i have never heard this distinction before. It strikes me as a novel re-definition of the word "work" to mean a specific kind of labor. I previously understood work to be a synonym of "labor". I'm willing to adjust to this new understanding, but I'm not so sure society is going to catch up with you on that lol. Either colloquially or legally.
Hell I'd argue that 'work' has a much broader and less defined definition than 'Labor'. Labor is specific to humans (and other animals if you wanna get all animal liberation with your theoretical terminology I guess), whereas pretty much everything in our universe undergoing energy exchange is "working" in one fashion or another.
Plants making energy from sunlight is work, but its not labor. Eating food is your body working but its not labor. etc.
Well, regardless of what words are used, we have to seperate the act of people doing socially necessary things to keep food on everyone's table and all the lights on, and the model of wage labor which makes people do things, some of which is socially necessary, in order to not end up homeless and starving. Based on my own readings, people have delineated it as a labor/work distinction, but what is necessary is to communicate the difference not the specific language
the definitions of both words are almost the same. labor might mean harder and more physical work, but it's the same fuckin thing. they should have said anti-job or anti-employment. this is the importance of optics.
Then, despite the fact that the necessity for work at an individual level can very well be abolished, wouldn't there still be a social need for work, i.e. SOMEONE has to do all that labor otherwise society as a whole would face deprivation?
No, there is a socially necessary need for labor- ei, people doing things. There is not the need for jobs/work, aka labor tied to the threat of violence/deprivation
Agreeded. I would add that we would probably have more hands actually doing stuff rather than having people burn away their gifts, talents, and skills in "Bullshit Jobs" ( RIP Graeber). As such I would imagine that if everyone did stuff that actually mattered we would all probably have to a whole lot less work to do per person, in the sense more hands working together thus making lighter our burden together. By working together, we would all spend less time working.
Graeber and Michael Brooks both went out of the blue within a couple months of each other near the beginning of COVID right when Bernie lost again. Those were some rough times
deleted by creator
Thats labor not work, work is labor done as an alternative to deprivation
i have never heard this distinction before. It strikes me as a novel re-definition of the word "work" to mean a specific kind of labor. I previously understood work to be a synonym of "labor". I'm willing to adjust to this new understanding, but I'm not so sure society is going to catch up with you on that lol. Either colloquially or legally.
"wage labor abolition" doesn't really roll off the tongue to be fair
employment abolition. job abolition. a "job" is something you get paid for. not all work is a job. square meet rectangle.
Hell I'd argue that 'work' has a much broader and less defined definition than 'Labor'. Labor is specific to humans (and other animals if you wanna get all animal liberation with your theoretical terminology I guess), whereas pretty much everything in our universe undergoing energy exchange is "working" in one fashion or another.
Plants making energy from sunlight is work, but its not labor. Eating food is your body working but its not labor. etc.
Well, regardless of what words are used, we have to seperate the act of people doing socially necessary things to keep food on everyone's table and all the lights on, and the model of wage labor which makes people do things, some of which is socially necessary, in order to not end up homeless and starving. Based on my own readings, people have delineated it as a labor/work distinction, but what is necessary is to communicate the difference not the specific language
yeah i definitely agree with that. work done for a wage under threat of homelessness is inherently coercive.
the definitions of both words are almost the same. labor might mean harder and more physical work, but it's the same fuckin thing. they should have said anti-job or anti-employment. this is the importance of optics.
No. Labor is just necessary human activity for people to survive. Work/jobs are tying labor to violence/deprivation
work: activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.
labor: work, especially hard physical work.
job: a paid position of regular employment.
you can try to change the definition of word, but it won't work and that optic is half the reason nobody took that "movement" seriously.
We are literally arguing over semantic differences, do you understand the distinction that I am trying to make?
I'm not trying to change definitions, this is how I was taught the distinction.
No one took communism seriously because we want to decouple labor from work/work from jobs/whatever terminology?
no, anti-work
i work/labor in my garden, it isn't my job. but, i do have to work and labor at my job.
Yes, that is a correct way to use language.
You also "go to work(noun)" and work is "wage labor"
I am also using language correctly.
We are using different terminology because language isn't universal, and we were probably explained the concepts using different language.
I initially tried to correct you because I didn't think you understood the difference between labor/work work/job whatever/whatever.
a wage like you would earn at, let's say, a job?
Yes, or by going to work. Language is nebulous and imprecise.
Is there a point you are trying to make?
I thought work was force times distance
Then, despite the fact that the necessity for work at an individual level can very well be abolished, wouldn't there still be a social need for work, i.e. SOMEONE has to do all that labor otherwise society as a whole would face deprivation?
No, there is a socially necessary need for labor- ei, people doing things. There is not the need for jobs/work, aka labor tied to the threat of violence/deprivation
Agreeded. I would add that we would probably have more hands actually doing stuff rather than having people burn away their gifts, talents, and skills in "Bullshit Jobs" ( RIP Graeber). As such I would imagine that if everyone did stuff that actually mattered we would all probably have to a whole lot less work to do per person, in the sense more hands working together thus making lighter our burden together. By working together, we would all spend less time working.
I didn't know we lost Graber
Sadly it was just kidda out of the clear blue. :stalin-bummed:
Graeber and Michael Brooks both went out of the blue within a couple months of each other near the beginning of COVID right when Bernie lost again. Those were some rough times
:yes-sicko: