4 Hour Work Day

[nickdlc]

I think left commies and trotskyists both hold a view that workers should push for demands that don't necassarily abolish wage slavery but really weaken capitals hold on workers, trotskyists call this transitional demands (i think) and left commies call them revolutionary reforms.

does anyone think that a broad coalition of radical communists pushing for an 4 hour day (which would most likely be supported by masses of workers) would be a feasable route to socialism? after this we demand something like staple foods to be given out for free ect ect....

it sounds pretty crazy but people would mostly get behind these concrete revolutionary reforms than the fuzzy vision of a socialist commonwealth.

Also we should demand that if for example, we say we want free staple foods that these must be produced by workers comittee's / workers councils and not directed by the state.

This way the capitalist state is fucked either way, they must give us the revolutionary reform or risk revolution, but when we get this reform we push for more and more until the factory comittees and workers councils take over production.

comments?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Well part of the theory behind of the IWW is to keep making demands until you have the whole loaf instead of crums. So i guess it could be progressive, but its only till the reforms get taken back, and the IWW thinks in this case once the workers have most of the loaf then lose it they will wage revolution to get the whole loaf. Though the majority of the IWW thinks that it will be bloodless on their behalf-- whatever that means.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Where in the IWW's positions did you see anything about 'bloodless revolution'?

[Urban Rubble]

4 hour work days would be a great route to Socialism, cutting the production of a factory in half would effectively take it out of competition and the factory would go under. Which is exactly why it's wouldn't happen.

The union I used to belong to could hardly keep my benefits coming, much less get us a 4 hour work day, how do you suppose any coalition of "radical communists" is going to make this happen?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The main justification put forward by people calling for the 4 hours work week is that it will create tons more jobs..

The IWW has been calling for it for some time, and I believe the CPUSA has as well.

[nickdlc]

how do you suppose any coalition of "radical communists" is going to make this happen? yeah i don't really think they would make it happen, although i haven't read how the 16 hour day was reduced to 12 and then to 8 hours. I would say fuck the union, workers should consiously create factory comittees (who try to create a situation of dual power and then take over the workplace) that force and enforce the revolutionary refoms, then these factory comittees link up in solidarity to do major damage to capitalists profits until their demands are met and if strong enough take political control of the state and economy.

To me this seems like it could work, all we need is class concious workers.


The main justification put forward by people calling for the 4 hours work week is that it will create tons more jobs.. The main justification for me would be for the working class as a whole to be able to recognize that they infact do hold great power and if this power is used can make life much easier for every worker. Also major governmental repression would come about and this would show people that governments side with business when it comes to issues that effect workers.

[Urban Rubble]

The main justification put forward by people calling for the 4 hours work week is that it will create tons more jobs..

But in the context of our current society, they'd have to double wages as well. Working people can't live on 4 hours worth of pay per day. It's hard enough for most of us to pay for the gas to and from work, I work 35 miles from my house and around a third of the time I only get 5 hours a day.

Everything would have to change at once for it to be possible, which means it wouldn't be a route to Socialism, it'd already be Socialism.


although i haven't read how the 16 hour day was reduced to 12 and then to 8 hours

In France they have a 35 hour work week. The difference is that they have education and health care, if you're in the U.S. you've likely got neither. Wages would have to rise along with the hours dropping off, unless we expect everyone to go out and get second (or third) jobs.


To me this seems like it could work, all we need is class concious workers.

You're right, the problem is that workers in the U.S. by and large aren't, and the ones that are would rather go home after their shift than deal with more work-related politics. It's one of those unfortunate effects of spending 8 hours in a factory.

[kurt]

But in the context of our current society, they'd have to double wages as well. Working people can't live on 4 hours worth of pay per day. It's hard enough for most of us to pay for the gas to and from work, I work 35 miles from my house and around a third of the time I only get 5 hours a day.

Obviously they're going to call for a four hour work day without a loss in take home pay, otherwise it'd just be silly.

[chimx]

setting daily hour limits is unfeasable for many workers. I can't imagine being able to do much without at least 8 to 10 hours per day. if you want to reduce the work week to 20 hours that is different, but that means I would work 2 days out of 7 and would be bored as fuck the rest of the time. I'm honestly pretty content with 40, though I bet i could get used to france's 35...

