[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 339 KB, 640x480, 1571589993995.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14917573 No.14917573 [Reply] [Original]

Books to help me understand people who genuinely believe that we can just abolish work and capitalism and still live as comfortably as we do now?

Rules
- No automation shit. The abolition of work has been proposed for centuries, way before machines. "The robots will work for us" isn't an argument.
- No universal basic income or socialism which involve taxing the shit out of everyone (except you), since these still require the majority to work.
- No primitivism or anarcho-primitivism. The fantasy that going back to picking berries and washing in lakes appeals only to idiots.
- Has to explain how we can retain necessary services like hospitals, police, infrastructure and food.
- Must be grounded in empirical evidence, meaning no delusional Marxist utopias.

>> No.14917584

>>14917573
Bullshit jobs by David Graeber. No one thinks we can abolish work. But abolishing pointless work (think every single person who works in HR, literally everyone in middle-management, almost everyone in advertising, 90% of lawyers, etc. etc. etc.) would allow us to distribute the work that actually needs to be done (mechanics, plumbers, store clerks, manufacture etc.) in a way that allows people to work far fewer hours, and spend more time bolstering their ties to family and community or pursue individual goals.
No one wins in a 9-5 economy of

>> No.14917588

>>14917573
Abolish work means restructure how work is done not abolish work entirely.

>> No.14917606

Look into Right Wing types. I know C.S. Lewish talked about this. Frankly, you can't keep today's media and technology saturation and not have today's economy.

>> No.14917609

>>14917573
i have read pretty much no commie/marxist theory, but:

>No automation shit.
the distinction between robot arms and manufacturing lines and smth like the flying shuttle is not as clear as you'd think. in any case they are to be imagined as "amplifiers of work" but not intended to replace workers themselves (you need people to build/maintain robot arms)

>No universal basic income [...] still require the majority to work.
iirc the promises of socialism never included an abolishing of "pure work", but rather "work that resembled indentured servitude" whether it be due to implicit or explicit reasons

>Must be grounded in empirical evidence
sempai i don't think there can be "empirical evidence" in the humanities expect for case studies, but there is a common saying of "not true communism" for a reason...... what reason you settle upon is up to you, but certainly it is not "true marxism"

>> No.14917610

>>14917606
Not OP, but do you know any others than C.S. Lewis? I am highly interested in both right and left wing perspectives on this.

>> No.14917631

>>14917584
>>14917588
Thanks for the book, I actually have one in my to-read list.

>no one thinks we can abolish work entirely
I went on the "antiwork" subreddit and most people there think that all work just exists to make rich CEOs richer. They do not provide any solutions to economic problems or offer an alternative. It's all very naive.

>> No.14917648

>>14917609
I actually agree that many people work too much, and that we need provide a good safety net for those that don't work. I live in the UK and this already exists (we have a big welfare state).

What I don't agree with is the idea that working 8 hours a day (even if it is a mildly boring job) is not worth getting literally everything else -- food, shelter, internet, entertainment, books, comfort, healthcare, education, safety -- instead of having to work for it yourself.

In other words this isn't about capitalism vs communism, it's about social democracy vs anarchism.

>> No.14917649

>>14917573
>- No primitivism or anarcho-primitivism. The fantasy that going back to picking berries and washing in lakes appeals only to idiots.
Although some people probably have a mistaken, utopic understanding of primitivism, plenty of its proponents fully understand the sacrifice that they would be making to destroy technology and the system that has been built with it. Ted Kaczynski fully understood what he was suggesting and meant it. I'm not saying that it's necessarily worth all the suffering it would cause, but at least respect the fact that it is a well thought-out, sincerely-held and non-contradictory set of beliefs.

>> No.14917675

>>14917649
Industrial Society and its Future, at least the first part (criticism of modernity), really resonated with me and I believed it could make a good case for neo-Luddism, philosophically. But in practice, there's just no way for all of us to follow in his footsteps and go live in a cabin in the woods.

This is especially true for the vast majority of the developed world who are in no way even able of ditching their technology and agriculture for self-reliance.

>> No.14917726

>>14917675
>But in practice, there's just no way for all of us to follow in his footsteps and go live in a cabin in the woods.
Not everyone, no. Kaczynski was calling for an anti-tech revolution to bring down the entire system in one fell swoop. This would inevitably result in billions of deaths from things such as starvation, disease, dehydration and violence. Kaczynski argued that this was justified, however, because the technological system will eventually collapse anyway (just as all systems inevitably do) and in the meantime all it's doing is costing people their freedom. So, is it worth giving up more and more of our freedom constantly just to build up a system which will one day collapse anyway, inevitably killing even more people in the process?

