From: "dannylambert" <danlambert-AT-sniffout.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Limits of Anti-Workerism
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:03:19 -0000


Hi Harry
Thanks for the interesting piece below, however my point is this.
If we are to defeat capitalism as soon as possible we must communicate!
Surely it's essential to avoid misunderstanding and the confusion it brings,
and so we must be very clear as to the meaning of those words that we use to
elaborate the case for a revolutionary transformation or society.
In this spirit I offer the first part of a long entry in my Ox' Dict' def'
on work.
Work. Expenditure of energy, striving, application of effort to some
purpose.
As far as I can see, as a worker, (builder) work is unavoidable, but if
understood and carried out voluntarily, efficiently for a creative purpose,
it  becomes rewarding and fulfilling. I think the problem we see with "work"
is rooted in the  way we equate work with employment. The word employ is a
dead give away as it means "to use" so if we have an employer we have a
user, who will pay us to use our energy our effort, for interests other than
our own (  the def' of prostitution is in there). It's not work that revolts
me it's employment and when it's realised that the consequences of the money
system absorbs around 80% of all work done, work in communism will be no
longer pointless, irksome or oppressive performed for a parasite class but
will enable creativity and so fulfilment.

Yours for full unemployment.
Danny.
www.worldsocialism.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Harry M. Cleaver <hmcleave-AT-eco.utexas.edu>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: AUT: Limits of Anti-Workerism


>
>
> What follows is a bit on what I mean when I talk, as I do, about
> "destroying the economy" and "the end of work".
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Jamal Hannah wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, cwright wrote:
> >
> > > By destroying 'the economy' we can mean many things and Peter and I
may or
> > > may not agree, but my take is that we want to destroy a world which
falsely
> > > separates the economic, the political, the personal, the cultural, etc
as
> > > somehow different spheres rather than a totality of human activity.
>
> I would go further than this. I argue that the "economy" only came into
> existence with the rise of capitalism. It is not just, as Polanyi says,
> that the "economy" became disembedded from the social fabric, but that
> there was no such thing. The "economy" is not just the "sphere of the
> production and distribution of wealth" but prior to the rise of
> capitalism it made no sense to talk about the "economy" or "the sphere of
> production." Both are abstract concepts that only make sense
> within capitalism. When Aristotle used the greek term from which
> "economy" is derived he was talking about something else: the family
> organization of farming and crafts. It is only by projecting these
> concepts backwards thru time that they take on the illusion of universals.
> That is precisely what many economists do: apply concepts like "the
> economy" and "homo economicus' to all of human history - a bit of
> intellectual imperialism of the first order.
>
> >   The end
> > > of work does not mean the end of human being producing, but is really
just
> > > another way of saying "the end of exploitation".  The end of the
economy
> > > would mean the end of a bifurcated, fragmented world where human
creative
> > > activity gets shattered into 'politics', 'economics', etc.
> > >
> > > I don't think anyone means the end of production and distribution of
> > > use-values :)
>
> Here again, I would put it somewhat differently. As in my comments above,
> I would argue that terms like "work" "production" "distribution" and
> "use-values" all are products of capitalist society and we should resist
> their use as universals. Of course "the end of work" doesn't mean people
> stop growing food, building computers (although it undoubtedly means they
> will do those things quite differently) and so on. But as "end of work'
> means the end of exploitation, but the end of exploitation means
> the end of work in the sense of ending a situation where it makes sense to
> regroup virtually all the diversity of human activity under one rubric,
> i.e., "work."
>
> In pre-capitalist society, and hopefully post-capitalist society, there
> was, and will be, no comensurability between say plowing and
> planting, or between farming and manufacturing, or between cooking and
> writing a book, etc. It only makes sense in capitalism to use the generic
> term "work" because from a capitalist point of view all of these
> activities are comensurate. They all provide ways to produce commodities
> that can be sold for a profit and the profits used to impose more work and
> reproduce the system. They all provide comparable opportunities for
> social coercion and the organization of peoples lives. The struggle
> against work is not just the struggle for less work or for different kinds
> of work, it is the struggle to go beyond work to worlds where human
> activities regain a plethora of meanings and are irreducible to "work."
>
> > I think that when people say "the end of work" they are basicly being
> > dishonest, because what they really mean is the end of "exploitation"
and
> > "wage labor" and "the division of labor".
>
> "Exploitation," "wage labor" and "the division of labor" are all concepts
> based on the fundamental concept of "labor" or "work." The "end of work"
> certainly means an end to all of these concepts and the phenomena they
> denote. But it means more, as explained above; it means that what people
> do and how people do it needs to be reconceptualized. Those who bake bread
> and those who build automobiles or computers would no longer be
> regroupable as "workers," they would simply be human beings engaged in
> distinct and identifiable activities. There would be no "exploitation" of
> the capitalist sort if the amount of time and energy they plow into those
> activities is detrmined by their needs rather than the need of some class
> to keep them occupied and undercontrol. There would be no "wage labor"
> because there would be no "wages" (or money either I imagine) and no
> "labor," only people doing different things in a vast fabric of social
> cooperation (as we have now, but organized differently). There would be no
> "division of labor" not because there would cease to be a great diversity
> of activities with people specializing in one or the other, but because
> they would have nothing in common that would warrant regrouping them under
> the rubric of "labor."
>
> > But some folks, like Bob Black,
> > have sort of played around with the slogan, presumably to appeal to
> > certain lumpenproletariat types (those who dont want to work at all..
not
> > even cleaning up after themselves) the same way that people are led to
> > believe that "revolution" means abandoning all responsibility, all
reason,
> > any form of community ties, etc, etc.
> >
> >  - JH
> >
>
> I'll let Bob Black speak for himself, but the slogan "the end of work" has
> obvious appeal to anyone who suffers the imposition of work. Because it is
> obvious that it is not a proposition to stop growing food etc, the
> intuitive meaning is freedom from imposed work as the fundamental means of
> coercive social control. This is not just an appeal to "lumpenproletariat
> types" but to the "proletariat" more generally, to all of those who
> struggle against being reduced, as Marx said, "to mere worker." The above
> description of irresponsibility and self-indulgence is typical of the
> attitudes attributed by capitalists to everyone who demands an end to
> their way of life-as-work. As a general description of those who have
> fought against work it is also nonsense as the history of that
> struggle plainly shows.
>
> Harry
>
............................................................................
> Snail-mail:
> Harry Cleaver
> Department of Economics
> University of Texas at Austin
> Austin, Texas 78712-1173  USA
>
> Phone Numbers:
> (hm)  (512) 442-5036
> (off) (512) 475-8535
> Fax:(512) 471-3510
>
> E-mail:
> hmcleave-AT-eco.utexas.edu
> PGP Public Key:
http://certserver.pgp.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=hmcleave
>
> Cleaver homepage:
> http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index2.html
>
> Chiapas95 homepage:
> http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html
>
> Accion Zapatista homepage:
> http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/
>
............................................................................
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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