and then everything goes swell and we all get laid and the beer is free. When this is put into practice, we get the Great Leap and the Soviet industrialization. The plannd economy just becomes a faster way to industrialize. It's not really leaving capitalism, but rather state capitalism. It's against a background of these ideas and practices that the critique of work has grown. While nothing new at all, really (see for example Paul Lafarges The right to be lazy), it's a well needed injection in the marxist debate, especially in this day and age, as a way to critique both the social democratic and the right wing parties, as both are trying to attack the crisis of today with more work. While there may be positive effects of more people working (wages has a tendency to go up, and people has a bit better position to fight for their rights if they know there aren't 500 000 people waiting to take his or hers job), work still sucks.

And that's the point where there's a bit of a split between the reformist critique of work, and the revolutionary variant; the reformists are okay with basic income guarantees and a 6 or 7 hour long work day - it's just another step in making capitalism bearable, and it's seen as the Welfare State 2.0. This kind of critique really isn't that deep, and it's still infested with the productivistic thinking of the 2:nd international, Trotsky etc. They still like the Fordist or the Toyota modell, and often point out that people work harder and more efficient if they have shorter days! The extra time you get every day is still used to reproduce the labourers, and they still need the economic growth to substain their model. Usually, these positions are somewhat usual in the Green and former Euro Communist parties.
Against this, you could put a line where capitalism and work is to be abolished. While these ideas sometimes goes into lifestylism and alternativism (let's move out in the forest and grow our own food and marijuana), it's still grounded firmly in the idea that capitalism sucks and is to be replaced by socialism. While not being against shorter work days and money to everyone without doing anything, it also wants to attack work as a way of living, and withdraw from capitalism. People who hold this view ususally belong to the communization current, or something close to it.

And all this can be boiled down to the question of what the revolution is, and what's the goal with it. To we want a society where we still have to do crap every day, but with "real" democracy and the ability to choose our own bosses, or do we want to tear this oh-so-crappy society down, and create a new world?

[Sotionov]

Labor performed out of some "social necessity" or whatever has a portion of its value extracted to fill that social role. Obviously if people get this and volunteer their labor anyway there is nothing wrong with that.
I don't get this. A lot of labor is done out of the necessity of survival, and I don't see how can that change in a post-capitalist society. Everyone needs to eat, have clothes, shelter etc. If you can have all that without laboring, that just means you're parasitizing, because such stuff doesn't appear by themselves from thin air, someone has to make them, laboring is necessity of living. That's why say I don't see the point in the "abolish work" slogan, and would favour "abolish wage labor" or "abolish wage slavery".

[RedMaterialist]

I don't get this slogan. If it's wage labor that's oppossed, why not say that- "abolish wage labor", or "abolish wage slavery", I don't see the point in calling for abolition of work.

Especially in view of the importance Marx attached to work (free, non-alienated);
work creates man.

[vizzek]

I don't get this. A lot of labor is done out of the necessity of survival, and I don't see how can that change in a post-capitalist society. Everyone needs to eat, have clothes, shelter etc. If you can have all that without laboring, that just means you're parasitizing, because such stuff doesn't appear by themselves from thin air, someone has to make them, laboring is necessity of living. That's why say I don't see the point in the "abolish work" slogan, and would favour "abolish wage labor" or "abolish wage slavery".

Not true. before class societies and civilizations emerged, there was no such thing as "labor." You lived through your day and did what you needed to do to survive, keep your family fed, etc. but you also had the freedom to roam, to enjoy life, to live to whatever level you desired. civilization did away with that, as people began to become enslaved to the land and forced to separate labor from everything else in their lives; thus we now had "work." I'm not suggesting communism put us all back into the forests, but I think it will at least have to mimic pre-civilization humanity in some ways.


