Thank you very much for the upload. This is perhaps Russell's most important political work, and it sums up my thoughts about modern work ethics perfectly. Since I read Nietzsche, I thought of the aristocracy of better men built on the coercion of ordinary people as a shadow of the past, that modern production technology could overcome. And finally, in Russell, I have found this point summed up in a logical and elegant way. He has such a precision and clarity in his words, it is truly remarkable
Work is a means of livelihood is a capitalist concept. Only in capitalist society and the first phase of communism known as socialism is work considered to be a means of livelihood. But Karl Marx explained that in a superior communist society were People run things as opposed to the State, Labour which probably becomes limited to 4 hours a day becomes life's prime want.
And what happens when the efficiency of the production process is futher improved to the point where only 2 hours, 1 hour or 30 minutes of work is required? Even if the workers were in the name of solidarity willing to share their work and rewards among others, it would simply not be enough to afford a good life, not at the rate that the plebs are multiplying on this planet. I'm afraid that Russell falls in the same category of reality-detached leftist idealists as Chomsky.
@tuntitommosille - I imagine he would argue that there would be no need for a monetary system. That it wouldn't be a case of many being rich but the majority being poor. People work 6 day weeks now and still can't afford 'the good life'. If machines did the majority of our work for us why would we need money? So some people can have more than others and use it to hold them back? That is all it is used for these days. I do agree that people need to stop reproducing so recklessly though.
@tombeast17 Practically all people in modern civilized nations can afford a good life with very little effort. The problem is, people quickly forget what they have and instead focus on what someone else has that they don't. It's a basic human emotion called jealousy. You can try to suppress it by forcing everyone to be "equal", but then you end up with a society like Soviet Union or North Korea, where everyone is equally miserable and there's a lack of even basic necessities.
@tuntitommosille - I guess it all boils down to how we define a 'good life'. For me a good life isn't working 9/10 hours a day, 6 days a week, for decades on end just to eat and sleep in a warm house, that they will be paying for for the rest of their lives. Especially when doing physically demanding jobs that mean they are too tired to do much in their time away from work. This is sadly the life many live in the west. Just because it is better than feudalism that doesnt make it good.
@tuntitommosille Not just jealously, but we are institutionally conditioned to believe in the nature of consumerism as a virtue in itself. To consume out of luxury rather than necessity. Adding to that, corporate policy makes it difficult for the labourer to work small hours and to benefit from his labour, as wage slavery entails his labour is rented for the benefit of elites and private owners; not to be benefitted for himself. If you have read Chomsky, you would know that the Soviet system...
@MyMelancholyDodo Of course we are conditioned to consume. It's only because people consume that goods are being produced, which in turn creates jobs, better products and a continually rising standard of living for everyone involved. If people only produced and consumed the bare minimum necessary, we wouldn't be in any better shape than 3rd world countries today, because there would be zero incentive for anyone to produce anything new. Also, most western people willingly choose "wage slavery".
@tuntitommosille The problem is that consumerism doesn't equate to a rise in standards of living. For example, I recently came across an article about a factory in China whose workers assemble the new Iphones, or what have you. They have installed suicide nets outside as workers have attempted to take their own lives due to the dehumanising working conditions. We can take the premise that capitalism can accrue capital. But without a system of distribution then there will be huge disparity
@MyMelancholyDodo Noone is forcing the chinese people to work in those capitalist factories. They choose to work in those factories, because it's a step up from what they had before. Now I'll agree with you that the conditions there are still pretty miserable, but there is no question that they are steadily improving as a result of capitalism.
@tuntitommosille I disagree, the premise of wage labour denotes a degree of coercion. Particularly if it is imposed on those who are in poverty. For instance, a child in extreme poverty who is given the choice to work 60 hours in a factory for a pittance signifies less wilfullness in their decision because the options are limited. If we are to a second option, like to work in an office for 30 hours a week, then the options and their conditions signify more wilfullness in decision.
@MyMelancholyDodo You will not find a functioning system that isn't based to some degree on coercion, whether it's by making people work, pay taxes, or something else. At least under capitalism people are free to choose.
