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...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 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.[1] It is an exposition of Black's "type 3 anarchism" – a blend of post-Situationist theory and individualist anarchism – focusing on a critique of the work ethic.[2] "The Abolition of Work" adopted Situationist tropes that had recently been re-popularized (or recuperated) by pop bands of the time


(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], Black draws upon certain ideas of Marshall Sahlins, Richard Borshay Lee, Charles Fourier, William Morris, and Paul Goodman.
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, the unconventional Marxists Paul Lafargue and William Morris, anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin and Paul Goodman, and anthropologists such as Marshall Sahlins and Richard Borshay Lee.


...
Synopsis

In the essay Black argues for the abolition of the producer- and consumer-based society, where, Black contends, all of life is devoted to the production and consumption of commodities. Attacking Marxist state socialism as much as Liberal 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.
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. Black points out that 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, 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

[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.