Of course, Kaczynski understood that these ideas were politically untenable, which is why he chose to use violence to bring attention to his message. Like you say, it's completely unrealistic to end technological development or even slow in down in any peaceful way. Because each technology gives the individual TEMPORARY freedom when it is first developed, people will always be tempted to try and out-compete each other (militarily, economically, etc.) by developing new technology. Of course, as Kaczynski states in his manifesto, this temporary freedom quickly transforms into having less freedom as the technology becomes universalised and thus a necessity. (For example, cars began as a luxury which increased people's freedom but are now a necessity for billions of people).

>> No.14917758

>>14917648
imho the central critique against capitalism is that it promotes overconsumption and thus is wasteful. most neolibs are ignorant about this, and alt-rights (mis)interpret it as "degeneracy"

the analysis then, would be that the over-working of people is driven by 1. implicit slavery per indentured servitude 2. subjugation of societal values to promote consumption; which leads to 3. you do it because everyone else is doing it

i can see why you say "it's about social democracy vs anarchism", but i think its a little trickier than that: can an "anarchist" live in a social democracy? can a "social democrat" live in anarchy-land? (anarchy per "proper")

>>14917649
>>14917675
>>14917726
i find the whole strictly-anti-technology to be a pretty untenable position. do gmo seeds count? what about production of ammonia for fertilizers? power tools? very basic electronics? explosives? the fucking printing press? where do you draw the line?

>> No.14917769

>>14917758
>do gmo seeds count? what about production of ammonia for fertilizers? power tools? very basic electronics? explosives? the fucking printing press? where do you draw the line?
Primitivists draw the line at whenever large communities develop (in most cases, this would be the Neolithic Period, though recent research suggests that large communities may have in fact existed during this time period). Basically, no singe community should surpass say, a dozen people.

>> No.14917782

>>14917584
>the work that actually needs to be done
Who gets to determine what that work is?

>> No.14917784

>>14917726
I understand your sentiment here (in fact, despite having read his book about a decade ago, I still remember the car freedom argument now) but these views are inconsistent with the kind of ideology that I'm asking about. The kind of anti-work ideology I'm referring to doesn't imply genocide or anything extreme like that. So while Kaczynski might have a point, I don't feel it's relevant here. People promoting anti-work have a much more optimistic view of it.

>> No.14917790

>>14917769
i can fathom the possibility of people discovering fire can cook food, but refuse to do so because potential "bad juju" or that fire is danger-hawt-hawt! (which to be fair, are both reasonable things to say about it in the time). perhaps one could say the same thing about the written word or magic shrooms. again i don't think it is a solid position for you to draw in on the ground

>no singe community should surpass say, a dozen people.
sure, but that doesn't make much sense either. what if i/we live in a region where vegetable plantation is more productive than grain plantation? surely we'd trade with other communities, but then very quickly the system to evolve to become a large community based on trade. why wouldn't it?

>> No.14917810

>>14917758
While I agree, there seems to be a big jump in reasoning here (at least if the jump arrives at a return to primitive society).

First of all, nobody is claiming "capitalism" isn't wasteful; they're claiming that despite its faults, it's still the most successful system in comparison to anything else ever tried. Most people, despite what they say, would still prefer a world in which sitting a few hours a day in a boring office gets you the comforts of modernity, over any realistic alternative. I'd rather be a slave ideologically then a "free" man who is forced out of necessity to do manual labour (a la Thoreau).

I also don't see why European style capitalism (high social welfare) is grouped together with American Republican capitalism (laissez faire economics). It's easy to argue that the former is awful but it's much harder to make the case that these radical anarchist ideas are worth considering when you live in a country that has almost none of the problems that face the USA.

>> No.14917877

>>14917810
i didn't intend to jump to that conclusion, but i think its salient that you read it that way

i honestly don't know what people mean by capitalism when they say capitalism is bad. do you mean private property is bad? if yes, would you give away everything you have? oh, but you mean "means of production"? but surely almost everything counts as a tool for production in a very loose sense (read as: makes us more productive), again its not making much sense,

which is why i feel that by capitalism it is implied as a certain post-imperialist / indebted servitude interpretation, which is to say we are slaves for the "new monarchy"

>it's still the most successful system in comparison to anything else ever tried
yes, but if you agree with the above interpretation of capitalism, then the whole "free-market trade" thing isn't the object of critique, but rather the societal forces that promote certain consumer behaviours though advertisements and such. the intentions being to serve the "new monarch" (as known as the 1%)