Especially in view of the importance Marx attached to work (free, non-alienated);
work creates man.

there is no such thing as "free, non-alienated" work. and Marx apparently disagreed with you:


...it is established thereby that his activity is not a free manifestation of his human life, that it is, rather, a huckstering sale of his forces, an alienation (sale) to capital of his one-sidedly developed abilities, in a word, that it is “labour”. One is supposed to forget this. “Labour” is the living basis of private property, it is private property as the creative source of itself. Private property is nothing but objectified labour. If it is desired to strike a mortal blow at private property, one must attack it not only as a material state of affairs, but also as activity, as labour. It is one of the greatest misapprehensions to speak of free, human, social labour, of labour without private property. “Labour” by its very nature is unfree, unhuman, unsocial activity, determined by private property and creating private property. Hence the abolition of private property will become a reality only when it is conceived as the abolition of “labour” (an abolition which, of course, has become possible only as a result of labour itself, that is to say, has become possible as a result of the material activity of society and which should on no account be conceived as the replacement of one category by another).[107] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/cw/volume04/footnote.htm#107) An “organisation of labour”, therefore, is a contradiction. The best organisation that labour can be given is the present organisation, free competition, the dissolution of all its previous apparently “social” organisation.


And finally, the division of labour offers us the first example of how, as long as man remains in natural society, that is, as long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common interest, as long, therefore, as activity is not voluntarily, but naturally, divided, man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now.

[Let's Get Free]

The way i see it, human 'work' should be directly related the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. It should not turn into overwork, unnecessary work, or destructive work as it is under the current system.

As it stands, our work doesn't actually produce anything viable for the most part. We're primarily engaged in production and marketing of thousands of consumer goods and services. This kind of work, in my opinion, should be abolished.

[Ele'ill]

We're primarily engaged in production and marketing of thousands of consumer goods and services. This kind of work, in my opinion, should be abolished.

it's quite amazing to me when people auto-reject the notion that vast swaths of industry will vanish

[Sotionov]

Not true. before class societies and civilizations emerged, there was no such thing as "labor." You lived through your day and did what you needed to do to survive, keep your family fed, etc. but you also had the freedom to roam, to enjoy life, to live to whatever level you desired. civilization did away with that, as people began to become enslaved to the land and forced to separate labor from everything else in their lives; thus we now had "work." I'm not suggesting communism put us all back into the forests, but I think it will at least have to mimic pre-civilization humanity in some ways.
I disagree. Hunting and gathering were pretty much labor, not something that was easy and what people back then would do for fun, it was hard toil and they did it to survive. The only option where "abolish work" slogan would make sense is if one that uses it were some zeitgeist-movement-like adherent of technological utopianism.

[ckaihatsu]

There would still be tasks that cannot be automated, and these would be done by volunteers and altruists.





We can simply rotate those tasks. You will clean up on Tuesday and I will do so on Wednesday.


While these proposals are far from being controversial on the revolutionary left, they are nonetheless a "weak spot" in our theory of implementation, and they leave us open to charges of being indecisive, sloppy, or even faith-based on the particulars. If the revolution happened tomorrow would we all wind up breaking down in perspired exasperated frustration over being unable to self-organize all tasks on a consistent basis -- ?

- Is a repetitive, drudgery-type task any less socially undesirable if there happened to be a few who *enjoy* and *take-to* such kinds of roles -- ? ('Altruism')

- Is the social issue *resolved* if there happen to be some who *volunteer* to forfeit their just due, and take on certain work roles that everyone else has passed up -- ? ('Voluntarism')

- Are we truly *self-liberated* if we find that, due to adopting a rotation system of work roles, we have become constrained to a necessary proximity in physical and geographical space -- ? ('Rotation')

A closer look shows us that the watchword of communism is 'egalitarianism', and that the slightest 'shortcut' used actually re-introduces a measure of elitism all over again. We may want to decisively, definitively nail-down all loose ends in this matter of social implementation.

[Ele'ill]

I disagree. Hunting and gathering were pretty much labor, not something that was easy and what people back then would do for fun, it was hard toil and they did it to survive. The only option where "abolish work" slogan would make sense is if one that uses it were some zeitgeist-movement-like adherent of technological utopianism.

from what I understand 'hunting/gathering' involved very short 'work' days

[ckaihatsu]

Labor performed out of some "social necessity" or whatever has a portion of its value extracted to fill that social role. Obviously if people get this and volunteer their labor anyway there is nothing wrong with that.





I don't get this. A lot of labor is done out of the necessity of survival, and I don't see how can that change in a post-capitalist society.


How about 'All automated mass production to the people!' -- ?





Everyone needs to eat, have clothes, shelter etc. If you can have all that without laboring, that just means you're parasitizing, because such stuff doesn't appear by themselves from thin air, someone has to make them, laboring is necessity of living.