[violencia.Proletariat]

So i guess it could be progressive, but its only till the reforms get taken back, and the IWW thinks in this case once the workers have most of the loaf then lose it they will wage revolution to get the whole loaf.

I don't think this is the IWW's position. I think they wish to make gains where it's possible until revolution is a possibility. They aren't trying to reform their way into communism.

Secondly I rather doubt the wobblies view the 4 hour work day as a possibility under capitalism. To me the demmand seems like an idea to gather more people's interest. The 4 hour workday is a possibility but thas after the revolution, and I don't think the IWW has an illusions about that.


setting daily hour limits is unfeasable for many workers. I can't imagine being able to do much without at least 8 to 10 hours per day. if you want to reduce the work week to 20 hours that is different, but that means I would work 2 days out of 7 and would be bored as fuck the rest of the time. I'm honestly pretty content with 40, though I bet i could get used to france's 35...

If an individual wants to work more they aren't going to be denied.

[Enragé]

if you demand this and it gets through, there'd be instant poverty because the cappies wont ever give up their profit. They'll just move to other countries because they can exploit the people there more, and they'll just pay the workers here half.

[Enragé]

double post

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here's the IWW's campaign for a 4 hour day: http://www.iww.org/projects/4-Hours

http://www.iww.org/graphics/agitators/classic/four_hours.jpg

There have been no reductions in the average U.S. work week in the more than sixty years since the Fair Labor Standards Act was passed.

Indeed, working hours have been held steady only by the rapid growth of part-time, low-paid work - the proportion of workers putting in more than 48 hours a week on the job has been steadily increasing since 1948.

The long hours we are putting in on the job have serious consequences for our health, for our fellow workers forced onto unemployment lines, and for our ability to lead the rich, fulfilling lives that should be ours by right. Our lives should not be dominated by drudgery and toil, slaving away for endless hours to make our masters rich. Sixty years of stagnation is long enough - it's time to resume the fight for shorter hours.

Arguments for a Four-Hour Day (http://www.iww.org/projects/4-Hours/4-Hours.shtml)

There's more at the first link..

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Less working hours each day, for the same pay as 8 is a victory for the workers.

We should however leave the reforms to the social democrats.

[Janus]

I can't imagine being able to do much without at least 8 to 10 hours per day.
Depending on one's job, I would think that a shorter work day would allow workers to be more focused and therefore work better. Time only dulls the mind and causes people to slack off a bit.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Lennie [email protected] 20 2006, 04:24 AM
Where in the IWW's positions did you see anything about 'bloodless revolution'?
Well they say something along the lines " we're not the ones who start the violence, it's the bourgoeisie who does so", and " If all the workers in the world seize property it wouldn't be necessary for them to defend it".

Maybe I'm just mistaking. But they aren't reformists.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Time is the room of human development. A man who has no free time to dispose of, whose whole lifetime, apart from the mere physical interruptions by sleep, meals, and so forth, is absorbed by his labour for the capitalist, is less than a beast of burden. He is a mere machine for producing Foreign Wealth, broken in body and brutalised in mind." - Karl Marx Wages, Price and Profit.

[tambourine_man]

(IWW)

The long hours we are putting in on the job have serious consequences for our health, for our fellow workers forced onto unemployment lines, and for our ability to lead the rich, fulfilling lives that should be ours by right. Our lives should not be dominated by drudgery and toil, slaving away for endless hours to make our masters rich. Sixty years of stagnation is long enough - it's time to resume the fight for shorter hours.

yeah that's true... so
how about we resume the fight for no hours..."live without dead time"
who wants to reform capitalism?

(violencia.proletariat)

The 4 hour workday is a possibility but thas after the revolution

after? so your "revolution" doesn't aim to eliminate compulsory labor altogether...? unless you're talking about some strange "transitional phase" ?


(chimx)

I would work 2 days out of 7 and would be bored as fuck the rest of the time. I'm honestly pretty content with 40
what?
you're bored when you're not being directly forced to sell your time (life) at an hourly rate, and, on the other hand, working is fine? most of us at least enjoy the illusion of freedom...

[violencia.Proletariat]

after? so your "revolution" doesn't aim to eliminate compulsory labor altogether...? unless you're talking about some strange "transitional phase" ?

Production is still necessary after the revolution. To collectivize work we must reduce the number of hours necessary for each person. A four hour work day and a four hour work week (this is all speculation, with the ammount of workers it will probably be much less than this) is probably likely.

