From: "Jamal Hannah" <bdurruti-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: AUT: The Abolition of Work and Other Myths, by Neala Schleuning
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 14:12:45 PST


Taken from: http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/aow.html
---

                    The Abolition of Work and Other Myths

                             by Neala Schleuning

This article originally appeared in issue #35 (Summer, 1995) of Kick It 
Over
                               P.O. Box 5811
                                 Station A
                          Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                                  M5W 1P2

                          -------------------------

Okay. So we all hate work. Aversion to work seems to be endemic across
cultures and across time. In many cultures visions of freedom from work
abound. The carefree life of the grasshopper who consumes without 
storing up
goods for the winter continues to appeal to us, and the life of the 
dull,
pedestrian worker ant attracts our scorn. In both ancient times and
contemporary culture both, the potential of the machine to lighten our 
work
has also proved fascinating. The epic poem of the Finnish people, the
Kalevala, for example, includes a story of a marvelous machine, the 
Sampo,
that endlessly produces wealth. Throughout the history of western 
cultures,
such perpetual motion machines have held a continuing fascination.

Despite these delightful fantasies of leisure, infinite pleasure and 
wealth,
all cultures have also addressed the need for the individual to work. To
live is to work and much of life is spent in economic activity. Whether 
work
is seen as the means to achieving some spiritual height or individual
salvation, or as a curse for previous transgressions, all the great
religions of the world, for example, admonish the slacker, and some 
raise
work to the level of a first principle. Most political thought also 
either
assumes the value of work, or requires it, for the collective good. 
Basic
survival is, of course, a given when we think about the necessity for 
work.

Almost from its inception, anarchist thought has also reflected two 
diverse
philosophies of work: one school calls for the abolition of work, the 
other
assumes the necessity of labour. For the latter school, the central
political question turns on who controls the process of work and its
products or outcome. Anarchists are also split on the relative merits of
technology, arguing for one of three alternatives: an unabashed 
acceptance
of technological advance at the service of the worker; a primitivist 
call to
return to nature totally free of technology; or an aggressive Luddite
hostility technology and the rule of the machine. I would like to 
briefly
explore several of these positions.

The abolition of work argument can take one of several tracks: a 
critique of
the mind-numbing work created by the division of labour; a rejection of
technology and a return to a simpler lifestyle free of the constraints 
of
centralized control by capital and the machine; an appropriation of the
"boss's" time for personal work; or an outright refusal to work and the
personal appropriation of the work of others through squatting, 
stealing,
etc. There are serious problems with some of the arguments for the 
abolition
of work. At best, they are misguided and silly. At their worst, they are
counterproductive to the life of the community and just plain 
irresponsible.

1) The idea of not working is nice, but unrealistic and simplistic. If 
the
critique of what we have come to call "work" is meant to encourage
resistance to exploitation by the wage labour system, the objective is a
good one. But along with the critique must come a responsible plan for
getting the long term work of the society accomplished.

2) The refusal to work is arrogant, and probably also a bit childlike. 
It is
certainly individualistic and self-serving. May I risk an observation 
that
this philosophy is probably especially appealing to the young and strong 
and
healthy who have no responsibilities (or who think they have no
responsibilities) for the care of others. Some abolition of work 
arguments
are grounded in the ideology of a personal, individual work ethic rather
than a social ethic, e.g., I have no responsibility to anyone but 
myself.

3) Demanding the right to be lazy or refusing to work is a position of
resistance only. It is precious in its self-centeredness, and basically
socially irresponsible. Like many things in fragmented contemporary 
culture,
rather than being a liberatory position it is instead symbolic of how
powerless people feel. "Dropping out" is basically a statement of 
political
despair, and is a modern nihilist response which unfortunately quite
effectively removes the individual from the political arena (assuming 
the
classical definition of politics as a collective act). Dropping, out is 
also
an individualistic act which is a very ineffective political tool.
Individualism is at once a strength and a weakness of political 
activism.
One of the primary dangers is that all the problems of modern
individualistic culture can be reduced (as is our consumption) to 
individual
choice and/or blame. For example, our skies are filled with pollution, 
but
instead of going after the polluters, we challenge each other 
individually
about our smoking habits; when wages are reduced or jobs are eliminated 
to
create more profit for the corporation, we turn on each other and the 
work
environment becomes a battleground pitting one individual against 
another;
our work is dull and boring, so we solve the problem by individually
dropping out. What we should demand instead is control of polluters, and 
the
right to control and define our work. To demand to be lazy is only to 
remove
oneself from an unpleasant situation. It does not empower that 
individual.
It is a politics born, probably, of a luxury society where a few who are 
not
locked into the "system" can stand outside and make fun of the rest of 
us.

4) Going back to nature to live at survival levels might work, but only 
in a
southern climate, with a controlled population in an ecologically 
balanced
regional biosphere and an environment producing enough food for 
foraging.
Those of us living in northern climates have to do a lot of work to 
survive.

5) Another argument promising freedom from work is implicit in our 
modern
culture, and while it isn't necessarily an anarchist argument, it seems
implicit in some of the critiques of work, i.e., we don't have to work
because technology will save us, and the machines will do it all for us.
This belief underlies both Capitalist and Marxist agendas, and while it 
is
not explicit in anarchist arguments (which tend to generally be 
suspicious
of technology and its attendant centralized control), the implicit
assumption is that we can entertain a life of leisure because we need to
work fewer, or no, hours to achieve the same production levels. The idea 
of
no work is just an extension of the demand for a 4 hour day, in this
argument.

Paul LaFargue's 19th century call for the right to be lazy and Bob 
Black's
recent exhortations notwithstanding, it seems that, work is with us, and
shall be with us, even if we remain committed to a high level of
technological development. By its very nature, work requires a long 
term,
commitment. Much of the work to be done in any society is not a matter 
of
choice. And much work will certainly not be exciting, or necessarily
creative. The soiled diapers of the child must be changed; seeds must be
planted and tended, the food gathered, stored in a variety of ways,
prepared, and cooked (in northern climates moreso); fuel and shelter 
must be
arranged for cooling and warmth; children must be tended, people must be
healed, clothed. In much of the world, most of this work is done by 
women.
For peoples who live outside the wage system especially, work - hand 
work -
is the norm for survival. In fact, the price of freedom from industrial 
wage
slavery is most likely more work rather than less. Moreover, if we 
remain
committed to our modern, centralized, urban/industrial societies, at 
minimum
a vast infrastructure must be maintained and work must remain highly
coordinated and specialized. Streets and sidewalks must be repaired, 
garbage
must be removed, water must be brought to people, and waste must be 
carried
away and processed in environmentally safe ways. The motors that lift 
the
elevators have to work, the heat, water, electricity and telephone must 
be
maintained. "Someone" must do all this work - co-operatively, 
individually,
by lot, by coercion - the work must be done.

                          -------------------------

There are certain options, certain choices that we can make to organize 
our
work in a more meaningful way, however. Some of the solutions are 
economic,
some personal, but all political, of course. Many are also deeper 
questions,
ethical questions. To change the nature of work in the 21st century, we 
need
to address change in all the areas of our society that support the 
current
work environment: whether we ought to continue the centralization of 
capital
and the private control of capital and the profits produced by this
financial system; whether the division of labour we have established is
humane and productive for the individual doing the work; the level of
technological advancement we wish to achieve; the environmental costs we
will pay for our standard of living; and whether we will continue to
artificially stimulate ourselves to further obsessive consumption. We 
need
to address questions about how much we want to work and how we 
accomplish
that work; the lifestyle, the level of consumption we desire; the impact 
we
want to make on our environments, the level of pollution we will accept.

One of our first tasks is to identify basic human needs and how much is
"enough." The next step is to adopt an economic structure that 
guarantees
those basic needs and sets limits on consumption. Paul Goodman and 
others
have proposed a two-layered economy: one level designed to meet basic
collective social needs, and the other devoted to gratifying individual
wants and desires. In this economy, everyone who is able would be 
required
to work to ensure for themselves a minimum guaranteed income that would
cover basic individual needs and costs of building and maintaining
collective infrastructure. People would be required to work 5 out of 
every 7
years (with two years of sabbatical). Each individual would also have an
opportunity to work one of those years to earn additional money to 
consume
at higher levels. One sabbatical year would be required. The amount of
income earned in the second level economy could be limited to control
overall consumption. The second level economy would allow for a certain
degree of individual choice. Total income earned by any individual 
ideally
would be limited to no more than five times the guaranteed income level. 
The
"work" that truly is dull, boring, dangerous, or repulsive can be 
allotted
to those who elect to do it, in exchange for fewer hours of work 
required of
them (say miners, who work in dangerous situations). The difficult tasks
themselves could be rotated. Part of our resistance to work is the 
treadmill
nature of it. If we could structure especially the most onerous tasks so
that one individual does not bear that burden alone, and doesn't have to 
do
that work for long periods of time, it will make that work easier in the
long run, and subject individuals to less risk and danger to their 
health
overall.

This two-layered economy, however, would clearly have to be a 
"controlled"
economy, but it would require a minimum of work for the majority of 
people.
Many anarchists will balk at such a suggestion, but its merits are 
obvious:
it would control consumption, or at least slow it, since most people 
would
probably prefer not to work too much and would rather have two years of
rest; it would relieve a lot of anxiety about meeting basic needs; it 
would
distribute the wealth more equitably; it would allow for individual 
freedom
in consumption, and it would share the work.

We need to once again call for a reassessment of the direction of
technological development. Despite the strong attraction of returning to
nature, it is highly unlikely, and probably extremely unrealistic that 
most
people will abandon the comforts of a technological society for the 
grueling
labour of the 19th century rural farm. What technologies, and whether 
they
ought to be pursued, however, must come under the control and direction 
of
society as a whole. We must consciously place limits on our 
technological
development. Just because we can conceive that the most efficient way to 
gut
chickens is to have someone repeat the same motion all day long, doesn't
mean we ought to do the work this way and permanently damage the 
worker's
carpal passages. We must also demand environmentally safe technologies.

One of our values should be to step as lightly on the earth as we can. 
We
could begin by making things that last. This will be a complete 
turnaround
and a contradiction to our consumer society. We have become addicted to
newness, and to throwing away that which no longer entertains us. But 
just
what is the real nature of the "new," and why do we desire it so 
intensely?
Perhaps it is the failure of creative challenges on our part, that 
causes us
to desire it from a changing array of things. We could decide, for 
example,
to wear sturdy uniforms and drive the same well-built car, but would 
this
give us the apparent pride in self-representation that we desire? Do we 
need
to consume things, or would face painting allow us individual
self-expression? We must find a way to make statements about ourselves
without waste, find a way to represent the self in ways that do not
necessitate obsessive consumption. I was struck recently by the fact 
that in
Russia there is a dearth of wastebaskets - a sure sign that the society 
does
not appear to have much to throw away in a systematic manner. (But 
they're
getting there, unfortunately.)

We must also consider ways of overcoming the pervasiveness of personal
alienation from work. Some of the abolition of work arguments are rants
against wage labour, meaningless labour, repetitive and mind-deadening
labour, unnecessary labour, fragmented labour - labour over which the 
worker
has no control. Good work is/should be a means of centering for the 
self.
Good work calls on creative energies and resources, it requires 
integration
of intellectual and physical efforts. The postmortem philosophy of work 
is
to break every task apart, to reduce it to the smallest inconsequential 
act,
and then to put an engineer in charge of mechanizing the tasks in the 
most
efficient manner. This robs the task of its essence, and the worker of
satisfaction.

