Time, Work And Leisure

[Comrade Marcel]

Comrades,

Some time ago I finished reading a large volume by Political Science Professor Sabastian de Grazia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_de_Grazia) entitled Of Time, Work and Leisure (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0527221015/sr=8-1/qid=1152710665/ref=sr_1_1/103-5762158-9107820?ie=UTF8), published in 1962. He undertakes sociological study and comes to some interesting conclusions:

1.) Free time: Most people don't get much of (in his view even the rich don't have much "free time") it in modern society.

Time that is spent resting from work, preparing for work, traveling to and from work, or doing other duties and such isn't "free time" (he also includes that things like having sex, vacations, watching T.V. and getting drunk constitute human needs so doesn't really count as "free time" either). Think about it; as a parent/worker/student, how much time do you have left after necessities?

To have real "free time", one must truly be free to do what they want. This means your time can't be limited to the point that it abstructs your plans, and it also shouldn't be out of necessity but your choice to really do what you want with the time. For example, people are granted vacation time, must come back in x days/weeks. Of course, we can imagine all sorts of obligations and burdens that come out of "vacations" and the amount of money one spends.

2.) de Grazia Argues leisure is different from "free time". Leisure is doing something productive and active as a hobby. For one to have leisure they must sacrifice something. Leisure, like free time is non-compulsory. There can be idle and active leisure (a picnick or meditating vs. building a boat, sports competition).

3.) Well most people had been arguing (and still do) that modern industrial society, the shorter work day and machinery make things easier (electric washers, dryers, etc.) and create more "free time", de Grazia argues against it. In fact, these things cost money and labour, hence taking more time away (in a nutshell).

4.) His citicisms of Marxist views are short and very poor; but in a nutshell he argues against the Marxist views of the importance to industrialize. It seems as if he doesn't understand them completely though.

5.) By the end he has made a very good historical outline of and has defined time, work and leisure and argues society needs to change. But, he falls short of a definitive solution... though it sounds like he was hinting towards some sort of change of production/socio-poilitical system. He may have been afraid to use the word "socialism" in 1962, but maybe that was along the line he was thinking? He also looks at Europe as a more relaxed atomesphere, as an example of how north ameriKKKans need to "slow down" so-to-speak.

From the book:


One of the most persistent of modern myths is that the machine has freed man, that--especially in the past century--we have dramatically shortened our working time, vastly increased our "free" time. In examining, and destroying this myth, Sabastian de Grazia takes as his thesis the distinction between "work time", "free time" and "leisure," the last of which he defines as the "state of being in which activity is persued for its own sake or as its own end."

Now, I'm reading Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work" (http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/abolitionofwork.html). This is an anarchist view of the question. And in his view work needs to be abolished altogether, as he says right out. From a Marxist view, this is wholey utopian and impossible; at least from the onset. It could take a hundred years or maybe a thousand to build a society automated enough by industrial mechanics, if it is even possible, to create enough production of commodities so that people would ahve to do more labour, unless he is talking about going back to some primitive hunter-gather society... I haven't finished it yet.

Thoughts?

[bcbm]

As I understand "the abolition of work" (as a concept, I haven't read the book), it means the idea of work as, well, work. In a society where work has been abolished, people would still be doing productive tasks that benefitted society, it would just be considered a "leisure" activity.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 12 2006, 02:42 PM
As I understand "the abolition of work" (as a concept, I haven't read the book), it means the idea of work as, well, work. In a society where work has been abolished, people would still be doing productive tasks that benefitted society, it would just be considered a "leisure" activity.
That's what I'm gathering so far (I have to take a break from reading every so often, as I have a slight learning disability) but I don't really buy into the fact that work can simply "become" leisure. Things like the ownership of the means of production, and probably even the mode of production would have to be radically changed IMO... I don't know, I find it difficult to see how this can simply "be done" and not obtained in an evolutionary manner after a revolution... :mellow:

