Sunday, June 28, 2015

At some point in the history of wage labor it was determined that work is

     Believe it or not, not every person you know works a job that he or she loves, let alone even likes. For those of you who work your ideal job, are who you wanted to be and look at labor as your passion this post is not for you. This post is for all of us who feel over worked, underpaid, while performing tasks that only serve to perpetuate our existence. These job positions usually put us into hand to mouth lifestyles, living for the two days off a week (if we can even afford not to work a second job on those days)

- Every time we punch the clock we perpetuate the wage and class system that many of us feel is life-stealing and inadequate.

- we do not have a duty to wage labor.

- Why do we work? Why do we believe this is the only way to organize our society? A close examination of history will expose key and gigantic differences in the ways our means of production were organized before the industrial revolution.


- A huge conundrum we experience is that many of us do not have the time to take care of ourselves without wasting money on over priced meals and stimulants (coffee). We are so short on time from working, commuting and keeping up with non-nonsensical manufactured domestic trivialities that we rarely have the time to cook, and engage in the forgotten amount of self care we need to live healthy and balanced lifestyles.

- It should not be considered an act of laziness to seek balance in our lives.

" Are people working so many hours because we’ve just somehow independently conceived this desire for lattes and Panini and dog-walkers and the like, or is it that people are grabbing food and coffee on the go and hiring people to walk their dogs because they’re all working so much?"

"They had to pretend it was a problem, “the problem of absenteeism,” or whatever, because of course work was considered the ultimate moral virtue. They couldn’t take credit for the great social benefit they actually provided. Which is, incidentally, the reason that workers in socialist countries had no idea what they were getting into when they accepted the idea of introducing capitalist-style work discipline. “What, we have to ask permission to go to the bathroom?” It seemed just as totalitarian to them as accepting a Soviet-style police state would have been to us."It creates discipline, maturity, or some such, and anyone who doesn’t work most of the time at something they don’t enjoy is a bad person, lazy, dangerous, parasitical. So work is valuable whether or not it produces anything of value. So we have this peculiar switch. As anyone who’s ever had a 9-to-5 job knows, the thing everyone hates the most is having to look busy, even once you’ve finished a job, just to make the boss happy, because it’s “his time” and you have no business lounging around even if there’s nothing you really need to be doing.A labor movement that manages to finally ditch all traces of the ideology that says that work is a value in itself, but rather redefines labor as caring for other people.

Socialists wanted to go beyond capitalism to an altogether different system, one that fundamentally rejected the basic division between employers and employees.
The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s).if 1% of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, what we call “the market” reflects what they think is useful or important, not anybody else.This is a profound psychological violence here. How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labour when one secretly feels one’s job should not exist? How can it not create a sense of deep rage and resentment. Yet it is the peculiar genius of our society that its rulers have figured out a way, as in the case of the fish-fryers, to ensure that rage is directed precisely against those who actually do get to do meaningful work. For instance: in our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.  Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear? Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it’s obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic. A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish. (Many suspect it might markedly improve.) Yet apart from a handful of well-touted exceptions (doctors), the rule holds surprisingly well.

No comments:

Post a Comment