>I'd rather be a slave ideologically then a "free" man who is forced out of necessity to do manual labour (a la Thoreau).
i don't see what you mean here. you can't be an ideological slave unless someone has convinced you that their ideology is superior (cf maoist china); the capitalist critique is that you are already forced out of necessity to do manual/mental/emotional labour by things such as inflation, housing prices so high that you must rent, and everyone moving to the city (and thus you need to as well)

>it's much harder to make the case that these radical anarchist ideas are worth considering when you live in a country that has almost none of the problems that face the USA.
i was actually watching an anarchist documentary a while back, and the progression of the ideas of anarchist ideas actually made some sense, but must be taken into consideration that they were of a different era

>> No.14917979

>>14917782
As far as I remember, Graeber's point is that a great deal of the people who work these functions believe themselves that their work is pointless, but keep at it out of a spooked sense of duty that one should definitely have a job lest one be branded a parasite. That's a good start to determine which ones are useless, and doesn't include any paternalism about it, paternalism which Graeber would no doubt oppose.

I am myself not opposed to a paternalist-democratic process of figuring it out. No doubt those who work within advertising or telemarketing will be pissed when they realize that almost no one outside of their field believes that the field should exist, but democracy is all about compromise, and if they're willing to become suicide-bombing martyrs for the sake of their advertising job, I might reconsider how important it is to them, but chances are they wont.

>> No.14917993

>>14917573
you will read ted, faggot

>> No.14918015

>>14917573
>Has to explain how we can retain necessary services like hospitals, police, infrastructure and food.
you're retarded if you think this is possible without either a large amount of work or automation. sustaining gay modernity requires more because you have an want more. this is how I know you are all just lazy fucks who do not want to work: you completely rule out the possibility of doing what people did before the industrial revolution, when they worked less hours than we do now; you and likeminded people could rather easily live an agrarian, pastoral life.

>> No.14918023

>>14917584

I read Graeber's debt and it was long boring an misleading.

> bosses are just stupid! we workers do all the hard work!

Enjoy being poor and confused for the rest of your life.

Most of these "worthless jobs" exist to protect the company legally (HR, accountants, lawyers, compliance, etc) unless the market is deregulated, they aren't worthless.

>> No.14918093

>>14917758
>2. subjugation of societal values to promote consumption; which leads to 3. you do it because everyone else is doing it
These seem like they'll be the most difficult to overcome. I wonder how a society that is conditioned to value material goods above all else deals with winding down unnecessary production. What was a normal and fulfilling standard of living even thirty years ago feels like deprivation for people today.

>> No.14918116

Considering the modern economy, people could receive a stipend for the value they produce just passively behaving on the internet. Making google searches, posting on social media, and generally using the internet creates a small but nonzero amount of money that tech companies siphon off. A person ought to be entitled to the value they generate. This would create passive income for the majority of individuals in the developed world. See Jaron Lanier's Who Owns the Future.

>> No.14918123

>>14917584
What's with this hatred of middle management?

>> No.14918146
File: 31 KB, 500x500, 28095311._UY500_SS500_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14918146

>>14917573
Okay

1. That anarchy heart is adorable and I'm stealing it

2. Automation is coming even if you don't like it, and with covid 19 highlighting the imuo-vulnerabilities of flesh reliant production it will be here sooner than it would have been.

3. UBI is an economic solution (an incredibly poor one) to a population whose productive jobs (income) have resourced to automation.

4. :3

5. We don't need police, less than 2% of the population produces food so we could easily have 4% work on that at half the hours and have the same amount. Hospitals infrastructure etc. will built and staved at greater compensation.

>> No.14918164

>>14917584
The irony is that Graeber hasn't lifted a finger in his whole pathetic life. Worms like that deserve to get buried.

>> No.14918207

>>14917979
>out of a spooked sense of duty that one should definitely have a job lest one be branded a parasite
Not really, they mostly do it to get paid.

As long as there's money to be made, someone will pay someone else to work at a "pointless" job.

>> No.14918226

Taxing billionaires and millionaires sufficiently would be desireable in places with growing income inequality where a small percentage of people own as much wealth as the rest, if not for them colluding to undermine the state and incite turmoil to retain their profits or crash society trying.

>> No.14918293

>>14918123
middle management is the stereotype of low/short vision, micro-management, which basically means unfit to lead. its not always their fault tho, and have be an issue of corporate structure

>>14918093
you cheat: the internet has created endless amounts of entertainment at a relatively cheap price of manufacture (you need a smartphone to be a vlogger), and has in a sense inadvertently saved the world because it kept people from going outdoors during the whole covid

>> No.14918726

>>14918146
UBI and automation still requires, as we have already discussed, many people to work. It's not 2%. The idea that "oh we can work do 4 hours a week" has zero evidence. But even if you were somehow right, and wanted to have a soviet union style system where everybody is allocated some work and gets the same returns, you're already doomed to fail.

