Haven't read up on it, but the fact that Marx himself said that "work" is "alienated labor" seems to play into it. Which basically falls in line with what I was saying about post-capitalist labor shouldn't be work anymore.
so you adhere to and identify with "anti-work" "theory" even though you haven't read it?
and Marx didn't say "work" was "alienated labor", he said that private employment & accumulation of private property lead to that situation unnaturally in capitalism
"In creating a world of objects by his personal activity, in his work upon inorganic nature, man proves himself a conscious species-being, i.e., as a being that treats the species as his own essential being, or that treats itself as a species-being. Admittedly animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally. It produces only under the dominion of immediate physical need, whilst man produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom. An animal produces only itself, whilst man reproduces the whole of nature. An animal’s product belongs immediately to its physical body, whilst man freely confronts his product. An animal forms only in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms objects in accordance with the laws of beauty.
It is just in his work upon the objective world, therefore, that man really proves himself to be a species-being. This production is his active species-life. Through this production, nature appears as his work and his reality. The object of labor is, therefore, the objectification of man’s species-life: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he sees himself in a world that he has created. In tearing away from man the object of his production, therefore, estranged labor tears from him his species-life, his real objectivity as a member of the species and transforms his advantage over animals into the disadvantage that his inorganic body, nature, is taken from him."
Marx says that private employment in which the exploited laborer produces objects belonging in every way to someone else is the "species-being" obscured & corrupted.
But man's natural state is to act upon the natural world & sustain oneself and larger society upon that action. The intervening alienation of private ownership & class division & labor division into a large "hyperexploited" subaltern & small non-working bourgeois hedonists is the contradiction Marx strains to point out
Capitalist leeches believe in not working too... at least they believe in retaining the privilege of not working for themselves lol
I didn't mean to imply that I'm a vocal advocate for antiwork theory, I'm just triggered by a leftist using "antiwork" as a dig because being antiwork sounds extremely good to me. Because work is bad. Who likes work? Some people might like their jobs, but literally everyone says that when you like your job it isn't "work" anymore. So even within the construct of capitalism, people have this concept that labor you enjoy doing isn't work. (They'd probably also say that it's not labor, since without a leftist understanding of things labor has a bad connotation too, since its associated with things like childbirth, but I think we can preserve the word labor as leftists because its taken on a leftist meaning and is used by leftist movements).
I don't agree with any argument that relies on concepts like "species-being". I don't think sapient beings have a "natural" way of existing. This is core to my argument against anti-communists saying it'll never work because human nature, because there is no fixed human nature. Sometimes lately I've been saying that humans are communal creatures, but I really ought to cut that out because it still relies on the idea that humans are naturally one way or the other. Capitalism socialized them into selfishness and competition, socialism would socialize them to cooperation. Its not because they are one way or the other, its because of how socialization works.
So when Marx goes off about terms like "species being", I don't agree with him on that point. And I strongly disagree that everyone in the world is wired to labor. I do agree with the fundamentals of the point that private employment alienates people from their labor, but thats a different point to me.
So maybe it wasn't Marx that said "work is alienated labor", but the statement still sounds correct to me. Without alienation, labor wouldn't be "work" anymore. It would be fundamentally something different. Its the same argument as police and prison abolition. Yes, there would still be law enforcement in some form, and we would still need to separate the truly dangerous from society, but the replacement would be so fundamentally different it couldn't be called police or prison anymore. I don't think leftists should call labor under socialism "work", because noone likes work. Like I said, even in a capitalist framework people have the concept that work is bad, but doing things you love isn't work even if it produces something.