Work isn't "going away" it still needs to be done.


you're bored when you're not being directly forced to sell your time (life) at an hourly rate, and, on the other hand, working is fine?

Do you take everything so literally? Some people don't like to be idle all day. He obviously doesn't like the suppression of being working class but doing labor shouldn't be shunned. If someone likes to do productive things it should be encouraged.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Well I'd imagine that production and other occupations of workers would be more interestong after the revolution since we'd be able to use more of our creativity, and that might actually get some people volunteering to work more-- the ones who are overjoyed with the ideals, and seeing it all happen.

[Delta]

If you could convince the workers that all the work that needed to be done could be done with 4-hour days, then you'd likely have with it all the class conciousness needed for a revolution. The media, the capitalists, and the government would all stress how silly a 4-hour work day was, and how "real americans" (in the case of the US) are "hard-working" (meaning that they like to work 8 hours + overtime with few benefits). Here in the US the government is reducing pensions, not passing minimum wage increases, and a whole lot of other crap against working people because "times are tough, the employers wouldn't be able to handle staying in business otherwise". To go from that, to a campaign for a 4-hour day would be a miracle.

[DPCC2002]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:22 AM
setting daily hour limits is unfeasable for many workers. I can't imagine being able to do much without at least 8 to 10 hours per day. if you want to reduce the work week to 20 hours that is different, but that means I would work 2 days out of 7 and would be bored as fuck the rest of the time. I'm honestly pretty content with 40, though I bet i could get used to france's 35...
I tend to think that 8 to 10 hours of labor leads to inefficiency and that if the current government would make a 30-35 hour week mandatory, like the rest of the industrial world, workers would be much more efficient and employers would be able to hire more workers. I believe that employers would have no problem paying wages equivalent to 35 hours a week when a worker is on shift for 30 hours because of much higher efficiency rates. But along with people being bored with less work, I think a culture change would emerge where people opt for less hours-more leisure time because they realize that we are only able to feel a true happiness when we are in good company with free time. I think Marx made a comment on dealing with less hours but I can't quite remember.

[RebelDog]

I could only dream of working 4 hours a day, or the 20 hour week, whatever you want to call it. But I aint going to improve my efficiency when I am at work, they will just get rid off workers. The more you work the less you get. As for boredom, I can't believe people would rather be at work. Fuck work, its a horrible thing I have to do to survive.

[LSD]

It should also be noted that in addition to the obvious bennefits of more limited work days, there is a revolutionary interest in the fighting for short-term gaims. Not nescessarily those gains themselves (which, as someone already pointed out, are ultimately reformist in nature) but in the class organization and radicalization nescessary for the working class to attain them.

Fighting the bourgeoisie and winning, even on minor issues, helps to develop class consciousness. Unless workers see that they have political and economic power as a class, alternate social identities will continue to be primary.

Whether it was fighting poor laws in the 1830s or anti-union laws in the 1930s, the proletariat has always required specific external catylists before it could start acting as a united entity.

Today, most workers no longer see themselves as workers first and they certainly don't see unions as means of expressing their social interests. That's for a number of reasons, of course, including the general reactionary tenor of society in general, but an important part of the story is the failure of unions themselves over the past few decades.

Re-radicalizing those unions, getting them involved in class war again, will ultimately result in the remaking of those unions, hopefully from the bottom, and the reemergence of the union as the expression of proletarian power.

A fight, any fight, forces the bureaucrats and bourgoies stooges in union "management" to choose between their organizational and class duties and their prime position up the capitalists' assholes. It will also reveal to the union body in general just how useless their "leaders" are.

The prime engine of working class revolution must always be the revolutionary union. Accordingly it is our job as revolutionaries to help build it up again to the position that it can actually challange the bourgeois social order.

If that means fighting for "reformism" in the short run, so be it, just so long as we don't delude ourselves into believing that working hour cuts will "lead to socialism".

It's the means that matter in this case, not the ends.

[Janus]

Fighting the bourgeoisie and winning, even on minor issues, helps to develop class consciousness.
I agree but at the same time, does this not blunt the revolution as well. We certainly want to better people's lives but having better lives also creates a tendency towards complacency, etc.

I'm just bringing this out for debate.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 09:13 PM
We certainly want to better people's lives but having better lives also creates a tendency towards complacency, etc.