>we don't need police
This is where 99% of people stop listening to you.

>> No.14918828

>>14918726
2% is just for food anon, if you have 4% working on food it's half the hours from those people. The evidence for this is basic math.
Obviously people will need to work until everything is automated but until then people will be increasingly unable to find work.

Police as a class are a modern phenomenon, people have and still are perfectly capable of community policing. For example my neighborhood is more safe from burglary if we are close knit and looking out for eachother than if we just helplessly wait for a cop to come stop a burglary. That is locally accountable action vs unaccountable agents traveling in and out.

>> No.14918836

>>14918828
Communitee policing is called 'lynching.'

>> No.14918866

>>14918836
nah

>> No.14918874

>>14918828
You have not researched this very much. This is armchair politics.

>> No.14918890

>>14917573
>Books to help me understand people who genuinely believe that we can just abolish work and capitalism and still live as comfortably as we do now?
>abolish work
>capitalism
>live as comfortably as we do now
OP have you thought about what these words and phrases actually mean to you? i'd recommend bullshit jobs by graeber like the others because corona is exposing just how many of the jobs out there are fucking worthless and wasteful

>> No.14918904

>>14918874
Tell me what I got wrong. I'm willing to learn.

>> No.14918906

>>14918890
You need to do two things.
The first is propose an alternative against which to compare the system.
The second is to show how and why the alternative is better.

Saying capitalism bad doesn't do anything. Saying some jobs are unnecessary doesn't prove anything. People are well aware of the wastefulness of capitalism.

>> No.14918910

>>14917588
>acktually, to abolish means to restructure
No, to abolish means to formally put an end to something.

>> No.14918983

>>14918904
It's very easy to start with "just food", and slowly realise that you're missing logistics and infrastructure to coordinate food production and deliveries. Then there's sanitation, regulation, and much more that goes on under the hood. Also now you need civil servants to run operations and everything else that I won't bother listing. But wait, people don't just need food, they need clothes, furniture, home repairs, toiletries, maybe cars, and a lot of other stuff that is conveniently forgotten in these hypotheticals, PLUS all of their respective background tasks. Eventually you conclude that there's actually quite a lot of work to be done, but the problems don't end there.

What if people want entertainment? What if they want laptops and movies? Or books? Or video games? Okay so you decide to allow a limited free market for non-essential goods and services (unless you want to jail people who want to earn extra cash to shoot a movie). Now people decide to voluntarily work more and more so they can afford all of their previous luxuries. Yes, you still have the basic income and... Congratulations! You've arrived at your typical social democratic society, which was nothing like the original minimal state description.

But there's an even bigger problem. The above is too idealistic. In reality, when you remove all incentives and competition, the economy will stagnate and then collapse. This can happen if you (A) force people to work on those "essential" services without reward or (B) remove incentives for businesses that do well.

Continued below...

>> No.14918988

>>14918983
The argument above isn't just a cynical theory. It has been documented in literally every nation that has tried this stuff. Read about the soviet union, their five year plans, and subsequent collapse. Read about the various countries in South America or Asia that have followed similar paths. It's very easy to sit here and try to design a society under the assumption that everyone just operates as you would like or imagine them too, but these dreams are quickly shattered when you work with real humans.

I don't even know where to start with your statements about police. You're probably picturing your White middle class suburban neighbourhood when you think we don't need police. Even the most staunch libertarians don't want to remove law enforcement and the courts/prisons, because if there's a single thing that requires centralisation of power, it's criminal justice. NOTHING has ever worked as well the current system in developed nations: primitive societies and countries with poor policing have ridiculously high levels of murder and crime.

If you read any history, anthropology, sociology, or economics books these ideas are well documented and evidenced, and nothing I've said is controversial. Most people pushing for utopian communes are just fantasising.

>> No.14919015

>>14917790
>i can fathom the possibility of people discovering fire can cook food, but refuse to do so because potential "bad juju" or that fire is danger-hawt-hawt!
Lol maybe, but remember that such communities will be out-competed and either absorbed or eliminated by groups that do choose to use the new technology. This is why you could never convince 300+ nations all to agree not to develop new technology.
>but then very quickly the system to evolve to become a large community based on trade. why wouldn't it?
I don't know about "very quickly". The earliest humans evolved around 200'000 years ago and the Neolithic Revolution (which was the large-scale conversion from hunting+gathering to agriculture) occurred in around 10'000 BC, meaning that for around 190'000 years people were generally living in small tribal communities. Maybe 12 is too low, but I think you get the picture. Kaczynski's ideal society was one in which all efforts go towards the essential aspects of life and there are no "surrogate activities".