Some "work" might be necessary to build socialism and furthermore communism, but I do think that a goal of a socialist society should be to keep it to a minimum, and divide it as equally as possible.
but you are conflating wage labor under capitalism with "work" in the abstract and world historical context. they are not the same thing
the world isn't "wired to labor", I think you're just taking a very inward looking & personal experience with past employment and trying to apply that to how the world will revolutionize and move beyond capitalism. it's understandable to be personally averse to our experience in capitalism, and even to consider historical events in ways that we consider personal.
but does that mean everyone under capitalism "hates" their jobs? some might actually get subjective enjoyment from it
but that subjectivity (whether someone "enjoys" or "hates" their job & working) is only obliquely related to the real material "exploitation" that occurs under capitalism
man's natural state is to create things & engage with the natural world & be prolific & conscientious & hopefully socially organized/concerned in doing this.
doing things one loves is work. almost all things worthwhile & goals worth pursuing require work. i didn't say that wages & private employment are required. the fact we are conflating the two is testament to the extent to which capitalism has become a fixed & total "firmament" on which we are projecting our thoughts & future intentions & actions. capitalist realism doesn't have to be the starting point, and it's unfortunate we treat it as such
achieving material gains beyond capitalism will require a lot of work.
suffering & mental anguish for the individual aren't totally unavoidable as far as I am aware. no one has invented a cure for world-weariness
so I think we need to separate what we consider "human condition" or any normative language around "human nature" from exploitation under capitalism.
capitalism isn't human nature, and neither is private employment for profits/wages.
but work is required from any grown individual stranded on a deserted tropical island.
Maybe its just semantics, but I disagree with calling labor I want to do "work". I like kids right? I... and I just realized I usually call it "working with kids", which I will now call capitalist conditioning, but I enjoy that kind of labor. Even though it can be stressful at times, I always go home feeling satisfied and happy with what I've done that day. The stress is momentary at best, and like 75% of it comes from the interference of adults (coworkers, bosses, parents) anyway. So like, a lot of the parts that "feel like work" are very much intrusions of capitalism, like having a boss and expecting kids that just got out of school to do focused activities instead of play how they want (ok that bits a personal grievance lol). It is labor though, because I'm doing something productive. Something that contributes.
Like I said, I do agree that building a post-capitalism world will require labor that would be "work" for me. And I will contribute what I can manage to to that.
capitalism & private property are the corrupting factors, not the burden of pressing socially necessary tasks that require completing and always have
like i said, capitalist owners & employers are also keen on not working... but they don't feel their employees deserve similarly lavish lifestyles. private property ownership can definitely protect you from the rigors of low wage private employment
so you see where we get into bourgeois decadence & laziness & backsliding very quickly here right?
No, because I'm not saying that only an elite class of people should be able to avoid work. I'm saying that unpleasant labor that would be considered "work" by my definition should be divided up in an equitable way, and everyone should contribute as long as they are capable. And, as much as possible, people should be doing jobs that they enjoy doing such that they wouldn't be doing what I would categorize as "work". Basically, unpleasant labor should be minimized, and hopefully eventually eliminated entirely.
people unable to work should be able to rely on others, but that means those dependents must be able to depend on everyone else. this goes for those kids you're talking about as well as retirees & the halt and infirm
suffering the slings & arrows of low-level wage labor doesn't entitle any healthy and capable person to indolence
I don't know why you're still talking like I'm advocating for people being indolent when I'm not? I'm advocating for minimizing unpleasant labor as much as possible and assigning it equitably and putting people in rolls they enjoy as much as we can. Are you even reading what I'm writing?
yes, capitalism also attempts to divide labor efficiently & economize decision-making through market forces & price signals... and capitalists view these things as equitable & maximizing human happiness.
I read what you have written, but I still don't see how being against work you don't like & still wanting to advance human civilization beyond necessary work actually square here. one is obviated by the other
i do not know how to remove suffering from the human condition, no more than I know how to prevent a baby from ever crying
unpleasant experiences & activities are sort of universal, except for people in vegetative states i suppose. but it's not as though they are engaging with "will" or "intention" anyway
One of the things I have written that you claim to have read is that I acknowledge that some unpleasant labor is necessary to build the sort of world I want, and then saying it should be assigned equitably and that, as much as possible, people should do work they enjoy. I have said this like, five times now. I don't plan on eliminating human suffering, I plan on minimizing it.
