
Does Work Really Work? - akbarnama
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/l-susan-brown-does-work-really-work
======
stegosaurus
"The only major differences between a slave and a worker is that a worker is
only a slave at work while a slave is a slave twenty-four hours a day"

I'm not a fan of the slave comparison in this context because the word has
meaning beyond 'loss of self-determination'.

Moving beyond that, though - it is certainly untrue that a worker only loses
self-determination while at work.

What you do, and where you are, during the most productive hours of your life
fundamentally shapes you as a person.

It impacts on where you live. It impacts on activities outside of work,
because units of time are not fungible. You're less rested, you're restricted
to things that can happen after 5pm, etcetera.

~~~
zenogais
"nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money or commodities, and
on the other hand men possessing nothing but their own labour-power...[this]
is clearly the result of a past historical development..."

------
jprince
This is probably the dumbest thing I've read today. The difference between a
worker and a slave is clearly at the end of the day, the worker has more money
than at the start, and can exercise buying power over whatever he or she wants
to do, including retiring and leaving the company.

This is basically just communism re-wrapped as "changing work."

~~~
dreamfactory2
> This is basically just communism

Even the Stoics regarded working for money as a form of slavery

~~~
obstinate
> Even the Stoics

You say this like we'd expect the Stoics to be especially unlikely to regard
something as a form of slavery. I don't know that to be true. Is it?

~~~
zenogais
In my experience a lot of entrepreneurs/entrepreneur literature preaches Stoic
philosophies:

[1]:
[http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/04/13/stoicism-101-a-practi...](http://fourhourworkweek.com/2009/04/13/stoicism-101-a-practical-
guide-for-entrepreneurs/)

[2]:
[http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238146](http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/238146)

[3]: [http://mfishbein.com/stoicism-
entrepreneurship/](http://mfishbein.com/stoicism-entrepreneurship/)

------
dionyziz
The article is nice. But the point about bartering is wrong. The argument
seems to go like this:

\- Each thing has a different value based on the person judging it. \-
Therefore, we cannot barter.

This is unfounded: The subjectivity of value does not make bartering
impossible. Bartering is possible if one judges their own work to have less
value or equal value to some other work that they are willing to exchange it
for; and vice-versa.

However, I agree with the article that bartering may be undesirable; but the
value argument is incorrect.

~~~
cortesoft
This was one of the worst parts of the article (there were lots of bad parts).
The fact that different people place different values on the same object is
WHY bartering works at all. If there was a specific value for every object,
and everyone agreed on exactly what that value was, then no one would ever
trade anything.

I feel like the author of this post does not understand basic economic theory.

------
squozzer
Interesting article but it fails to answer the basic question, "why do
anything at all?"

The obvious answer is that one must do something to stay alive, such as gather
food. It's how animals, or more accurately, heterotrophs, live. They find
things to eat and try to eat them.

Humans lived like this for a long, long, time.

But then people specialized in things, some learned to grow plants and
domesticate animals, others built structures, some specialized in warfare, and
so on.

Specialization, which allowed people to become more proficient at a smaller
set of activities, came with a price - peole now had to work together because
they were no longer self-sufficient. This meant either banding together
consciously, for example a tribe, where duties could be allocated somewhat
equally, or trading one's specialties for those of another's. Barter was a
worthy first stab at trade, but eventually people found using a proxy - a
medium of exchange - much easier. A purse full of coins was much handier than
dragging around one's flock of sheep.

Then came things such as contracts, courts, and all the other baggage of a
money-oriented society.

This is not to say I agree with the conflation of one's job with one's
identity - and maybe in a society that doesn't need everyone to hold a job
such questions may become passé or perhaps even become categorized as "too
personal", as we consider questions about one's politics or religion.

But back to my original question - the writer didn't seem to consider the
trivial case of those who choose to do nothing beneficial for others or
themselves. Again, maybe in a world where work is optional that might be moot
- but I know several people who would do nothing but eat, drink, sleep, play
video games, and breed like rabbits. It's hard to imagine any society being
able to produce enough food to keep a rapidly multiplying cohort of parasites
fed. And then what?

~~~
dreamfactory2
And yet we have hospitals full of health workers, schools full of teachers,
and penniless artists and musicians - none of whom chose to maximise their
earning potential on wall st or wherever but rather to contribute to society
in some way that they felt drawn to

------
proksoup
I did not know wage slavery was a controversial term.

Money is a tool of control, how do you earn money without being controlled by
others and following their standards?

How do you spend money without controlling others? Like you donate someone a
blanket, that's their burden now and they can be fined for littering if they
don't take care of it properly.

We are tightly controlled and tightly control others. The consequences range
from minor inconveniences to death.

Death and violence are less frequent per capita, but the threat and control
remains.

Freedom and control are both illusions.

I'm free to quit and starve. All the food and land is owned.

~~~
krapp
The term is not controversial, but taking it seriously is, unless you're an
anarchist and already assume that all societal constructs are attempts at
coercion or slavery to begin with.

~~~
proksoup
I am. I do assume that.

What else would they be?

How do you have a societal construct that isn't coerced?