Even our philosophy has fallen under the spell of this mechanistic,
technological world view. Post-modernism as a "philosophy" (which it is 
not,
it is merely a rebellion against, as near as I can tell, nearly 
everything
in its path) began as a tool for critiquing the dominant hegemony of
corporate consumer capitalism, but has foundered on its own destructive
reductionist techniques. No centre now holds, and we are cast adrift on 
our
own meager individual resources. Post-modernism has become, ironically, 
the
perfect mirror of a consumer society: there is no history, no 
continuity, no
responsibility - only the childlike fascination with the random 
minutiae,
the "now," and instant gratification. Our work, too, is fragmented. The
methodology of the division of labour refined by industrial capitalism 
has
created the mind-numbing assembly-line, repetitive motion disease and
"scientific" management. The division of labour has resulted in a 
mechanical
worker and a mechanical citizen who is also fragmented, channeled into
one-issue politics and narrow-mindedness, has a short attention span, 
and
lives in total isolation from others - both politically by not taking 
part
in the collective life, and by being socially irresponsible and
self-serving.

We could probably reduce the number of hours of work required in our
societies by several options: if we choose a highly developed 
technological
approach to work, and eliminated profit, we could reduce the number of 
hours
required to work. We could also eliminate many technological processes. 
The
lower we go on the technology scale, there are, of course, either
corresponding increases in labour, or reductions in 
production/consumption.
Anarchists traditionally have opted for a lower level of technology 
because
of its potential to be more compatible with decentralization, of control 
and
its need for lesser amounts of capital.

                          -------------------------

There are many aspects of good work that are important to nourishing the
individual human spirit and the collective well-being: meaningful work 
gives
us a sense of completion and contributes to self-satisfaction; it also
serves to stir the imagination and create intellectual well-being. 
Labour,
on the other hand, is subhuman, it creates an environment of 
intellectual'
irresponsibility and unresponsiveness. Its meaningless repetition dulls 
the
spirit, and erodes the mental habits of attentiveness and curiosity.

Good work is ultimately about community, and democracy. Work is most
satisfying and fulfilling when it is done for others and in co-operation
with others. It is in this setting that the self can most fully realize 
its
potential. For example, art is created to be consumed by the community.
Handiwork is designed with an appreciative audience to complete its 
beauty.
The work of making culture/creating social/political community is 
perhaps
the most important work that human beings undertake. Our alienation from 
all
work has consequently contributed, I believe, to our alienation from one
another and the "work" of making meaningful and satisfying collective 
lives.
The modern "job" has contributed to the destruction of the community in
which human potential is best realized. As people turn off and drop out 
of
the drudgery of what one writer calls "the proletarianization of work," 
they
also drop out of involvement in many things, including political and 
social
community. The alienation from work carries over into alienation from 
one
another. If there is good work to do, to refuse to work is to alienate
oneself, to say, I will not participate. As human beings, we have the
obligation to contribute, at minimum, to collective survival work. No. 
one
should have the luxury of refusing to work. To share in this collective
survival work is not necessarily oppressive. Doing this for others, for
their use, their satisfaction, and knowing and trusting that others will 
do
the same for you is the essence of work. What is oppressive is forced
labour, exploited labour, labour which creates goods and services not to
enhance social connections, but to be commodified, to exchange. We need 
a
radical restructuring of work, not its abolition. And we need to begin 
with
the question, "what do we do for each - other?" "what is our work?", not
just ask each other what we "do," what our individual labour is, how we 
fit
into the system that isolates us. When we are truly invested in our 
work, we
will solve the problems of who will care for the children, feed and 
clothe
us, build our shelters, plant our gardens.