I see what you're saying but I don't think we can operate on the idea that we have to only fight for everything at once, and that we should reject lesser gains that better our lives. Despite it being debatable in a theoretical sense (as to which way would lead to revolution faster), it would be hard to appeal to the majority of people if we were to reject all but the ultimate improvements in our living conditions.

[LSD]

I agree but at the same time, does this not blunt the revolution as well. We certainly want to better people's lives but having better lives also creates a tendency towards complacency, etc.

Are you suggesting that we let the proletariat stay miserable so that they'll be "more willing" to revolt? :blink:

That's a rather disturbingly elitist way of approaching class war, treating the workers as a seperate population that needs to be "controlled" or "guided" into rising up.

The key to revolution is not "misery" or "conditions", it's class consciousness. Sometimes that can come out of miserable conditions, the desperation of oppression leads to organization which leads to class solidarity, but it's an indirect path, and by no means the only one.

The reason that workers' movements have tended to be strong when conditions are poor is that poor conditions are powerful motivators for organization. When people feel they have "nothing to loose", they're more willing to take risks.

In the first world, though, the bourgeoisise has been so effective in suppressing class consiousness that even if conditions were to markedly drop tomorow, it would still probablyt take decades before workers starting adopting class based solutions.

That is unless they start fighting now.

You see, the way that capitalism is progressing now, it's more than likely that reformism isn't an answer. That although small gains can be made by an organanized and unified proletariat, conditions in general will continue to degernerate.

There's no risk of reformism "working" to "solve" capitalism, it's just a means to getting workers to start thinking in class terms.

That way when it comes time for the big fight, they'll have a good idea what the hell they're doing.

[Janus]

Are you suggesting that we let the proletariat stay miserable so that they'll be "more willing" to revolt?
No, I said I agreed with you.

LSD, you should have read my last comment.

I was putting it out for debate.

[Janus]

That's a rather disturbingly elitist way of approaching class war, treating the workers as a seperate population that needs to be "controlled" or "guided" into rising up.
I never said that. I made it a point to say that bettering people's lives is a good thing.

What the hell, did you ignore the rest of my post?


The key to revolution is not "misery" or "conditions", it's class consciousness. Sometimes that can come out of miserable conditions, the desperation of oppression leads to organization which leads to class solidarity, but it's an indirect path, and by no means the only one.
I agree and I never stated that it could be the only one. What I meant was that by trying to promote these reforms, we may be sacrificing a bit of class consciousness and thereby blunting the revolution. I mean is that not how it is in the western world in a certain respect?


There's no risk of reformism "working" to "solve" capitalism, it's just a means to getting workers to start thinking in class terms.
I agree with you. I suppose that my comment was more directed against those who believe that these reforms will get us to socialism. Sorry about the confusion.

[tambourine_man]

(violencia.proletariat)

Work isn't "going away" it still needs to be done.

yeah?
and your bourgeois conception of work is boring and way outdated.

(violencia.proletariat)

Production is still necessary after the revolution. To collectivize work we must reduce the number of hours necessary for each person. A four hour work day and a four hour work week (this is all speculation, with the ammount of workers it will probably be much less than this) is probably likely.

you mean you and your democratic council of workers are only going to steal four hours of my life each day instead of eight?? you're even better than FDR...! :o

work as a sphere of activity separate from man's natural expressions is fundamentally alienating. your proposed compulsory labor is too obvious here. but it's collective, cushy, limited? like i give a fuck.
even marx got it over a hundred years ago:
" work in order to live, in order to obtain for myself the means of life" then "my work is an alienation of life."

there can be creative, nonrigid ways in which "productive labor" (read: necessary for survival and health of a willfull society) can exist as a [i]wholly integrated part of every person's life - a natural expression and satisfaction of personal inclination - without any sacrifice of individual autonomy.
the first step is getting over this outdated view of work as some concrete rigid thing to be accomplished for an end alien to the individual's immediate, direct desires.

(violencia.proletariat)

Do you take everything so literally? Some people don't like to be idle all day.


i'm sorry, was that a figurative "i'm content with 40," huh?
i don't understand? since when is refusing to work in favor of doing whatever you want equal to being idle? true both production and consumption under late capitalism are expressions of non-life, but i never suggested the latter...