Capitalism tries to do that? News to me. But if it does, the results suck. Under socialism, they dont have to suck. Or they can minimally suck, suck just enough for whats necessary.
some in that estimation of yours seems to imply no more than is personally tolerable in your opinion
I agree that the most menial & non-glamorous jobs can be made more rewarding & humane & safe & even more efficient & socially-geared, but that doesn't mean human labor capacity & skill-acquisition/proficiency& identities built around these capacities will be made obsolete just because we've all taken shitty jobs that we don't identify with
some in that estimation of yours seems to imply no more than is personally tolerable in your opinion
Well I'm sorry for implying that apparently because that's not what I'm saying.
I agree that I will have to do work that I don't enjoy post-capitalism. I agree that everyone will. I literally just think that it can and should be minimized.
but that doesn’t mean human labor capacity & skill-acquisition& identities built around these capacities will be made obsolete
I have no idea what this bit has to do with anything that I've said.
it does, because you said earlier that you don't believe in a "species-being", even though Marx specifically said it was not "human-nature" as in a fixed & permanently defined thing. but changes with epochs & social modes etc.
"species-being" in this context has much to do with social relations and the ways that historical changes create new social necessities & niches that are filled by concerted human activity. that is a "homo faber", human producing
but I think it's a noteworthy contradiction to say your time/skill/effort is "alienated" in capitalism because of the kinds/conditions of jobs there are available, while also glossing over what those kinds/conditions of jobs have alienated you from.
Alright, obviously I misunderstood what Marx meant by "species-being", my mistake.
I don't think I'm glossing it over? By even mentioning alienation am I not invoking the entirety of the theory? I do think that alienation under capitalism is why labor becomes work (by the definitions I've been running with). And yes, that is because it alienates me from the product of my labor. And yes, this is part of why labor under socialism would largely not be "work" in my view. I don't see how this contradicts my insistence that unpleasant labor should be minimized as much as possible. And what is "unpleasant work" would vary by individual as well. Many people would find educating and playing with children to be "work", because they don't enjoy the company of children. Those people should not have to do labor that involves kids. Luckily, there are plenty of people who do enjoy the company of children who can do those jobs. There are people out there that genuinely enjoy manual labor, and while I don't think that the manual work that needs doing can be entirely covered by those people, I imagine it could be covered by them as much as possible. Thus minimizing labor that would be "work". That said, if toilets in public areas need scrubbing, I'd gladly take on my share of scrubbing them to contribute to a socialist society. And while it would be "work" to me, because I don't enjoy it, it would be less so "work" than it would be when I had to scrub toilets when I worked at Burger King. Because at least I'd feel I was contributing to something.
most everyone having a kind of "chore chart" that might include scrubbing public toilets one day or burping babies on another, but obviously wouldn't allow for everyone to have a turn at being a machine lathe operator or bus driver or nuclear technician sounds about right
remember also that privately owned machines also steal the vast majority's claim to any of the social product. and I wouldn't even say that this is due solely to legal limitation & private property rights... it's more about self-censorship and ethical considerations made by the majority
even a UBI or single tax would not rid us of these problems. that's because there is a spiritual/ethical concern when we are divvying up these tasks, and distributing the resulting outputs. healthy & capable unemployed deserve to be kept afloat, but do they deserve to be buoyed indefinitely by other workers?
people who do more work might deserve more compensation, and perhaps no one deserves absolutely nothing. but how does one go about ethically dividing up resources in FALGSC when no one can be said to have worked to create them? this is a contradiction & a moral issue
sanitary workers deserve hefty salaries, and their work is just as essential as someone's work producing food or clothing, but perhaps it's not as consequential
Not much to disagree with here. Though I think under FALGSC, the implication is that we'd be post-scarcity, and most of the unpleasant work would be automated, so I'm not sure the moral dilema would be relevant at that point. Under early stages of socialism, sure, and I'm not against "labor vouchers" or whatever you want to call it during those stages. The only thing I would be against is saying that disabled people who are not capable of certain kinds of or any labor aren't entitled to a comfortable life.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1289534971095339012
Lots of people in the replies saying that the video totally misinterprets "antiwork theory" though.
what is "anti-work" theory as it relates to societal progress and anti-capitalism?