The following concepts are critical for personal empowerment and for
political/social involvement in community:

1) Do your work with others. Non-alienated work takes place in a context 
of
interaction with other people. One of the important managerial controls 
over
workers in industrial capitalism, for example, is denying them the right 
to
talk to talk to each other on the job. Participation is critical to the
development of meaningful economics and to effective political action. 
Work
should be with and for others. Production has to emerge from the 
community
and return to the community. This is the basis of a new work ethic.

(2) Recognize the need for skill in work. Mechanization of work kills
curiosity and the attendant human impulse to become engaged, involved, 
to
strive to be creative. Mechanization also resists interruption, the 
worker
becomes an observer, an attendant to the machine. Demand meaningful 
work.

(3) Be in charge of your own actions, in control of your work.

(4) Reclaim through your work a sense of the whole, of the ways in which 
the
parts relate to one another. The division of labour deadens an important
political skill - the ability to make connections between means and 
ends. A
different but related problem centers on how a mechanistic world view
simplifies our understanding of cause and effect. We almost 
unconsciously
develop a preference for logical, mechanistic explanations, and we 
become
impatient with ambiguity. Our level of frustration is increased markedly 
in
a rigid mechanistic world and we lose our capacity to appreciate and 
handle
subtlety.

(5) Simplify technological processes. According to T. Fulano in a Fifth
Estate series some years back on anti-technology, technology itself is a
system of political control: "The enormous size, complex interconnection 
and
stratification of tasks which make up modern technological systems make
authoritarian command necessary and independent, individual 
decision-making
impossible." (1981). Simplification of technological infrastructure 
would
also serve, according to E.F. Schumacher in Small is Beautiful, to
decentralize political power and control of the worker. Organizational
factors of technological infrastructures that centralize power and 
control
include: large size, hierarchy, specialization, standardization of 
product
and simplification of task. The elements of a free, democratic economy
include the structural alternatives of small size, non-hierarchical
organization, cooperative work, diversity in tasks and products, and
complexity of tasks.

6) Abolish private ownership of the means of production. A new social
economics demands a re-examination of the concept of private ownership 
of
the means of production. Despite the fact that some forms of socialism 
have
"failed," we are still left with problems of capitalism that Karl Marx
identified over a hundred years ago.

A new approach to global economics must also be developed. The global
economy is "here" and we have strategized very little about how to 
respond
to it. To begin with, perhaps, we should demand that survival level 
wages be
granted in every economy. A global guaranteed minimum income would slow 
the
restless movement of capital until means can be put in place to regain
control over profit and investment. Value added to labour in any 
particular
labour market should remain in the market in which it was created except 
to
reimburse the creators of economic development for their investment and
their labour in creating the factories/jobs. Prices also need to be
stabilized worldwide on a scale relative to the comparative value of
currencies. Blue-jeans in the United States must cost $20; in Russia, 
only
$5, reflecting the relative value of the dollar and the ruble. The cost 
of
all infrastructure required by a particular industry shall be borne 
entirely
by that industry: roads; sewage; power needs; public transportation for
workers, etc. Corporate responsibility to communities must be affirmed 
and
institutionalized in law. Capital may be movable, but people generally 
are
not, so special care must be taken when companies attempt to relocate. 
All
resources contributed to that industry/company by the workers in that
community shall remain the property of that community. Companies must 
find
ways to continue jobs in communities. A more compelling reason than 
profit,
a cheaper labour supply or lax environmental regulations must be given
before a company is allowed to remove its investment to a new site. 
Abolish
tax increment financing, Require corporations to pay at least 50 percent 
of
profit in taxes. Many of these suggestions are more reform-minded than
radical restructuring, but in the absence of any coherent alternatives, 
they
could be a place to start.

About the Author:

Neala Schleuning is the author of three books: America - Song We Sang
Without Knowing: the Life and Ideas of Meridel Le Sueur; Idle Hands and
Empty Hearts: Work and Freedom In the United States; and Women, 
Community,
and the Hormel Strike of 1985-86. She is currently doing research on the
meaning of property and the impact of a market economy on family 
economics
in Russia.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---