@tuntitommosille "You will not find a functioning system that isn't based to some degree on coercion" - your post is a tad bit old, but I am curious on what your arguments are against the system installed by the CNT during the spanish revolution which has become a stock argument of the libertarian left. I think it does have some validity to it. After all, hours were cut, production increased, production efficiency increased, and all these claims were also observed by returning factory owners.
@tuntitommosille Adding to that, capitalism (it's structural framework, and its elites), are not improving conditions for its workers. Workers unions, labour movements, as well as various human rights groups are the ones who are campaigning and improving conditions for workers.
@MyMelancholyDodo Unions offer the immediate benefit , i.e. higher wages, but money by itself doesn't improve your standard of living. It's just paper. The increased standard of living results from people exchanging their money for new products, which only exist because of the free market system. For example you wouldn't have a computer if there hadn't been an economical incentive for someone to develop it. This kind of development doesn't happen in "idle" societies.
@tuntitommosille ...was unfair in its economic structure. The Bolsheviks destroyed workers and labours unions when they came into power, and quelled any chance of equality the Russian workers had in managing their own means of production. Furthermore, the so called communist regime relied on a form of state capitalism to function which differed from the system of the West, but was hugely unfair at the same time.
@tuntitommosille - and i also agree that these ideas are far fetched and detatched from 'current' reality. But just because we have used this system for so long that does not mean that it is the only system possible.
Think how many more great works of art and literature there would be if this imagined reality were true. We may even have concrete cures for things like cancer if more people had time to learn and think and research, instead of carrying out labour tasks just to afford to exist.
INCREDIBLE, damn humanity is seriously lagging right now
t3hpez 2 months ago
Thank you very much for the upload. This is perhaps Russell's most important political work, and it sums up my thoughts about modern work ethics perfectly. Since I read Nietzsche, I thought of the aristocracy of better men built on the coercion of ordinary people as a shadow of the past, that modern production technology could overcome. And finally, in Russell, I have found this point summed up in a logical and elegant way. He has such a precision and clarity in his words, it is truly remarkable
Wxnzxn 8 months ago
Work is a means of livelihood is a capitalist concept. Only in capitalist society and the first phase of communism known as socialism is work considered to be a means of livelihood. But Karl Marx explained that in a superior communist society were People run things as opposed to the State, Labour which probably becomes limited to 4 hours a day becomes life's prime want.
Mayer200 1 year ago
Russell is too good
thernr 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
MyMelancholyDodo 1 year ago
And what happens when the efficiency of the production process is futher improved to the point where only 2 hours, 1 hour or 30 minutes of work is required? Even if the workers were in the name of solidarity willing to share their work and rewards among others, it would simply not be enough to afford a good life, not at the rate that the plebs are multiplying on this planet. I'm afraid that Russell falls in the same category of reality-detached leftist idealists as Chomsky.
tuntitommosille 1 year ago
@tuntitommosille - I imagine he would argue that there would be no need for a monetary system. That it wouldn't be a case of many being rich but the majority being poor. People work 6 day weeks now and still can't afford 'the good life'. If machines did the majority of our work for us why would we need money? So some people can have more than others and use it to hold them back? That is all it is used for these days. I do agree that people need to stop reproducing so recklessly though.
tombeast17 1 year ago 3
@tombeast17 Practically all people in modern civilized nations can afford a good life with very little effort. The problem is, people quickly forget what they have and instead focus on what someone else has that they don't. It's a basic human emotion called jealousy. You can try to suppress it by forcing everyone to be "equal", but then you end up with a society like Soviet Union or North Korea, where everyone is equally miserable and there's a lack of even basic necessities.
tuntitommosille 1 year ago
@tuntitommosille - I guess it all boils down to how we define a 'good life'. For me a good life isn't working 9/10 hours a day, 6 days a week, for decades on end just to eat and sleep in a warm house, that they will be paying for for the rest of their lives. Especially when doing physically demanding jobs that mean they are too tired to do much in their time away from work. This is sadly the life many live in the west. Just because it is better than feudalism that doesnt make it good.
tombeast17 1 year ago 4
@tuntitommosille Not just jealously, but we are institutionally conditioned to believe in the nature of consumerism as a virtue in itself. To consume out of luxury rather than necessity. Adding to that, corporate policy makes it difficult for the labourer to work small hours and to benefit from his labour, as wage slavery entails his labour is rented for the benefit of elites and private owners; not to be benefitted for himself. If you have read Chomsky, you would know that the Soviet system...