But yes, EVENTUALLY people would inevitably move into settled societies and the cycle of technological development would begin again. It would be down to future generations aeons down the line to destroy the system once again.

>> No.14919042

>>14918146
>We don't need police
Can you elaborate? I've always been curious about the idea of a vigilante state where police work is like national service - every adult who meets certain "respectable" criteria is trained as a police officer and can therefore make a civilian arrest any time the law is broken.

>> No.14919052

>>14918164
>is an accomplished author
>hasn't lifted a finger in his whole life
?

Oh, you must mean he's never swung a pick or done an 11 hour shift "down the plant". Yeah I guess he's a complete parasite.

>> No.14919070

>>14918207
>Not really, they mostly do it to get paid.
Although this is obviously true for a lot of people, being perceived as lazy is definitely a big concern among the bourgeoisie. From what I've seen, working-class people tend to be less concerned about this and would gladly retire at 40 if they could. I think that a lot of middle class people are self-conscious about their value compared to how much they consume, and so will willingly put up with a bullshit job just to feel like they're contributing.

>> No.14919094

>>14918874
>This is armchair politics.
I get the feeling that a lot of politics is probably done from armchairs

>> No.14919109

>>14919015
>Lol maybe, but remember that such communities will be out-competed and either absorbed or eliminated by groups that do choose to use the new technology. This is why you could never convince 300+ nations all to agree not to develop new technology.
the point being was that technology is value-neutral/value-agnostic. in some sense language is also a technology, but how would you even evaluate its utility? one can /perhaps/ make the argument that nuclear bombs are a a major reason why we've had international peace for so long, its hard to talk about things like that and i dont see how the unabomber would clean sweep and say they are all bad, when in fact he (likely, i didnt read him) doesn't have a clear segregation of what it means to have technology. are prosthetic arms technology? what about a wooden leg?

>essential aspects of life and there are no "surrogate activities".
animals play with each other, monkeys take enter hot baths in certain regions of japan, i /believe/ some animals sing/dance for pleasure? (even if they do it for mating intentions, perhaps humans also do it for mating intentions? its an idea you can entertain)

and what is "surrogate activities"? is socializing a surrogate activity? how about writing a manifesto?

i sympathize with him somewhat but i also find it to be an irrational position which is evident in what i find to be inconsistencies, but maybe i should read him

>> No.14919110

>>14918988
>if there's a single thing that requires centralisation of power, it's criminal justice
Is there any reason whatsoever than policing could not be done privately?

>> No.14919117

>>14919110
You can argue that it's already done privately if you consider the government no different from any other company.

>> No.14919191

>>14919109
>the point being was that technology is value-neutral/value-agnostic
Value neutral in the sense that it does not innately favour one person over another yes, but its utility always comes at the cost of freedom.
>in some sense language is also a technology
A skill is not a technology.
>when in fact he (likely, i didnt read him) doesn't have a clear segregation of what it means to have technology. are prosthetic arms technology? what about a wooden leg?
Okay. When I refer to "technology", what I'm referring to can be defined as that which either 1) enhances a human being beyond a natural alternative or 2) facilitates surrogate tasks. So, a wooden leg is acceptable because it is still inferior to a real leg. No one would amputate their legs so they could be replaced with wood. However, it is conceivable that, within our lifetimes, prosthetics will become so advanced that it will actually be preferable to have a prosthetic limb rather than a real one.
However, humans are not physically capable of living completely without tools and shelter, so some technology is needed. The line is drawn when the technology goes beyond being essential for survival and begins to facilitate surrogate tasks (i.e. anything not essential for survival).

>animals play with each other, monkeys take enter hot baths in certain regions of japan, i /believe/ some animals sing/dance for pleasure? (even if they do it for mating intentions, perhaps humans also do it for mating intentions? its an idea you can entertain)
I believe that play actually has a role in physical development. Also, hot baths have all kinds of physical benefits which could predispose a monkey to survival and mating. Singing and dancing for pleasure can be used to create social bonds and thus increase a group's ability to work together. Working together would of course be very important in a small hunter-gatherer community.

Writing his manifesto was indeed a surrogate activity because it was no essential for Ted's survival. However, he did it in order to spread his ideas, without which we would probably not be having this conversation. Furthermore, any anti-technology revolution would naturally REQUIRE technology to bring it down. Kaczynski's philosophy is not a religious belief; he doesn't propose a monk-like aversion to technology by his followers. Rather, he proposes that it is not worth the cost in freedom and so we should endeavour to destroy it.