Haven't read up on it, but the fact that Marx himself said that "work" is "alienated labor" seems to play into it. Which basically falls in line with what I was saying about post-capitalist labor shouldn't be work anymore.
so you adhere to and identify with "anti-work" "theory" even though you haven't read it?
and Marx didn't say "work" was "alienated labor", he said that private employment & accumulation of private property lead to that situation unnaturally in capitalism
"In creating a world of objects by his personal activity, in his work upon inorganic nature, man proves himself a conscious species-being, i.e., as a being that treats the species as his own essential being, or that treats itself as a species-being. Admittedly animals also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers, ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally. It produces only under the dominion of immediate physical need, whilst man produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom. An animal produces only itself, whilst man reproduces the whole of nature. An animal’s product belongs immediately to its physical body, whilst man freely confronts his product. An animal forms only in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms objects in accordance with the laws of beauty.
It is just in his work upon the objective world, therefore, that man really proves himself to be a species-being. This production is his active species-life. Through this production, nature appears as his work and his reality. The object of labor is, therefore, the objectification of man’s species-life: for he duplicates himself not only, as in consciousness, intellectually, but also actively, in reality, and therefore he sees himself in a world that he has created. In tearing away from man the object of his production, therefore, estranged labor tears from him his species-life, his real objectivity as a member of the species and transforms his advantage over animals into the disadvantage that his inorganic body, nature, is taken from him."
Marx says that private employment in which the exploited laborer produces objects belonging in every way to someone else is the "species-being" obscured & corrupted.
But man's natural state is to act upon the natural world & sustain oneself and larger society upon that action. The intervening alienation of private ownership & class division & labor division into a large "hyperexploited" subaltern & small non-working bourgeois hedonists is the contradiction Marx strains to point out
Capitalist leeches believe in not working too... at least they believe in retaining the privilege of not working for themselves lol
I didn't mean to imply that I'm a vocal advocate for antiwork theory, I'm just triggered by a leftist using "antiwork" as a dig because being antiwork sounds extremely good to me. Because work is bad. Who likes work? Some people might like their jobs, but literally everyone says that when you like your job it isn't "work" anymore. So even within the construct of capitalism, people have this concept that labor you enjoy doing isn't work. (They'd probably also say that it's not labor, since without a leftist understanding of things labor has a bad connotation too, since its associated with things like childbirth, but I think we can preserve the word labor as leftists because its taken on a leftist meaning and is used by leftist movements).
I don't agree with any argument that relies on concepts like "species-being". I don't think sapient beings have a "natural" way of existing. This is core to my argument against anti-communists saying it'll never work because human nature, because there is no fixed human nature. Sometimes lately I've been saying that humans are communal creatures, but I really ought to cut that out because it still relies on the idea that humans are naturally one way or the other. Capitalism socialized them into selfishness and competition, socialism would socialize them to cooperation. Its not because they are one way or the other, its because of how socialization works.
So when Marx goes off about terms like "species being", I don't agree with him on that point. And I strongly disagree that everyone in the world is wired to labor. I do agree with the fundamentals of the point that private employment alienates people from their labor, but thats a different point to me.
So maybe it wasn't Marx that said "work is alienated labor", but the statement still sounds correct to me. Without alienation, labor wouldn't be "work" anymore. It would be fundamentally something different. Its the same argument as police and prison abolition. Yes, there would still be law enforcement in some form, and we would still need to separate the truly dangerous from society, but the replacement would be so fundamentally different it couldn't be called police or prison anymore. I don't think leftists should call labor under socialism "work", because noone likes work. Like I said, even in a capitalist framework people have the concept that work is bad, but doing things you love isn't work even if it produces something.