[kjt1981]

deleted

[Comrade Marcel]

Finished Black's work, and it seems he wants to transform work in to play by eleminating labour divisions and ownership of production means, authority and hierarchy in "workplaces", etc (in other words, anarchist things). He also wants to do away with production of things which he dislikes or deems useless or harmful; such as cars. It all seems very unrealistic to me, but perhaps in an advanced socialist society such things could work.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+Jul 12 2006, 09:00 AM--> (Comrade Marcel @ Jul 12 2006, 09:00 AM)
black banner black [email protected] 12 2006, 02:42 PM
As I understand "the abolition of work" (as a concept, I haven't read the book), it means the idea of work as, well, work. In a society where work has been abolished, people would still be doing productive tasks that benefitted society, it would just be considered a "leisure" activity.
That's what I'm gathering so far (I have to take a break from reading every so often, as I have a slight learning disability) but I don't really buy into the fact that work can simply "become" leisure. Things like the ownership of the means of production, and probably even the mode of production would have to be radically changed IMO... I don't know, I find it difficult to see how this can simply "be done" and not obtained in an evolutionary manner after a revolution... :mellow: [/b]
I think it would be a gradual process, not an overnight thing, as I think many things will be in a revolutionary society.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jul 12 2006, 09:14 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Jul 12 2006, 09:14 PM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 12 2006, 09:00 AM

black banner black [email protected] 12 2006, 02:42 PM
As I understand "the abolition of work" (as a concept, I haven't read the book), it means the idea of work as, well, work. In a society where work has been abolished, people would still be doing productive tasks that benefitted society, it would just be considered a "leisure" activity.
That's what I'm gathering so far (I have to take a break from reading every so often, as I have a slight learning disability) but I don't really buy into the fact that work can simply "become" leisure. Things like the ownership of the means of production, and probably even the mode of production would have to be radically changed IMO... I don't know, I find it difficult to see how this can simply "be done" and not obtained in an evolutionary manner after a revolution... :mellow:
I think it would be a gradual process, not an overnight thing, as I think many things will be in a revolutionary society. [/b]
He didn't really specify that, though... See the impression I always get from anarchists is that right after the revolution everything is going to be smashed away and changed. I really can't see how it is possible to simply begin such massive changes right after a revolution, especially if revolution occures only in one country and it's a backwards 3rd world one.

[Janus]

See the impression I always get from anarchists is that right after the revolution everything is going to be smashed away and changed. I really can't see how it is possible to simply begin such massive changes right after a revolution
Most anarchists believe in an economic transition after the revolution.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 06:29 AM

See the impression I always get from anarchists is that right after the revolution everything is going to be smashed away and changed. I really can't see how it is possible to simply begin such massive changes right after a revolution
Most anarchists believe in an economic transition after the revolution.
What do you mean by transition, comrade?

My understanding is that after the revolution, the state, private property, money, etc. is abolished right away. Am I wrong?

I've always argued two things with anarchists:

1.) This is not likely possible

2.) You would probably have to liquidate a whole lot of people to make it work, which anarchists criticise "Stalinists" for doing

[Janus]

What do you mean by transition, comrade?
The thing is that although money can be abolished, it may still be difficult to immediately go into a free access distribution system so something such as labor time vouchers, collectivist economies, or mutualistic economies. Some of these transitory economic systems would keep some type of currency.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2006, 12:13 AM
He didn't really specify that, though... See the impression I always get from anarchists is that right after the revolution everything is going to be smashed away and changed. I really can't see how it is possible to simply begin such massive changes right after a revolution, especially if revolution occures only in one country and it's a backwards 3rd world one.
Being somewhat vague is a hobby of the Post-Left Anarchist mileu. I don't think anarchists believe that once the revolution arrives, we'll be able to alter things over night. I've always believed we would need a sort of constant "revolutionary" stage for some time, where everything we can't abolish right away can be sorted out where it needs to be. Anarchists aren't neccessarily opposed to transitionary stages, merely forming a state to "control" them.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Janus+Jul 13 2006, 07:57 AM--> (Janus @ Jul 13 2006, 07:57 AM)
What do you mean by transition, comrade?
The thing is that although money can be abolished, it may still be difficult to immediately go into a free access distribution system so something such as labor time vouchers, collectivist economies, or mutualistic economies. Some of these transitory economic systems would keep some type of currency. [/b]
Ok, that's interesting... But doesn't really answer if that's what Anarchists are actually proposing. :huh:


black banner black gun
Being somewhat vague is a hobby of the Post-Left Anarchist mileu. I don't think anarchists believe that once the revolution arrives, we'll be able to alter things over night. I've always believed we would need a sort of constant "revolutionary" stage for some time, where everything we can't abolish right away can be sorted out where it needs to be. Anarchists aren't neccessarily opposed to transitionary stages, merely forming a state to "control" them.

How can you have a transitional stage of any sort without some sort of "state aparatus" or "authority", unless you had like %90 of support, and it would have to be everyone in almost complete agreement, which is pretty fucking inlikely. :lol:

[Janus]

Ok, that's interesting... But doesn't really answer if that's what Anarchists are actually proposing.
Yeah, they do. That's why I brought it up.

[Marion]

Thanks very much for your post Marcel – really good to see this type of thing get raised.

Haven’t read de Grazia, but from what you’re saying a lot of what he says about work is similar to what Harry Cleaver and various US autonomists say. For example, the Midnight Notes collective have criticised Gorz’s theory that work is declining by stating that any definition of work must be broader than just the time spent at paid employment, and must include elements de Grazia mentions (e.g. time travelling to work, recovering from work etc). They’d also move further than perhaps de Grazia does by talking about how even those outside of paid employment actually work – e.g. the constant task of searching for work (with this helping keep others in paid employment), the time they spend helping other people recuperating from work etc.

Sounds that de Grazia argues that washing machines etc create more labour etc once you factor in labour of production and time in work to buy them. Another (not contradictory) view is how advertising, marketing etc create needs for these machines by inculcating higher standards among consumers. For example, people are made to feel inadequate if their homes aren’t entirely spotless (necessitating the latest “hi-tech” cleaning products) whereas a generation or two ago people were quite content with lower standards. Cleaver mentions this, as probably have countless people before him.

If you’re interested in other studies about work, then I’d recommend reading some of the Midnight Notes stuff on the net, and also having a look at Italian autonomist thought (for example, ideas about immaterial labour, the social factory etc). Obviously the whole thing is very important as it can impact upon issues such as how to define classes, the nature of communist society, the necessity of further technological advance, the way in which society (whether capitalist or nominally communist) has imposed work etc etc.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2006, 02:59 AM
How can you have a transitional stage of any sort without some sort of "state aparatus" or "authority", unless you had like %90 of support, and it would have to be everyone in almost complete agreement, which is pretty fucking inlikely. :lol:

There wouldn't need to be decisions made at anything larger than, say, a regional level. Individual communities could decide things amongst themselves through various means (consensus, direct democracy, whatever they want) and select delegates to represent them for regional decisions. It makes sense to have communities solving their own issues as communities, since they will all have different backgrounds and needs.

edit: We should take this discussion somewhere else, its starting to get off-topic.

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by Janus+Jul 13 2006, 09:00 AM--> (Janus @ Jul 13 2006, 09:00 AM)
Yeah, they do. That's why I brought it up.[/b]

For some reason I never got this impression from them before, though admittedly I have not read much contemporary anarchist stuff, but have read Bukunin and Prodhound.


black banner black gun
There wouldn't need to be decisions made at anything larger than, say, a regional level. Individual communities could decide things amongst themselves through various means (consensus, direct democracy, whatever they want) and select delegates to represent them for regional decisions.