But this is an *idealized* conception of labor, arguably.... Yes, people would not just spend their days staring at blank walls if they were freed from all social obligations to work -- they would at least self-engage in *some* kind of activity that would probably have social benefits, if inadvertently, but then again, you're ignoring technological mass production which leverages human labor to the point of *solving* most people's common material problems, using *legacy* knowledge and know-how, combined with automated production, that can in no way be thought of as 'work' -- thus no parasitizing.





That's why say I don't see the point in the "abolish work" slogan, and would favour "abolish wage labor" or "abolish wage slavery".


Abolish work. Make the world run on what people *want* to do, or want to do for others, directly.

[ed miliband]

an interesting perspective for those who make the 'work has always existed and always will' cop-out argument:


In the so-called dark medieval times nobody would have hit upon the absurd idea to subsume the activities of a – let’s says – blacksmith, woman farmer, knight, or nun – to a single abstract category. That only makes sense if men/women are forced to sell their life energy in the form of labour power for an extrinsic purpose that means nothing to them: the blind end in itself of capital accumulation. In Marxism, labour has always figured as the opposite of capital. To a certain degree this is true, but only in so far as labour represents one of the two poles of interest in a common reference system, that is the capitalistic exchange of commodities. If labour is the only way to earn the means of subsistence, men/women become indifferent to the concrete content of their activity to the same extent as the capitalist – who is going to employ them – is indifferent to the purpose of his/her production (except for profit accumulation). Whether the workers/employees produce pesticides, construct motorways, expel beggars from pedestrian precincts, or construct weaponry, a job is a job and must be done. That does not preclude personal preferences and ethic scruples, but the same applies to the capitalist. There are always people who are not willing to produce weaponry, but one will find thousands of others who are ready to earn their money this way with pleasure. The multitude of options, so often invoked by media nowadays, turns out to be nothing but a limited number of tick options in a multiple-choice procedure within the boundaries of the fetish system of labour and capital.

http://www.krisis.org/1998/terror-of-labour

[ckaihatsu]

As it stands, our work doesn't actually produce anything viable for the most part. We're primarily engaged in production and marketing of thousands of consumer goods and services. This kind of work, in my opinion, should be abolished.





it's quite amazing to me when people auto-reject the notion that vast swaths of industry will vanish


Yes, but what is so bad about thousands of consumer goods and services?

Certainly 'services' would reduce to unfettered uncoerced voluntary tasks -- thus 'vanishing' vast swaths of present-day industry -- but already today many enjoyable products and conveniences are *net-based* and therefore are already automated, as with the digital mass distribution of media content.

Does anyone really object to consumer goods and services as a whole -- ?

[Fionnagáin]

I don't get this slogan. If it's wage labor that's oppossed, why not say that- "abolish wage labor", or "abolish wage slavery", I don't see the point in calling for abolition of work.
The wage is the form, work is the content. Merely calling for the abolition of wage-labour suggests that we'll continue producing as we did before, just using a mechanism other than wages and money to distribute our goods. We'll all still march down to the factory or the office to toil away the days, we just won't bring money into it. But the way we produce is not socially neutral, a simple matter of technological necessity, because it is social labour, and so embodies the social relations in which it is situated. The factory supposes the wage-worker, rather than the wage-worker supposing the factory. Production within the terms of a communist social relation would not appear simply as a more democratic version of capitalist production, any more the capitalism is a more liberal version of manorial production, but as something altogether different.

[human strike]

I don't get this slogan. If it's wage labor that's oppossed, why not say that- "abolish wage labor", or "abolish wage slavery", I don't see the point in calling for abolition of work.

Within communist relations what qualifies as work? If our doing isn't valorised, that is to say, if our doing isn't quantified and the measure of exchange, but all our doing is considered useful in and of itself and each receives according to need or desire, then what is 'work'? The word loses all meaning within communism and was what I was referring to earlier when I said that communism abolishes work as a concept. This is another aspect of the 'abolition of work' as a slogan and idea.

The point Chris/Douche made about unwaged labour is also very important. A huge amount of work - perhaps even most - is social and reproductive labour and the vast majority of this is done by women, and to a lesser extent children. It is no less important to consider this form of work as well as other forms.

[cyu]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/play
to exercise or employ oneself in diversion, amusement, or recreation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/work
to be employed, especially as a means of earning one's livelihood

What is the difference between work and play? Are they mutually exclusive? Can they merge into one? That sounds like a question for philosophers. In general, I'd say work is something that people do, whether they enjoy it or not. Play is something people do because they enjoy it.