(violencia.proletariat)

Doing labor shouldn't be shunned. If someone likes to do productive things it should be encouraged.

within the framework of a system of compulsory labor (whether it's based on wages or not), i can't really interpret any "encouragement" of "productive labor" as a revolutionary gesture. in fact...

[Comrade-Z]

and your bourgeois conception of work is boring and way outdated.

How is democratic self-management of work a "bourgeois conception"?


you mean you and your democratic council of workers are only going to steal four hours of my life each day instead of eight?? you're even better than FDR...!

You make it sounds as if we are going to force people to work at gunpoint. Nothing could be further from the truth. You will work voluntarily and in whatever manner and endeavor you feel most suited for (as long as it fulfills some social want and doesn't run contrary to social wants--being a dumper of chemical waste into rivers would not be an occupation that we would tolerate :lol: ) in order to perpetuate society, which will be in your best interest in the long run.


work as a sphere of activity separate from man's natural expressions is fundamentally alienating.

People will be able to express themselves to their hearts' content in their work because their work will be self-directed. Duh!


your proposed compulsory labor is too obvious here.

Once again, where do you get this idea that people will be forced to work?


there can be creative, nonrigid ways in which "productive labor" (read: necessary for survival and health of a willfull society) can exist as a wholly integrated part of every person's life - a natural expression and satisfaction of personal inclination - without any sacrifice of individual autonomy.

That's what we are talking about. We're simply using different definitions. You are giving the word "work" a different definition than we are. It's just needless semantic bickering.


true both production and consumption under late capitalism are expressions of non-life

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. "Non-life"? In a scientific sense, production and consumption being activities performed by living organisms, they would therefore be "expressions of life," if anything, although this is getting way off the point. It sounds like you are a fan of Hakim Bey, eh? Immediatism? I've read it. It's kind of a fun read, but I wouldn't dare treat its metaphysical psychobabble as serious theory.

[violencia.Proletariat]

and your bourgeois conception of work is boring and way outdated.

Concept of work? "Work" are the tasks which we do not find necessarily "enjoyable" but are necessary for maintaining our industrialized lives. However not everyone finds these jobs "boring" or "miserable." It's the conditions in which we work under capitalism, that turn people off of work. Not to mention many jobs under capitalism have no purpose after a revolution.


you mean you and your democratic council of workers are only going to steal four hours of my life each day instead of eight?? you're even better than FDR...! :o

The 4 hour day is an estimated time of work necessary for an individual to effectively socialize labor. This labor, as Comrade Z has pointed out, is strictly voluntary. It is also an estimate, a very old estimate which does not take into account new technologies that will shorten this time even more.


"[if i] work in order to live, in order to obtain for myself the means of life" then "my work is an alienation of life."

This is the case for an individual in capitalism. Work is NECESSARY in maintaining the life of a society. Things have to be done in order for our industrialized society to function, there is no getting around this. However, we must socialize this necessary work as much as possible if it cannot be automated. As a member of industrialized society, I am perfectly willing to take part in socialized labor, which I inturn have democratic control over, in order to maintain our community.

[1984]

"40 hours of work per week and soccer on Sundays... is THAT what you want for your lives...?!"

- Marxist student yelling as workers enter the factory, on Elio Petri's "The Working Class Goes To Paradise"

(...)

Well, 8 hours of daily work can be very harsh... in our time this is particular true when you got an extremely tedious office-like work in a cubicle.

Maybe half of the daily work journey would not be OK... too much work is bad, but not too many of it also is... too few work-hours per day could bring too much boredom/lazyness among the people and too much time in front of the TV, which is *awful*.

Don't you get tired of doing nothing at times...?

I believe the key word here is variety - if one could, let us say, work 4 hours a day in a particular task and the other 4 hours either work in a different task or job or even employ those hours studing (something you should NEVER stop) or doing communitary work, for example.

(...)

Also, I feel the persuit of "minor-archievements" and "short-term gains" can be actually dangerous for the revolution, as it opens space for the growth of mere reformist ideals rather than revolutionary ones.

Sure, we must fight for our goals and to better the people's lives, yet never it "in the middle of the road", and most certainly never tell ourselves that things are "good enough", not until we get rid of the bourgeois ruling class, for wealth is relative not absolute, and only with the destruction of class society we will archieve our goal.

There's still too much conformism regarding the system we're under, and we must menage to link the inconformism of the working class regarding salary/working conditions/etc. to inconformism regarding capitalism itself.