Doesn't this actually create what communists want anyways, i.e. a sort of democratic-centralism, which does have a hierearchy of sorts, but still comes from the "bottom up"? I mean, this is basically a "Soviet" from the sounds of things. Like it or not, there is an apparatus of sorts that gives certain people mandates to make descions, but they are held accountable. There is still going to be various levels of descion making and descion making process, especially in a large industrial nation and then (and hopefully) in a international revolution. Trade, commerce and problems will inevitably rise and will have to be solved. If anarchists are saying that there has to be a transitional stage where a "state" or "authority"; market-economy and other such things still have to exist until they are abolishable, how are they really differing from Marxists?


It makes sense to have communities solving their own issues as communities, since they will all have different backgrounds and needs.

This exists somewhat in Cuba, although in not the ideal form, but I don't think the ideal form is even possible considering the threat Cuba faces from the outside.

However, there is - in my mind at least - going to far; where a sort of "ultra-democracy" leads to ineffectivness and even inability of the "state" or "society" to function. We can see this with anarchists even now in their practice. At meetings some of them insist on consensus based descion making, which often leads to hours and hours of nothing...


edit: We should take this discussion somewhere else, its starting to get off-topic.

Nah, because it's going to lead back to the original topic (I hope) once we come to some sort of "consensus" ( ;) ) on what the anarchists want Vs. Marxists. :D

[Comrade Marcel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 10:13 AM
If you’re interested in other studies about work, then I’d recommend reading some of the Midnight Notes stuff on the net, and also having a look at Italian autonomist thought (for example, ideas about immaterial labour, the social factory etc). Obviously the whole thing is very important as it can impact upon issues such as how to define classes, the nature of communist society, the necessity of further technological advance, the way in which society (whether capitalist or nominally communist) has imposed work etc etc.
Thanks for the reply. Do you have a link to midnight notes? For some reason I am sort of examining conditions of labour right now. I think maybe the fact that I am working an shit job right now made me think back to when I read Capital and The Conditions of the Working Class in England, though lucky for me I live in an imperialist country so it's not that bad...

I have now moved on to a book called The Social Psychology of Industry by a J.A.C. Brown. It is interesting reading about some studies that tried to figure out worker's psychology in order to increase output, production and profit; and how these studies largely had a negative reaction from the workers (not surprisingly) with some "exceptions". The factory owner and psychologists were left asking "why?" :rolleyes: :lol:

They got one big strong worker to increase from loading 27 tons of pig-iron per day average to almost 48 tones, simply by instructing him to work a different way, and paying him by how much he could do, rather then an hourly wage. This was obviously an attempt to create a very "fascistic" like, anti-equity outcome. Only 1 out of 10 other workers could produce similiar results though, and few wanted to even with the prospect of increased income (the one worker increased his by %60). But, the result they where hoping for was to have fewer workers and ultimately higher surplus. This brought resentment from other workers and created a hostile environment. They also came to the conclusion, that not all humans where motivated by Greed as they expected. Getting further in to it now, he seems to be examining the question of whether or not humans will do they least work for more money or not. Soviet approach to punishment or recognition Vs. captalist approach to unemployment or incentive is also examined breifly...

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13 2006, 05:14 PM
Doesn't this actually create what communists want anyways, i.e. a sort of democratic-centralism, which does have a hierearchy of sorts, but still comes from the "bottom up"? I mean, this is basically a "Soviet" from the sounds of things . . . how are they really differing from Marxists?
Well, Marxists believe a whole mess of things about how a transition would look, so yes, some Marxist and anarchist analyses are almost identical and others are completely different. It is a worker's council type of set-up, although I imagine equally based around communities as workplaces. It wouldn't be democratic-centralism, though, it would be quite decentralized.


However, there is - in my mind at least - going to far; where a sort of "ultra-democracy" leads to ineffectivness and even inability of the "state" or "society" to function. We can see this with anarchists even now in their practice. At meetings some of them insist on consensus based descion making, which often leads to hours and hours of nothing...