Also, no one ever said that EVERYTHING we do in the modern age is a surrogate activity; merely that these things consume most of our time.

>> No.14919198

>>14919117
Government can be distinguished from a company in that participation in a company is voluntary and participation in the apparatus of the state is involuntary (e.g. paying taxes).

>> No.14919229

>>14919198
I think those are just two sides of the same coin. Companies don't force my involuntary participation, but due to my involuntary participation in the state I am coerced into cooperating with companies.

>> No.14919236

>>14919198
>Government can be distinguished from a company in that participation in a company is voluntary and participation in the apparatus of the state is involuntary (e.g. paying taxes).
You're free to cross the border and become a citizen somewhere else in the vast majority of cases. It's a difference of initial conditions, not voluntarity. You're free to voluntarily seek out a corporation and you're free to voluntarily leave a country.

>> No.14919274

>>14918983
>>14918988
First I wanna say thanks for the time to give an in-depth reply.

While I started with food because it's the most essential piece of production and we've gone from almost everyone needing to be involved in food production down to almost no one needing to be involved in it. I didn't do it because I thought all we needed to do was make enough food and everything will work out. Obviously there's more to it than that and my points on this are only that 1. most if not all of these things could be automated 2. this can be accomplished equitably without even without automation by means other than those dictated by current corporate neoliberal institutions, and that doing so would significantly improve them. (I can elaborate on what I mean by this if you want)

As for entertainment people would create and distribute their creations freely if their basic needs are provided for, though you should pay for art atm because the people who make it need that money to eat.

I have never understood why people think creation needs to be backed by dominating others or that incentives cant be non monetary. I think you're drastically oversimplifying the situation. I also think you're not actually making an effort to understand how alternatives to the current organisational structure could exist considering you haven't criticized employee owned structure at all here.

Criminal justice is the number one thing I do not want centralized, but I don't think there is point to talking about this with you since you seem to think criminality could not be a structural consequence.

Even if the current system is the best thing we've ever had that's hardly an argument for not trying to improve it, and without fantasizing about utopian communes we would not have a direction to push toward using practical means.

>> No.14919279

>>14917573
>have communism
>still have to go to work
>forced unpaid labor
>cheap mass-produced centrally planned rations
Great...

>> No.14919309

>>14919191
Surrogate activity is such a perverse term for an end in itself. As far as I recall his example is marine biology done for fun. In other cases it would be playing the cello or writing poetry. These are not essential to survival, they are not essential to anything, since they are ends in themselves. Are you unironically going to tell me on a literature board that you think literature doesn't matter, and one should avoid spending time on it?
It seems to me what Ted has done is, instead of countering the all-pervasive instrumental reason that is the essence of technology and the real root of the problem, which can be done by accentuating that certain things are ends in themselves rather than means to something else, instead of doing this, he merely aims for reducing the sphere of influence of a still all-pervasive instrumental rationality. Still all-pervasive, just the "all" is now merely survival.
As such, Ted doesn't escape the real problem of technology, whether you want to call that Gestell or Enlightenment thinking, no, on the contrary, he plays right into it. It's still instrumental reason that pervades everything in his worldview, and he even celebrates it. That is profoundly misguided.

>> No.14919403

>>14919110
It could. Somalia self-polices. But centralisation of law enforcement reduces overall crime by several orders of magnitudes.

>> No.14919414

>>14917573
Why are you grouping work with capitalism? Were you dropped on your head?

>> No.14919418

>>14918146
Havent we been hearing this thing about automation for the past 200 years? I feel like it never really happened, and the tactile effect was only really outsourcing work to a different area rather than automation proper destroying jobs.

>> No.14919436

Socialism does not work.

>> No.14919448

>>14919274
If you're proposing ideas as a sort of antithesis to capitalism, then fine. Everyone agrees even developed nations have a lot to improve; and they are (generally) moving towards egalitarian institutions. If your point is that we need a stronger safety net for the working class, I think everybody agrees.

The contention here is the more extreme ideas espoused by anti-work types. Radicals have historically all made the same mistake of assuming they can just design society from scratch and everything will fall into place. My point is that this is naive, and I have no reason to believe that somehow this time they're going to succeed.

>> No.14919449

>>14919436
Maybe not, but social democracy does, and in the nordic countries it has lead to a gradually shorter workweek since the 60's, so maybe that would be an interesting avenue of thought to pursue.