If we're not careful, some Roosevelt-type of guy may simply override a revolutionary background by the proper use of populism and reformist actions, effectively "taming" the proletariat and restoring strength to capitalism.

[tambourine_man]

(comrade-z)

How is democratic self-management of work a "bourgeois conception"?

You make it sounds as if we are going to force people to work at gunpoint. Nothing could be further from the truth. You will work voluntarily and in whatever manner and endeavor you feel most suited for (as long as it fulfills some social want and doesn't run contrary to social wants--being a dumper of chemical waste into rivers would not be an occupation that we would tolerate laugh.gif ) in order to perpetuate society, which will be in your best interest in the long run.


People will be able to express themselves to their hearts' content in their work because their work will be self-directed. Duh!

Once again, where do you get this idea that people will be forced to work?

but in proposing a mandatory (or even suggested) period of four (or whatever) hours per day designated for "socially productive labor," you automatically make a distinction between the free, natural expression of life, and work. thereby reaffirming the bourgeois conception of work as a separate, alien sphere of activity. labor is therefore compulsory...

if work is a truly integrated, coherent expression of life (or, as marx would say, if your work truly is your life) it simply makes no sense to say something like:



Production is still necessary after the revolution. To collectivize work we must reduce the number of hours necessary for each person. A four hour work day and a four hour work week (this is all speculation, with the ammount of workers it will probably be much less than this) is probably likely.
(emphasis added)

to sortof draw a parallel...
those who propose "automation" as a solution to the work problem miss the point in a very similar way.

on another note, i am curious to know, if not by gunpoint, threat of starvation, threat of social isolation, etc... how is this four (or whatever) hour work day necessary for the socialisation of labour supposed to be enforced? in other words, is it a concrete standard, or just a suggestion, and if it's the latter, that is a pretty faulty way on which your society is built isn't it?

(comrade-z)

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. "Non-life"? In a scientific sense, production and consumption being activities performed by living organisms, they would therefore be "expressions of life," if anything, although this is getting way off the point. It sounds like you are a fan of Hakim Bey, eh? Immediatism? I've read it. It's kind of a fun read, but I wouldn't dare treat its metaphysical psychobabble as serious theory.


i've never heard of hakim bey or immediatism...
i just looked him up, he was influenced by situationist thought apparently, and i like a lot of the works by the situationists, so maybe that's it. maybe i will give him a try

[tambourine_man]

(violencia.proletariat)

Concept of work? "Work" are the tasks which we do not find necessarily "enjoyable" but are necessary for maintaining our industrialized lives. However not everyone finds these jobs "boring" or "miserable."

well see i don't want to do something that isn't wholly enjoyable for me, and a lot of other people would agree with me, which is why i think that your suggestions are way outdated, especially after may 1968....

(violencia.proletariat)


The 4 hour day is an estimated time of work necessary for an individual to effectively socialize labor. This labor, as Comrade Z has pointed out, is strictly voluntary. It is also an estimate, a very old estimate which does not take into account new technologies that will shorten this time even more.

i'm probably just not understanding something here...
you're saying that there's a standard four hour work day (four, for the sake of argument) for each individual, in order to socialize labor or whatever, but then that's strictly voluntary...so it ceases to become a standard, and becomes just a sort of suggestion, in which case it's meaningless especially on individual terms...

(violencia.proletariat)


This is the case for an individual in capitalism. Work is NECESSARY in maintaining the life of a society. Things have to be done in order for our industrialized society to function, there is no getting around this. However, we must socialize this necessary work as much as possible if it cannot be automated. As a member of industrialized society, I am perfectly willing to take part in socialized labor, which I inturn have democratic control over, in order to maintain our community.

i would take a different approach and argue not so much for the transformation of work on the superficial level (hours, conditions, materials, automation, etc. - though that would obviously help too), but a total comprehensive effort to revolutionize social/life in such a way that work - "socially productive" or "necessary" labor - is necessarily and effortlessly integrated into the natural expression or flow of life so that it ceases to become an alien sphere of activity altogether. in short, the end of 'work' as it is.

anyway sorry if i came off as an asshole before...

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:24 AM




well see i don't want to do something that isn't wholly enjoyable for me, and a lot of other people would agree with me, which is why i think that your suggestions are way outdated, especially after may 1968....