Some "work" might be necessary to build socialism and furthermore communism, but I do think that a goal of a socialist society should be to keep it to a minimum, and divide it as equally as possible.
exploited labor is bad
but you are conflating wage labor under capitalism with "work" in the abstract and world historical context. they are not the same thing
the world isn't "wired to labor", I think you're just taking a very inward looking & personal experience with past employment and trying to apply that to how the world will revolutionize and move beyond capitalism. it's understandable to be personally averse to our experience in capitalism, and even to consider historical events in ways that we consider personal.
but does that mean everyone under capitalism "hates" their jobs? some might actually get subjective enjoyment from it
but that subjectivity (whether someone "enjoys" or "hates" their job & working) is only obliquely related to the real material "exploitation" that occurs under capitalism
man's natural state is to create things & engage with the natural world & be prolific & conscientious & hopefully socially organized/concerned in doing this.
doing things one loves is work. almost all things worthwhile & goals worth pursuing require work. i didn't say that wages & private employment are required. the fact we are conflating the two is testament to the extent to which capitalism has become a fixed & total "firmament" on which we are projecting our thoughts & future intentions & actions. capitalist realism doesn't have to be the starting point, and it's unfortunate we treat it as such
achieving material gains beyond capitalism will require a lot of work.
suffering & mental anguish for the individual aren't totally unavoidable as far as I am aware. no one has invented a cure for world-weariness
so I think we need to separate what we consider "human condition" or any normative language around "human nature" from exploitation under capitalism.
capitalism isn't human nature, and neither is private employment for profits/wages.
but work is required from any grown individual stranded on a deserted tropical island.
Maybe its just semantics, but I disagree with calling labor I want to do "work". I like kids right? I... and I just realized I usually call it "working with kids", which I will now call capitalist conditioning, but I enjoy that kind of labor. Even though it can be stressful at times, I always go home feeling satisfied and happy with what I've done that day. The stress is momentary at best, and like 75% of it comes from the interference of adults (coworkers, bosses, parents) anyway. So like, a lot of the parts that "feel like work" are very much intrusions of capitalism, like having a boss and expecting kids that just got out of school to do focused activities instead of play how they want (ok that bits a personal grievance lol). It is labor though, because I'm doing something productive. Something that contributes.
Like I said, I do agree that building a post-capitalism world will require labor that would be "work" for me. And I will contribute what I can manage to to that.
capitalism & private property are the corrupting factors, not the burden of pressing socially necessary tasks that require completing and always have
like i said, capitalist owners & employers are also keen on not working... but they don't feel their employees deserve similarly lavish lifestyles. private property ownership can definitely protect you from the rigors of low wage private employment
so you see where we get into bourgeois decadence & laziness & backsliding very quickly here right?
No, because I'm not saying that only an elite class of people should be able to avoid work. I'm saying that unpleasant labor that would be considered "work" by my definition should be divided up in an equitable way, and everyone should contribute as long as they are capable. And, as much as possible, people should be doing jobs that they enjoy doing such that they wouldn't be doing what I would categorize as "work". Basically, unpleasant labor should be minimized, and hopefully eventually eliminated entirely.
people unable to work should be able to rely on others, but that means those dependents must be able to depend on everyone else. this goes for those kids you're talking about as well as retirees & the halt and infirm
suffering the slings & arrows of low-level wage labor doesn't entitle any healthy and capable person to indolence
I don't know why you're still talking like I'm advocating for people being indolent when I'm not? I'm advocating for minimizing unpleasant labor as much as possible and assigning it equitably and putting people in rolls they enjoy as much as we can. Are you even reading what I'm writing?
yes, capitalism also attempts to divide labor efficiently & economize decision-making through market forces & price signals... and capitalists view these things as equitable & maximizing human happiness.
I read what you have written, but I still don't see how being against work you don't like & still wanting to advance human civilization beyond necessary work actually square here. one is obviated by the other
i do not know how to remove suffering from the human condition, no more than I know how to prevent a baby from ever crying
unpleasant experiences & activities are sort of universal, except for people in vegetative states i suppose. but it's not as though they are engaging with "will" or "intention" anyway
One of the things I have written that you claim to have read is that I acknowledge that some unpleasant labor is necessary to build the sort of world I want, and then saying it should be assigned equitably and that, as much as possible, people should do work they enjoy. I have said this like, five times now. I don't plan on eliminating human suffering, I plan on minimizing it.