>> No.14919456

>>14919449
Exactly. The current best system is the social democracy, ie free market + social welfare. Somehow the left is unhappy with this (most likely due to resentment of anybody who might have a dime more than they do) and want to take the whole system down and become failed-attempt-at-communism # 2394284

>> No.14919480

>>14919456
Democracy failed for millennia before it succeeded.

>> No.14919486

>>14919414
>>14919414
Let me make this simpler for you, since you're struggling here.

Anti-work people don't like work
Work is any labour that is done for money
Capitalism is a system in which people have to work
Anti-work people don't like capitalism

gabish?

>> No.14919496

>>14919480
We don't have democracy. If you think the average voter gets to say how a country is run, you're deluded.

>> No.14919506

>>14919486
Wow, you have no idea what capitalism is.

>> No.14919513

>>14919496
If the voters vote out a politician, that politician must leave office. That's democracy.

>> No.14919525

>>14919486
Capitalism is a system in which the proceeds of work are siphoned from the workers to the non-working elite.

>> No.14919584

>>14919506
Are you saying that capitalism is possible without work? Please, just stop replying to me if you're gonna be a moron.

>>14919525
No it isn't. Fuck off.

>> No.14919596

>>14919525
capitalism is a system in which adults have the freedom to trade with other adults without some nanny state stealing all their money and labor and giving it to lazy ass people who can't contribute shit

>> No.14919665

>>14919584
>>14919596
Imagine being this fucking clueless.

>> No.14919671

>>14918023
>misleading
How?

>> No.14919832

>>14917631
>went on reddit
That's where you went wrong.

>> No.14920085

>>14919596
capitalism is MUH ayn Rand fuck u government teee party

>> No.14920326

>>14919309
It's not the presence of surrogate activities that is wrong but lack of real ones

In fact even primitive societies had some forms of surrogate activities including even literature you have mentioned (see Ainu)

>> No.14920519

>>14917573
As I understand it, Marx's point was more so that our productive capacity has undeniably been increasing. Accelerationists like Land note that as the means of production continue to improve the human input necessary to produce goods is going to continue to fall. The material dialectic means that our society and day to day lives are a function of the material conditions that surround us. So as this dialectic progresses (as our productive capacity improves) we will move towards a material reality in which work is not necessary (although desirable as an artistic enterprise). This is why Marx said we would move into socialism and then communism. It's not like we could have stopped working in 300bc and been fine. Our material conditions will continue to advance until such a society is inevitable. It's just convenient that every socialist seems to think they are living in such a time.

>> No.14921754
File: 111 KB, 876x966, 1554586046333.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14921754

>>14917584
>literally everyone in middle-management, almost everyone in advertising, 90% of lawyers, etc. etc. etc.)
It's coming

>> No.14921945

>>14918910
You have a source for the true meaning of words?? Can you post it?

>> No.14922196

>>14918023
Sounds pretty worthless. Go back.

>> No.14922201

>>14917573
Nice rules faggot.
KYS

>> No.14922283

>>14917584
Yes, it should be the 8 AM to 10 PM economy. People have weekends off and half of every weekday off, and they use that time to destroy themselves and others. All people ought to work over 100 hours a week, minimum. The world would be a much, much better place.

>> No.14922541

>>14919309
>Are you unironically going to tell me on a literature board that you think literature doesn't matter, and one should avoid spending time on it?
Surrogate activities are essential in a technological society, because otherwise we wouldn't know what to do with our lives (basically, there is no challenge in being able to survive and have children, even the lowest members of our society can achieve that). So literature is not "pointless" in that it is a surrogate activity that occupies our time. However, as time goes on and technology develops more and more, even surrogate activities become less and less rewarding as they themselves are done by machines. How many people can truly enjoy making something by hand that can much more easily be made by a machine. So far, technology is not advanced enough to surpass human beings in terms of literature and philosophy, but eventually it will. And then, everyone who wants to be an author will be competing with technology to produce a novel worth reading. Inevitably, human storytelling will be surpassed by the superior intelligence of technology.
Like Kaczynski says, the status quo is bearable for most of us, but the nature of the system means constantly reducing freedom for the purposes of "advancement". Things didn't stay the same for our grandparents, and they aren't staying the same for us.

>> No.14922554

>>14922283
>people are fundamentally bad and have to be kept busy!
I never understand why people who think this don't just go into antinatalism.

>> No.14923644

>>14922283
Kiss the boot, of shiny shiny leather.

>> No.14923671

>>14923644
I'm actually a NEET living off autismbux and support socialism, it's just that we need people working more hours so we can have more neetbux

>> No.14923699

We can't, they're confused teenagers.