Then live on a fucking commune in the forest. As a community we need to collectivly perform the tasks necessary to maintaining our existance. We shall socialize this work until its equally distributed amongst those able to do it. Preference will be rewarded to all tasks in which that will work.


you're saying that there's a standard four hour work day (four, for the sake of argument) for each individual, in order to socialize labor or whatever, but then that's strictly voluntary...so it ceases to become a standard, and becomes just a sort of suggestion, in which case it's meaningless especially on individual terms...

Here is what I'm saying. There are certain functions in which we as a community must partake in order to sustain it. Such as building housing, making clothing, food production, electricity, etc. These basic needs shall be collectivley produced. If voluntary labor is not enough to produce these things, the work will be divided up amongst all able laborers. However is this not voluntary? Is this not mutual aid? We cannont resist the laws of material reality. These laws force us to perform certain labors in order to maintain life.

The 4 hour work day is an estimate (like I said, an old one) of how long each person would have to work a day in order to provide these basic needs for the whole community. I outlined above why this labor must be socialized.


but a total comprehensive effort to revolutionize social/life in such a way that work - "socially productive" or "necessary" labor - is necessarily and effortlessly integrated into the natural expression or flow of life so that it ceases to become an alien sphere of activity altogether. in short, the end of 'work' as it is.

I have no problem with this and I agree work will totally change in meaning.


anyway sorry if i came off as an asshole before...

Life's full of em, we have to build a tolerance to it (but not a big one :P )

[Comrade-Z]

on another note, i am curious to know, if not by gunpoint, threat of starvation, threat of social isolation, etc... how is this four (or whatever) hour work day necessary for the socialisation of labour supposed to be enforced? in other words, is it a concrete standard, or just a suggestion, and if it's the latter, that is a pretty faulty way on which your society is built isn't it?

Yes, it can be "enforced" by suggestion. We analyze the economy and conclude that for a given level of production and consumption, we'll need to work X hours per day, and people will gladly take that up, assuming it is not too stressing, for the simple reason that they will want to help themselves via providing for general use and perpetuating the awesome system that is communism.

But I guess now you will reply back that "production and consumption apart from living is alienation!" Well, whatever. A lot of present day production and consumption is unsatisfying. A very small portion of present day production and consumption is satisfying, at least for me. I enjoy going out to restaurants with friends (hopeless consumerist!!! :rolleyes: ). I enjoy doing self-directed work, even when it is conceived of as an activity seperate from my "natural" living. So, what I would like to do is cut out the unsatisfying production and consumption and enlarge the satisfying portions. And that will be accomplished by communist revolution.

[afrikaNOW]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20 2006, 06:13 AM

The main justification put forward by people calling for the 4 hours work week is that it will create tons more jobs..

But in the context of our current society, they'd have to double wages as well. Working people can't live on 4 hours worth of pay per day. It's hard enough for most of us to pay for the gas to and from work, I work 35 miles from my house and around a third of the time I only get 5 hours a day.

Everything would have to change at once for it to be possible, which means it wouldn't be a route to Socialism, it'd already be Socialism.


although i haven't read how the 16 hour day was reduced to 12 and then to 8 hours

In France they have a 35 hour work week. The difference is that they have education and health care, if you're in the U.S. you've likely got neither. Wages would have to rise along with the hours dropping off, unless we expect everyone to go out and get second (or third) jobs.


To me this seems like it could work, all we need is class concious workers.

You're right, the problem is that workers in the U.S. by and large aren't, and the ones that are would rather go home after their shift than deal with more work-related politics. It's one of those unfortunate effects of spending 8 hours in a factory.
But i think you are forgetting that in a 8 hour work day, a worker is not gettin paid for every hour of labor he does. How many hours a worker labors, he is not being paid for each hour of labor. The remaining hours,whatever that amount is, becomes the surplus labor.

So hypothetical in an 8 hour work day, the laborer is actually getting paid for 3 or 4 hours of labor. The remaining portion is pocketed by the capitalist. The worker itself should not lose out by working a 4 hour day, it is the capitalist who loses out. Because the first four hours he needs to recoup the he money he spent on the workers labor power(wages). The next four hours is supplementary, unpaid labor, surplus labor,profit.

In theory, the capitalist would then make nothing. He can't without any profit, in fact he prolly loses out and has to close up shop for he can't afford the costs of the means of production any longer.


FORWARD