The day after plutocrats are removed from power, will all work be replaced by play? I would say no. Definitely not immediately. There will still be many things that are considered unpleasant but still need to be done by those who consider them unpleasant, at least for the time being.

However, the long term goal is to turn it all into play - or make it all enjoyable, if that's the phrase you prefer. What can turn something unpleasant into something pleasant? The use of psychology for one. What else? Improving working conditions and safety, for another.

The reason "work" isn't considered enjoyable today is because the ruling class doesn't give a rat's @$$ about whether you like your job or not. They just want their stock prices to go up. The only time they worry about how happy you are is when they're afraid you're about to overthrow them. When the ruling class only cares about the stock price, obviously little effort will be devoted to caring about what you want. And if it's true that most executives are sociopaths, they'd care even less than the average man on the street.

After people take control over their own economic lives, they can actually start down the road of making work enjoyable. They won't arrive at their destination overnight, but they'd get there a lot faster after pushing plutocrats out of the way.

[cyu]

hypothetical advances in technology that remove all the danger from mining

There lots of people, very smart people, very hard-working people, who are at this moment designing new goods and services for the fabulously wealthy. And after their designs are reviewed and re-reviewed, they are sent to people on assembly lines or to people in nations where trade unions are banned, to produce these things for the fabulously wealthy. Why? Are these engineers, scientists, assembly and manual workers evil, heartless, or class traitors? Why aren't they producing things that would make the lives of miners safer?

The simple answer is: capitalism is a failure.

As long as an economy allows inequality of wealth, then it allows inequality of economic power. Economic power dictates what people do for a living. The more economic power that is concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy plutocrats, the more the labor, raw materials, and other resources of an economy will be taken away from the poor, and used to serve the rich.

http://digital-caress.com/galleries/Black%20&%20white/Lifestyles%20of%20the%20rich%20and%20the%20famous. jpg

http://solo-banton.kriskemist.com/wp-admin/maint/lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous-i19.jpg

http://solo-banton.kriskemist.com/wp-admin/maint/lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous-i12.jpg

http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/LIFESTYLES_OF_THE_RICH_AND_FAMOUS_Wallpaper_fw1fg. jpg

[Ele'ill]

I want to bump this thread because it is a reoccurring question that comes up and because a user (Ravachol) posted some links in another thread (Insurrectionary Anarchism) that I thought could be relinked.

I found this to be immediately applicable given the number of recent threads pretty much covering the same topics and asking similar questions

http://endnotes.org.uk/articles/8

[Arlekino]

It means you're free to do what you want.

How realistic can be work like that. Nobody would want to clean toilets, digging roads, mining.

[Ele'ill]

How realistic can be work like that. Nobody would want to clean toilets, digging roads, mining.


less true than you might think but your point at face value is exactly right, it will literally be a different world instead of simply a shift in who controls the current

[Ose]

How realistic can be work like that. Nobody would want to clean toilets, digging roads, mining.

The point is that these things could be done on our own terms, rather than everything being dictated by a boss who controls not only our work schedule but also, by extension, when we eat, when we sleep and what we can afford to do with what little free time they decide we should have. Such tasks don't seem so off-putting if we're doing them for ourselves in a way that suits us.

[human strike]

Sorry for bumping old thread.


How realistic can be work like that. Nobody would want to clean toilets, digging roads, mining.

David Graeber has observed, "in our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it." Within capitalist relations, essential tasks like cleaning toilets are undesirable. They are reserved for the lowest in society who are forced to do them repetitively. Housework specifically is treated as women's work. For men, such work goes against our very identity and sense of self as men; it is perceived as humiliating, dull, and emasculating - we see it as below us. Women typically find it shitty too (no pun intended) since it is exactly because they are dominated that is why it is they who are doing it almost all the time.