Capitalism tries to do that? News to me. But if it does, the results suck. Under socialism, they dont have to suck. Or they can minimally suck, suck just enough for whats necessary.
some in that estimation of yours seems to imply no more than is personally tolerable in your opinion
I agree that the most menial & non-glamorous jobs can be made more rewarding & humane & safe & even more efficient & socially-geared, but that doesn't mean human labor capacity & skill-acquisition/proficiency& identities built around these capacities will be made obsolete just because we've all taken shitty jobs that we don't identify with
Well I'm sorry for implying that apparently because that's not what I'm saying.
I agree that I will have to do work that I don't enjoy post-capitalism. I agree that everyone will. I literally just think that it can and should be minimized.
I have no idea what this bit has to do with anything that I've said.
it does, because you said earlier that you don't believe in a "species-being", even though Marx specifically said it was not "human-nature" as in a fixed & permanently defined thing. but changes with epochs & social modes etc.
"species-being" in this context has much to do with social relations and the ways that historical changes create new social necessities & niches that are filled by concerted human activity. that is a "homo faber", human producing
but I think it's a noteworthy contradiction to say your time/skill/effort is "alienated" in capitalism because of the kinds/conditions of jobs there are available, while also glossing over what those kinds/conditions of jobs have alienated you from.
Alright, obviously I misunderstood what Marx meant by "species-being", my mistake.
I don't think I'm glossing it over? By even mentioning alienation am I not invoking the entirety of the theory? I do think that alienation under capitalism is why labor becomes work (by the definitions I've been running with). And yes, that is because it alienates me from the product of my labor. And yes, this is part of why labor under socialism would largely not be "work" in my view. I don't see how this contradicts my insistence that unpleasant labor should be minimized as much as possible. And what is "unpleasant work" would vary by individual as well. Many people would find educating and playing with children to be "work", because they don't enjoy the company of children. Those people should not have to do labor that involves kids. Luckily, there are plenty of people who do enjoy the company of children who can do those jobs. There are people out there that genuinely enjoy manual labor, and while I don't think that the manual work that needs doing can be entirely covered by those people, I imagine it could be covered by them as much as possible. Thus minimizing labor that would be "work". That said, if toilets in public areas need scrubbing, I'd gladly take on my share of scrubbing them to contribute to a socialist society. And while it would be "work" to me, because I don't enjoy it, it would be less so "work" than it would be when I had to scrub toilets when I worked at Burger King. Because at least I'd feel I was contributing to something.
yes, we don't disagree then
most everyone having a kind of "chore chart" that might include scrubbing public toilets one day or burping babies on another, but obviously wouldn't allow for everyone to have a turn at being a machine lathe operator or bus driver or nuclear technician sounds about right
remember also that privately owned machines also steal the vast majority's claim to any of the social product. and I wouldn't even say that this is due solely to legal limitation & private property rights... it's more about self-censorship and ethical considerations made by the majority
even a UBI or single tax would not rid us of these problems. that's because there is a spiritual/ethical concern when we are divvying up these tasks, and distributing the resulting outputs. healthy & capable unemployed deserve to be kept afloat, but do they deserve to be buoyed indefinitely by other workers?
people who do more work might deserve more compensation, and perhaps no one deserves absolutely nothing. but how does one go about ethically dividing up resources in FALGSC when no one can be said to have worked to create them? this is a contradiction & a moral issue
sanitary workers deserve hefty salaries, and their work is just as essential as someone's work producing food or clothing, but perhaps it's not as consequential
Not much to disagree with here. Though I think under FALGSC, the implication is that we'd be post-scarcity, and most of the unpleasant work would be automated, so I'm not sure the moral dilema would be relevant at that point. Under early stages of socialism, sure, and I'm not against "labor vouchers" or whatever you want to call it during those stages. The only thing I would be against is saying that disabled people who are not capable of certain kinds of or any labor aren't entitled to a comfortable life.
people entitled to as comfortable of a life as has been produced by social striving & creativity
OK, agreed. What was once a frusterating conversation due to a few misunderstandings has proven productive in the end.