That Four Letter Word, Work
The
Oxford English Dictionary definition of work:
actions, doings, task, actions involving effort or exertion directed
at a definite end.
One
way our economic system is totally screwed up has to do with what is
considered work. Note well, the dictionary says work consists of
effort or action with a purpose. This means any
physical or mental activity with an end result in mind is work.
Hence, playing the violin is work, as is making breakfast, studying
philosophy, pulling weeds in the garden or volunteering for a
community organization.
Pretty
straight forward eh? But not in our idiot economic system. How so?
Suppose you are on welfare and volunteer 30 hours a week at a seniors
residence, or you are a stay-at-home parent. The capitalist system,
or rather its shills, do not consider you to be working. The notion
of work has been distorted, changed from purposeful
effort,
to solely that which brings monetary reward. Everything else, even
working 16 hours a day as a volunteer, is considered non-work, and
hence of not much value to society.
Sick
eh? But hang on, it gets worse. While the aforementioned volunteering
welfare recipient is considered a parasite, even though she is doing
something very beneficial, if she instead worked in a napalm factory,
she would be considered a useful member of society! Doing something
that ends up killing people is OK, helping them is not.
In
a capitalist society wage labour is the only form of work that is
directly profitable for the capitalist. Hence, the need to denigrate
all other forms of work, as these forms threaten the ability to
exploit labour. But in the real world, the one that exists outside
of that concocted by those fantasy-spinners, the "economists",
so much of what is valuable in life is done freely and without
monetary compensation as the ultimate goal.
Society
would collapse without this important form of work. Think what would
happen if no one raised their children, looked after their houses and
yards, or volunteered for the innumerable groups and associations
that keep the societal wheels turning. If the system had to pay for
all of this non-paid work, there wouldn't be enough money to do so.
In
the long term, we ought to abolish the wage system as the IWW has
demanded since 1905. In the meantime, a Guaranteed Annual Income
would help reestablish work in its authentic sense. Everyone
would get the GAI and there would be much more freedom to work at
what people were really interested in doing.
While
on the topic of work, it is necessary to talk about "laziness."
People who are less willing to engage in what the sheeple
consider "real work", ie wage labour, are denigrated as
lazy. However,
I have never met a lazy person.
People who sit around and no nothing are usually suffering from
depression. There is also a type of sociopath who sponges off
people. But most people deemed lazy by the sheeple are usually those
who want to do something other than slave for a boss. Take
bohemians, or the contemporary equivalent. They spend most of their
waking hours writing, painting, creating music, studying etc. The
sheeple consider them "lazy long-haired bums", yet after
they are dead, these same haters will idolize them as "creative
geniuses." Laziness is a myth, and was concocted to malign and
control those people whose interests and work does not have an
immediate or obvious monetary aspect.
5 Comments:
I'd love it if our goal in our society was to have meaningful p/t work for anyone who is able (and a GAI). We can do amazing things with spaceships and satellites, etc, so we should try to collectively mandate a system which everyone is able to work p/t. This would require massive public transit and an end to the real estate, banking, insurance and all other forms of non-mutual aid, exploitative games. But, darn it, it should be possible.
But we live in a world of economic specialization - a division of labour - something that has been undeniably beneficial.
As such, one has to trade with others for many necessities of life.
These two phenomena led to the development of, and were spurred by, the creation of "money". Money, as you know, is (or should be!) "the most marketable commodity", an item of near-universally- acknowledged value and scarcity, etc.
"Money" needs value because it is a claim on real goods...those same goods which are the basic necessities of life.
Somehow "abolishing" money would be a retrogressive step to the stone age or, alternately, would be a move toward authoritarian socialism, a "planned economy".
People would be made to perform labour for nothing, slaving to support others - for nothing.
How would that be ethical? Since money is a free creation of mutual popular will, ordering individuals to, without their consent, perform labour for nought would constitute slavery...
Who said anything about abolishing a medium of exchange? Where do I say that, precisely? When you abolish wage labour - I think that is what you are referring to - you are abolishing the worker-owner division, not money. All workers become owners and thus are no longer working for wages, but for a portion of the wealth they create and divided according to whatever means they democratically wish. This has nothing to do with abolishing money, something that cannot be done by fiat. Furthermore, no free society can prevent people from issuing currencies. I suspect in the future post-capitalist system (should we survive capitalism, that is) - there will be many different economic experiments, some with local currencies, labour time chits, demurrage currencies, and yes, even no money at all.
Very interesting topic! And thoughtful blog...
"In the long term, we ought to abolish the wage system as the IWW has demanded since 1905."
Wouldn't this amount to interference in the private dealings of individuals in the marketplace? How would you stop people from voluntarily contracting with one another, exchanging labour for "money" (some commodity) - or even exchanging labour for labour?
As you say, no free society can prevent people from issuing currencies, of any sort. (Whether those currencies ever gain acceptance is a matter only for those using and exchanging them.)
The wage system developed naturally, as part of "capitalism", the liberty to buy, sell, and contract freely with one another. Tied up with the idea of privately-held property.
It's merely exchange - not some imposition. People will always attempt to profit from their production of needed goods and/or to sell their labour in the process of producing them.
You'd probably have to try to outlaw by force the extraction of natural resources by individuals (or companies)..."nationalize" the wood, the coal, the mines, the oil...and there goes the concept of privately-held property.
Pretty authoritarian stuff!
"I suspect in the future post-capitalist system (should we survive capitalism, that is) - there will be many different economic experiments, some with local currencies, labour time chits, demurrage currencies, and yes, even no money at all."
Fully agree! And I welcome any change too...but "capitalism" should not be disparaged. It, after all, is not so much an economic system as it is 'the freedom of voluntary exchange'.
In my almost 50 years in the movement I have yet to encounter anyone or read anything that implied that people should be prevented from exchanging their labor for wages. The idea is of course, absurd. The wage system would die a natural death as the vast majority would prefer to work for themselves, as individuals, partnerships, family groups or in cooperatives – just as people did before the wage system existed. Anyone who actually wanted to work for someone else would be free to do so. Absolutizing is a common fallacy and I think this is what you are doing. The development of a free economy is a bottom-up PROCESS and not a thing to be imposed from on high. If it isn't it is no longer free and becomes self-defeating.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home