Within communist relations the situation is completely different. There is no dominated group for undesirable tasks to be reserved for, so why should these tasks be undesirable when they are useful and essential? Furthermore, the repetitive nature of such tasks is lessened without a division of labour. When tasks are shared we find that we are not doing the same tasks repeatedly, that there is diversity in our doing if we so wish.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, I confess, I skipped page two. I just noticed that, on page one, there's a heavy emphasis on roboting-work-away, which, insofar as the robots need to be built, and the metals need to be mined, seems like some utopian garbage. I think the radical reorientation of daily life, wherein "work" ceases to be a distinct sphere is generally what's being got at; really, what is central to the communist project.
Case in point, I would argue that there was no "work" in societies that Marx would have described as "Primitive Communism" - not because robots did the work, but because work was inseparable from the whole of community social life.
Which is a roundabout way of saying "work" emerges only hand-in-hand with class.

[ckaihatsu]

I think the radical reorientation of daily life, wherein "work" ceases to be a distinct sphere is generally what's being got at; really, what is central to the communist project.


Acknowledged and agreed.





Case in point, I would argue that there was no "work" in societies that Marx would have described as "Primitive Communism" - not because robots did the work, but because work was inseparable from the whole of community social life.
Which is a roundabout way of saying "work" emerges only hand-in-hand with class.


Agreed, but the tricky part here is that the buildup of capital, and industrialization, has given humanity the ability to produce much more -- and better -- of pretty much anything, leaving primitivistic approaches in the dust. We want the peace and humane mores of (relatively) simple social life, as during the time of primitive communism, but we shouldn't have to sacrifice the productivities we've realized through technology / tool development and the benefits of large-scale, complex social entities.





So, I confess, I skipped page two. I just noticed that, on page one, there's a heavy emphasis on roboting-work-away, which, insofar as the robots need to be built, and the metals need to be mined, seems like some utopian garbage.


I'll play devil's advocate here and point out that -- what if metals didn't need to be mined for the production of robots and any similar automated tools -- ? (What if a given robot could source its own raw materials from common natural resources, get energy from the sun through solar panels, *and* readily produce all of the necessary parts for a clone of itself, then assembling it into an identical, functioning clone -- ?)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project


I don't mean to imply that such a thing exists, but if such *was* actually feasible, perhaps in a few years, the anarchist dream could possibly be realized, wherein all (mass) production is organized organically, bottom-up, outside of the state, with the added plus of obviating all human labor. (Engineering and design is not typically considered to be 'work' by the standards of a revolutionary leftism since it's more bound-up with ownership and management -- and, in a *post*-capitalist context, would be integral to collectivist co-planning itself.)

[cyu]

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/northeastern-pennsylvania/73387d1293587394-pocono-country-place-good-bad-its-zombie-thread.jpg

I was reminded of this thread by an old email draft.

I think I'm coming to the conclusion that "full employment" is a false goal - not so much that it's unachievable, but that it is unnecessary - at least unnecessary in economic terms, although the ruling class uses it for social control. They are afraid that if too many hands are idle, eventually those hands would end up around their necks.

(1) Primitive people spent their time just trying to get enough food to eat.
(2) Technology advances such that only a tiny part of the population is needed to gather enough food.
(3) People basically just sit around bored, looking for something to occupy their time.
(4) The troll is born. They instigate conflict just for laughs, while their victims fight wars.
(5) Some people get good at shutting down trolls, but then it's back to boredom again.
(6) ...
(7) The modern economy.

[Aslan]

Once humanity has reached communism. It means labor for a profit motive (i.e capitalism) will be non-existent. This means that work will be done not to create wealth and capital, but to be used for society, this is helped by the rising technological revolution that will come in the next decades. People therefore will not have to work long hours and can instead spend their time on things they like to do.

[BIXX]

Once humanity has reached communism. It means labor for a profit motive (i.e capitalism) will be non-existent. This means that work will be done not to create wealth and capital, but to be used for society, this is helped by the rising technological revolution that will come in the next decades. People therefore will not have to work long hours and can instead spend their time on things they like to do.

I font want to work any hours tho

Why should I?

[Aslan]

If you don't want to work out of laziness even if you are a healthy human being you will be treated as a parasite to society and be reprimanded. If however you can't possibly work for mental/physical health reasons, you will in turn be helped by society. Therefore a person who is disabled will have the option to give back to society in their own way.

[ckaihatsu]

If you don't want to work out of laziness even if you are a healthy human being you will be treated as a parasite to society and be reprimanded. If however you can't possibly work for mental/physical health reasons, you will in turn be helped by society. Therefore a person who is disabled will have the option to give back to society in their own way.


Sorry but this is 'workerist', and even technically totalitarian, or a runaway groupthink, at least.