I think many anarchists have become a bit too consensus-heavy. It is useful in certain situations, but yes, sometimes it goes too far. Long, boring meetings don't help anybody and actually turn a lot of people off. But hey, nobody is perfect. ;)


Nah, because it's going to lead back to the original topic (I hope) once we come to some sort of "consensus" ( ;) ) on what the anarchists want Vs. Marxists. :D

This has been discussed for 200 years, what makes you think we'll come to any more conclusion than anybody else has? :lol: Like I said, it really depends on which Marxists and anarchists we're talking about, since both tendencies have a lot of groups claiming the label and envisioning a lot of different things, from authoritarian-dictatorial anarchists (Fucking Bakunin...) to libertarian-decentralized Marxists (Cleaver, et al).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Comrade Marcel+--> (Comrade Marcel)From a Marxist view, this is wholey utopian and impossible; at least from the onset.[/b]

Actually, Charlie himself talked about abolishing work. In his opinion, proletarian revolution and the destruction of the class system, would create a social system where the individual was free to be an individual. Although his examples of what this free individual would do, were kind of primitive....fishing and shit.

And to me, although I've not read much on the subject, abolishing work doesn't mean creating a scenario where there is nothing that "needs" labour, it just means that the formal positions of work would go. So a carpenter wouldn't be a carpenter in the strictest sense, they would just be someone who likes doing carpentry.

If you want a sort of example of this, then think about when you go over to a friends for dinner. There's no formal work involved, but someone takes on the role of chef, someone else the waiter, someone else the dishwasher and so on. And, possibly, in a sense, those with a lessened economic power already abolish work to an extent.

I mean, everyones been a bit short from time to time, so they borrow a few quid of a mate. That's a lender-borrower relationship, but it lacks the formality. And, likewise, if someone wants to get their nails painted, they may get a mate to do it instead of going to one of those boutique things. So, although there's no formal labour involved there, there is still labour involved and that is sort of what I think of when I hear the phrase abolishing work.

Now, whether it is possible to abolish all work, is speculative. I mean, for sure, there are some forms of work that need such a high level of training that "deformalising" them may be problematic. After all, you'd want a qualified Structural Engineer drawing the plans of a building and not Joe the guy who would "like" to be a Structural Engineer. But, still, I suspect most labour could be "deformalised" and made into a hobby instead of a job.


Comrade Marcel
Things like the ownership of the means of production, and probably even the mode of production would have to be radically changed IMO....

That's kind of the point isn't it? We need a proletarian revolution and a communist society in order to "abolish work"....I don't think anyones suggested that we can do it within the present confines of bourgeois society. Or have they? :blink:

[Marion]

Midnight Notes info can be found: http://www.midnightnotes.org/ when the link is working properly. Numbers 7, 8 and 9 seem to have the most direct stuff about work - lots of it is froma political rather than sociological approach (e.g. expanding the notion of what labour creates value), but there's some interesting stuff about theories from Gorz and Negri, for example, in there.

Harry Cleaver's done an interesting article on Offe and Negri's theory of work and value, which can be found at: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/offenegri.html. Am sure in his work on Capital Cleaver quotes from The Social Psychology of Industry by a J.A.C. Brown as well.

Something else that might be relevant is the book "American Worker" by Romano and Stone (I think). It's probably a bit closer to what it sounds you've been looking at. Haven't got round to reading my copy yet (so can't really personally recommend it), but was very influential among the Italian left in the 1970s. It was reduced to couple of quid or so from AK Press in their recent sale if you're interested.

[1984]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 12 2006, 02:03 PM
Time that is spent resting from work, preparing for work, traveling to and from work, or doing other duties and such isn't "free time" (he also includes that things like having sex, vacations, watching T.V. and getting drunk constitute human needs so doesn't really count as "free time" either). Think about it; as a parent/worker/student, how much time do you have left after necessities?
:huh:

Honestly, it's difficult to take de Grazia seriously after that.