MyMelancholyDodo 1 year ago
@MyMelancholyDodo Of course we are conditioned to consume. It's only because people consume that goods are being produced, which in turn creates jobs, better products and a continually rising standard of living for everyone involved. If people only produced and consumed the bare minimum necessary, we wouldn't be in any better shape than 3rd world countries today, because there would be zero incentive for anyone to produce anything new. Also, most western people willingly choose "wage slavery".
tuntitommosille 1 year ago
@tuntitommosille The problem is that consumerism doesn't equate to a rise in standards of living. For example, I recently came across an article about a factory in China whose workers assemble the new Iphones, or what have you. They have installed suicide nets outside as workers have attempted to take their own lives due to the dehumanising working conditions. We can take the premise that capitalism can accrue capital. But without a system of distribution then there will be huge disparity
MyMelancholyDodo 1 year ago 4
@MyMelancholyDodo Noone is forcing the chinese people to work in those capitalist factories. They choose to work in those factories, because it's a step up from what they had before. Now I'll agree with you that the conditions there are still pretty miserable, but there is no question that they are steadily improving as a result of capitalism.
tuntitommosille 1 year ago
@tuntitommosille I disagree, the premise of wage labour denotes a degree of coercion. Particularly if it is imposed on those who are in poverty. For instance, a child in extreme poverty who is given the choice to work 60 hours in a factory for a pittance signifies less wilfullness in their decision because the options are limited. If we are to a second option, like to work in an office for 30 hours a week, then the options and their conditions signify more wilfullness in decision.
MyMelancholyDodo 1 year ago 6
@MyMelancholyDodo You will not find a functioning system that isn't based to some degree on coercion, whether it's by making people work, pay taxes, or something else. At least under capitalism people are free to choose.
tuntitommosille 1 year ago
@tuntitommosille "You will not find a functioning system that isn't based to some degree on coercion" - your post is a tad bit old, but I am curious on what your arguments are against the system installed by the CNT during the spanish revolution which has become a stock argument of the libertarian left. I think it does have some validity to it. After all, hours were cut, production increased, production efficiency increased, and all these claims were also observed by returning factory owners.
Wxnzxn 8 months ago
@tuntitommosille Adding to that, capitalism (it's structural framework, and its elites), are not improving conditions for its workers. Workers unions, labour movements, as well as various human rights groups are the ones who are campaigning and improving conditions for workers.
MyMelancholyDodo 1 year ago 2
@MyMelancholyDodo Unions offer the immediate benefit , i.e. higher wages, but money by itself doesn't improve your standard of living. It's just paper. The increased standard of living results from people exchanging their money for new products, which only exist because of the free market system. For example you wouldn't have a computer if there hadn't been an economical incentive for someone to develop it. This kind of development doesn't happen in "idle" societies.
tuntitommosille 1 year ago
@tuntitommosille ...was unfair in its economic structure. The Bolsheviks destroyed workers and labours unions when they came into power, and quelled any chance of equality the Russian workers had in managing their own means of production. Furthermore, the so called communist regime relied on a form of state capitalism to function which differed from the system of the West, but was hugely unfair at the same time.
MyMelancholyDodo 1 year ago
@tuntitommosille - and i also agree that these ideas are far fetched and detatched from 'current' reality. But just because we have used this system for so long that does not mean that it is the only system possible.
Think how many more great works of art and literature there would be if this imagined reality were true. We may even have concrete cures for things like cancer if more people had time to learn and think and research, instead of carrying out labour tasks just to afford to exist.
tombeast17 1 year ago 4
where is that excerpt from?
Muphlon 2 years ago
I put a link to the text in the video description. I just noticed that it's gone dead, so I've updated it (see: the whywork . org link).
vktrsx 2 years ago
thanks.
Muphlon 2 years ago
great post !
we need more time.
alovelytime 3 years ago
though after about 3 months with no work i could use some employment.
bank robbery is fun but lookin over my shoulder all the time sucks.
alovelytime 3 years ago 10
Haha! Your secret is safe with me. ;-)
vktrsx 3 years ago