If a revolutionary politics promises individual self-determination and liberation from work then that means the individual should ultimately be the one who determines what 'work' is (for themselves), and what isn't.

Anything less would be *politically* problematic, for this reason. (Meaning how 'liberated' would people be if they wound up being under duress of some kind to do work that they really didn't want to do -- ?)

Also, being 'reprimanded' implies a 'state' of some sort, since personnel records (that include reprimands) would presumably have to be global and centralized under some kind of 'official' record-keeping authority.

[cyu]

http://bookoutlines.pbworks.com/w/page/14422685/Predictably%20Irrational

He read from "Leaves of Grass," and then asked his students the following:
◦1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to pay Ariely $10 for a 10-minute poetry recitation
◦1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to listen to a 10-minute poetry recitation if Ariely paid them $10
◦The students who were asked if they were willing to pay offered $1 for a short reading, $2 for a medium reading, and $3 for a long reading.
◦The students who were asked if they'd accept pay demanded $1.30 for a short reading, $2.70 for a medium reading, and $4.80 for a long reading.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_%28psychology%29

If you try to prevent people from doing something, it creates a "forbidden fruit" effect that makes them want to do it more. If you try to reward people for doing something, it makes them think it's not worth doing by itself, and that the "reward" is what they really want.

[Bala Perdida]

If you don't want to work out of laziness even if you are a healthy human being you will be treated as a parasite to society and be reprimanded. If however you can't possibly work for mental/physical health reasons, you will in turn be helped by society. Therefore a person who is disabled will have the option to give back to society in their own way.

If society treats me like a parasite, I'll agitate and overthrow society for trying to enslave me and reduce me to machinery.

[Aslan]

Thats the point. I am saying that people will do work that they want, you do have a point in saying that forcing people to qualify what is work and what isn't is inherently capitalistic. The fact that I said ''reprimanded'' is in fact from the community the individual lives in not the state. But what I don't understand is that in communism, is it the person themselves who decides their career and then it is approved by their peers?

[ckaihatsu]

parasite to society


I have to add that 'parasite' is materially indefensible as soon as society is physically able to meet and exceed the population's basic human requirements for life and living, as with leveraging technology for increased productivities. (If a post-capitalist social order can provide for everyone with sheerly voluntary liberated labor, then where's the problem?)


---





Thats the point. I am saying that people will do work that they want, you do have a point in saying that forcing people to qualify what is work and what isn't is inherently capitalistic. The fact that I said ''reprimanded'' is in fact from the community the individual lives in not the state. But what I don't understand is that in communism, is it the person themselves who decides their career and then it is approved by their peers?


'Community' -- ?

What's the point of a / any circumscribed 'community' if someone can rack up a bunch of 'reprimands' and then just leave the area for somewhere else -- ?

So then either there has to be a pan-community, fixed administrative 'state' (authority), as over permanent records, or else there's *no* 'community' in the sense of a meta-individual official social institution.

'Career' is also problematic because it implies 'employers' -- in communism it's a 'free association of producers', with no commodification of the individual, as into a resume or career path.

[Aslan]

Ok I have to admit I'm wrong in this respect in commodification of people and that I almost sound like a Stalinist in ''reprimanding'' a ''parasite''. My problem though, is to how a communism society works and how socialism will reject the qualities of capitalism.

[BIXX]

Ok I have to admit I'm wrong in this respect in commodification of people and that I almost sound like a Stalinist in ''reprimanding'' a ''parasite''. My problem though, is to how a communism society works and how socialism will reject the qualities of capitalism.

Maybe you should be focusing more on liberation cause I don't think anyone will want to line themselves up with your shitty plans for after-tax revolution saying "that's the only way communism can happen"

[cyu]

If you start with the models in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_Corporation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._L._Gore_and_Associates people self-organize - they basically show up and do whatever they're interested in.

If we take that world wide, then there would be no national or corporate borders. People basically show up anywhere they please, and join whatever activity is going on. If property has been abolished, then it's almost like reverting to ways birds flock or fish school - show up anywhere, and do your thing.

How does technology play into this? Technology will help people get around, as well as share expertise (including conflict resolution expertise) with others around the world. Technology will also help give you a list of places where they need people like you the most. Technology will also help you find people most compatible with you, so you can always surround yourself with an inner circle of the people you get along with the most, if you so desire.