Voluntary participation of 100% of participants ....

~~~
krapp
I would argue that such a definition dilutes terms like 'slavery' or
'coercion' to the point that they become nearly meaningless.

Is this discussion we're having right now really worth considering a form of
slavery? Am I attempting to control you, or are you attempting to control me?
In this context, can it even be argued that language itself is an act of
violence, or that there is even anything wrong with slavery, if it defines
human interaction at so many fundamental levels?

After all anarchy itself is a societal construct, with commonly accepted
norms, accepted practices, attitudes, cults of personality. What would happen
in a perfect anarchist society when someone inevitably questioned anarchy?

------
Zigurd
This sure stuck a stick in this hive of libertarianism! A better-argued, and
far less earnestly argued position is Ellerman's, from "The Libertarian Case
for Slavery."

------
squozzer
I promise to shut up after this. The writer also has a false idea about value
and worth. I say the answer is very simple - the value of a thing lies in how
much someone is willing to pay for it. That seems circular, but recursive
might describe it more accurately. We use a construct known as a market to
describe the process.

1) someone (whom we'll call the producer) brings a thing to the market,
offering it for a price. Usually the price equals what it cost to produce the
things plus a little extra, which we'll call "profit" because it sounds cool.
2) if someone else (we'll call them the consumer) pays the price, then maybe
the price of the next item will rise, or maybe it won't. 3) if no one pays the
price before the producer runs out of patience, then the producer might lower
the price or maybe they'll leave. 4) steps 1-3 continue until everyone is
satisfied or runs of of patience.

~~~
squozzer
My promise extends only to the original post.

------
markhahn
cheesy old-left blather. it seems to offend some people that value is defined
by whatever the market will bear, rather than something inherent.

------
AnimalMuppet
Sure wish I could downvote an article. All employment is inherently slavery?
That's just male cow droppings.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Funny, for a load of bullshit the article offered a much more detailed
explanation of their thesis than you have of yours.

Don't you understand that we all inherently have blind spots based on where we
come from? The idea that work has to be alright because everyone does it is
exactly what people used to say about slavery and overt subjugation of women.
People still say it's bullshit that we should concern ourselves with the
environmental impacts of what we do.

It's easy to call something bullshit, but philosophers for centuries have
suggested that wage labor is better described as wage slavery. It is a
legitimate idea and one worth considering. You're quick to dismiss the idea
but slow to provide alternative suggestions for how we might be able to end
the forced misery of the working class.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> Don't you understand that we all inherently have blind spots based on where
> we come from?

I sure do. You might have them, too.

> philosophers for centuries have suggested that wage labor is better
> described as wage slavery.

I'm sure they have. That doesn't make it "a legitimate idea and one worth
considering". Philosophers have said lots of other things over the years, too,
many of them patently absurd. You need a better proof than "(some)
philosophers have said it".

Can we make work better than it is? Probably yes. Does over-the-top rhetoric
make it more likely to happen? No, it makes it less likely. It just gets you
classified as a Marxist shill, and regarded as already discredited. If you
want anything to actually change, screaming out absurd overheated rhetoric
isn't a path likely to succeed. Instead, it gets you ignored.

~~~
comrh
Marx and Engels are hugely influential and popular philosophers. The idea of
"wage slavery" is a pretty common and legitimate one. Just because you think
it is "over the top" doesn't make it not a legitimate view.

~~~
SiVal
Without a doubt, Marx and Engels have been hugely influential in the deaths
and enslavement of countless millions over the past century. They have indeed
been among the most popular philosophers for several of the most murderous
tyrants in human history. A member of my immediate family learned about the
evils of "wage slavery" in "classes" taught by Marxists at the Chinese work
camp where he was a slave without wages.

I don't know that the term "legitimate" has any real meaning, but when it
comes to making a useful contribution, I suspect that Marxist theory will make
about the same contribution to employment that it has made to agriculture,
industrial production, journalism, civil liberties....

~~~
comrh
That is guilt by association and not really a meaningful argument though. Marx
and Engels are used all the time in literary criticism, gender studies,
sociology. You just seem to have a really big bone to pick with Marxists.

~~~
SiVal
Actually yes, I _do_ consider the horrific, mass atrocities committed by
Marxists in the name of Marxism to be relevant to the credibility of Marxism
in just the same way that I consider similar consequences when Nazis came to
power to discredit _their_ political theories. And, you make a good point
about additional fields of Marxist influence: Marxist agriculture's
contribution to the food supply, Marxist industry's contribution to national
productivity, Marxist political officers on staff at State newspapers and
their contribution to journalism, AND literary criticism and gender studies'
contribution to academics and free speech on campus.

Marxism has influenced so many fields wherever it has gone, and if you like
what it has done to these fields, it's reasonable to assume that it could have
a similar impact on paid employment arrangements.

For me, though, that's not an encouraging thought. I've seen enough of the
destruction that results when Marxist theory is applied to real people to
conclude that whatever the problems with paid employment, good answers will
not come from Marxism.

------
blakehaswell
> We can understand our own unhappiness as workers not as a psychological
> problem that demands Prozac, but rather as a human response to domination.

As someone who has struggled to find enjoyment at a job working on products I
didn’t believe in, I found this line particularly poignant.

------
jlangenauer
If work (in a capitalist system) isn't slavery, couldn't you just choose to
not do it?

~~~
SiVal
If eating isn't slavery, couldn't you choose to not do it? Needing to do a
thing for practical reasons does not automatically make you a "slave".

~~~
zenogais
Needing to do a thing for another person for "practical reasons", however,
could make you a slave.

------
maxk42
I don't understand how this could've got to the front page.

It was written in 2011. Why front page today? Is this genuinely a popular idea
or is HN being manipulated somehow?

~~~
maxk42
Hacker News is a site full of entrepreneurs extolling the virtues of hard work
and doing four years' work in one year's time -- how can this be so popular?

~~~
proksoup
The people working for those entrepreneurs are perhaps less keen on those
virtues.

------
flint
The US economy has never had a strong demand for lazy people. You work for a
wage because you are to lazy to figure out for your self how to build
something or sell something. "But how are you supposed to pay the rent?" \-
Well now you are starting to think...