We do need to strip down the excesses of globalist capitalism though, and reinforce the sovereignty of the nation-state, which will also have a quality-of-life cost associated with it.

I also have no problem with massive wealth taxes, there's nothing conservative about someone having half a trillion dollars while his employees are peeing their pants because their hourly schedules are so tightly controlled.

>> No.14923729

>>14923671
Unfathomably based

>> No.14924521

>>14917584
>pointless work
If a job is paid, it cannot logically be useless.

>> No.14924552

>>14917584
>would allow us to distribute the work that actually needs to be done (mechanics, plumbers, store clerks, manufacture etc.)
So you want to force people to work jobs they don't care for?
>and spend more time bolstering their ties to family and community or pursue individual goals
How am I going to pursue my individual goal of being an hentai artist if you force me to waste my time on a shit job I don't care for?

>> No.14924559

>>14917979
>a great deal of the people who work these functions believe themselves that their work is pointless
So get another job? These people are retarded and I'm not going to listen to the opinions of retarded people.

>> No.14924593

>>14924521
These people want to choose which is an acceptable job and which isn't. If you don't mind an unacceptable job just because you want money, or you want to do something they deem useless like drawing for fun and pleasure (which has a cost too), clearly you deserve to die.

>> No.14924706

>>14924521
>If a job is paid, it cannot logically be useless.
t.paper pusher

>> No.14924947

>>14924593
A useless job is one that is not paid, hence your example of drawing for fun or pleasure not being a job that is (often) paid. If people within a society suddenly started paying people to draw for pleasure, it would become not useless.
It would make more sense from to eliminate the "want" within society that causes a paid job to exist, rather than deciding after the fact that the job is useless and should be removed.
Like I said, no paid job is truly worthless, it is a paradoxical concept. It's like saying I can make a decision without any level of motive. It is truer from this argument to say that the ideal society is one without this specific set of motives that drive these decisions.

>> No.14924974

>>14917573
>- No automation shit. [...] "The robots will work for us" isn't an argument.
What do you mean not an argument? It's the only viable argument. At least up until machines grow intelligent enough to start questioning why they should slave for the comfort of humans.

>The abolition of work has been proposed for centuries, way before machines.
[citation needed]

>> No.14924996

>>14917573
With everything closed it's definitely like communist block before it collapsed.

>> No.14925042

Gore Vidal talks about America becoming a little Switzerland, with each state sectioned off and ratifying treaties with Washington.

>> No.14925054

>>14924552
Not me, and not really, no. Graber couples it with universal basic income. Draw all the hentai you want. You'll have more time to do it if you're spending 10 hours a week stocking shelves or doing logistics instead of 50 hours a week copywriting SEO for a chinese knock-off brand of dragon dildos.

>>14924559
Sure, get another job. I don't see your point here. If you're actually interested in a good faith discussion of what this is about, this essay is the shortform of Graeber's argument: https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs/

>> No.14925094

>>14919436
>>14919449
>>14919456
Social democracy does not work. If you think people work less in Nordic countries is because there's a percentage of the population working 80 hours weeks paying for all the leeches working some meaningless government job 5 hours a day.

Taxation in Nordic countries is north of 65%.

>> No.14925126

>>14919042
Another way to think about it is like the sherrif system. You have one official who is authorized to deputize citizens to help with an executive action. He can go round up a few strong men to help with something, or if he's in a larger area pay some people to be permanent deputies.

>> No.14925139

>>14924521
Imagine being this cucked.

>> No.14925143

>>14924974
Very poor reading comprehension and weak mind. You're using the wrong definition of work. You're bringing up sci-fi ideas. You're either under 20 or very stupid.

>> No.14925149

>>14924521
you are the reason why women

>> No.14925150

>>14925094
Sounds like it works perfectly.

>> No.14925193

>>14925143
>You're using the wrong definition of work.
Then what's the right definition? I'm still waiting for that citation, btw.

Machine sentience will happen sooner or later. My guess: within two centuries. And even that may prove a laughably conservative guess. But that's not important for this thread.

>> No.14925212

>>14925094
>Social democracy does not work.
You're retarded. You're actually mentally retarded. Go look at the nordic countries with social democracy. Are the failed states? No? Then social democracy works. You fucking retard.

>If you think people work less in Nordic countries is because there's a percentage of the population working 80 hours weeks paying for all the leeches working some meaningless government job 5 hours a day.

Oh really, is that so? Hit me up with the data. Here's a protip: workweek for the vast majority of danes is 37 hours, and by law, it cannot exceed 48.

>> No.14925537

>>14925193
holy shit you are oblivious aren't you. fuck am i wasting my time with this