THE ABOLITION OF WORK by Bob Black
No one should ever work.
Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you'd care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.
That doesn't mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way of life based on play; in other words, a ludic conviviality, commensality, and maybe even art. There is more to play than child's play, as worthy as that is. I call for a collective adventure in generalized joy and freely interdependent exuberance. Play isn't passive. Doubtless we all need a lot more time for sheer sloth and slack than we ever enjoy now, regardless of income or occupation, but once recovered from employment-induced exhaustion nearly all of us want to act. Oblomovism and Stakhanovism are two sides of the same debased coin.
The ludic life is totally incompatible with existing reality. So much the worse for "reality," the gravity hole that sucks the vitality from the little in life that still distinguishes it from mere survival. Curiously -- or maybe not -- all the old ideologies are conservative because they believe in work. Some of them, like Marxism and most brands of anarchism, believe in work all the more fiercely because they believe in so little else.
Liberals say we should end employment discrimination. I say we should end employment. Conservatives support right-to-work laws. Following Karl Marx's wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue I support the right to be lazy. Leftists favor full employment. Like the surrealists -- except that I'm not kidding -- I favor full unemployment. Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution. I agitate for permanent revelry. But if all the ideologues (as they do) advocate work -- and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs -- they are strangely reluctant to say so. They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, exploitation, productivity, profitability. They'll gladly talk about anything but work itself. These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work, for all its saliency in the lives of all of us. Among themselves they quibble over the details. Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don't care which form bossing takes so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working.
You may be wondering if I'm joking or serious. I'm joking and serious. To be ludic is not to be ludicrous. Play doesn't have to be frivolous, although frivolity isn't triviality: very often we ought to take frivolity seriously. I'd like life to be a game -- but a game with high stakes. I want to play for keeps.
The alternative to work isn't just idleness. To be ludic is not to be quaaludic. As much as I treasure the pleasure of torpor, it's never more rewarding than when it punctuates other pleasures and pastimes. Nor am I promoting the managed time-disciplined safety-valve called "leisure"; far from it. Leisure is nonwork for the sake of work. Leisure is the time spent recovering from work and in the frenzied but hopeless attempt to forget about work. Many people return from vacation so beat that they look forward to returning to work so they can rest up. The main difference between work and leisure is that work at least you get paid for your alienation and enervation.
I am not playing definitional games with anybody. When I say I want to abolish work, I mean just what I say, but I want to say what I mean by defining my terms in non-idiosyncratic ways. My minimum definition of work is forced labor, that is, compulsory production. Both elements are essential. Work is production enforced by economic or political means, by the carrot or the stick. (The carrot is just the stick by other means.) But not all creation is work. Work is never done for its own sake, it's done on account of some product or output that the worker (or, more often, somebody else) gets out of it. This is what work necessarily is. To define it is to despise it. But work is usually even worse than its definition decrees. The dynamic of domination intrinsic to work tends over time toward elaboration. In advanced work-riddled societies, including all industrial societies whether capitalist of "Communist," work invariably acquires other attributes which accentuate its obnoxiousness.
Usually -- and this is even more true in "Communist" than capitalist countries, where the state is almost the only employer and everyone is an employee -- work is employment, i. e., wage-labor, which means selling yourself on the installment plan. Thus 95% of Americans who work, work for somebody (or something) else. In the USSR or Cuba or Yugoslavia or any other alternative model which might be adduced, the corresponding figure approaches 100%. Only the embattled Third World peasant bastions -- Mexico, India, Brazil, Turkey -- temporarily shelter significant concentrations of agriculturists who perpetuate the traditional arrangement of most laborers in the last several millenia, the payment of taxes (= ransom) to the state or rent to parasitic landlords in return for being otherwise left alone. Even this raw deal is beginning to look good. All industrial (and office) workers are employees and under the sort of surveillance which ensures servility.
But modern work has worse implications. People don't just work, they have "jobs." One person does one productive task all the time on an or-else basis. Even if the task has a quantum of intrinsic interest (as increasingly many jobs don't) the monotony of its obligatory exclusivity drains its ludic potential. A "job" that might engage the energies of some people, for a reasonably limited time, for the fun of it, is just a burden on those who have to do it for forty hours a week with no say in how it should be done, for the profit of owners who contribute nothing to the project, and with no opportunity for sharing tasks or spreading the work among those who actually have to do it. This is the real world of work: a world of bureaucratic blundering, of sexual harassment and discrimination, of bonehead bosses exploiting and scapegoating their subordinates who -- by any rational-technical criteria -- should be calling the shots. But capitalism in the real world subordinates the rational maximization of productivity and profit to the exigencies of organizational control.
The degradation which most workers experience on the job is the sum of assorted indignities which can be denominated as "discipline." Foucault has complexified this phenomenon but it is simple enough. Discipline consists of the totality of totalitarian controls at the workplace -- surveillance, rotework, imposed work tempos, production quotas, punching -in and -out, etc. Discipline is what the factory and the office and the store share with the prison and the school and the mental hospital. It is something historically original and horrible. It was beyond the capacities of such demonic dictators of yore as Nero and Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible. For all their bad intentions they just didn't have the machinery to control their subjects as thoroughly as modern despots do. Discipline is the distinctively diabolical modern mode of control, it is an innovative intrusion which must be interdicted at the earliest opportunity.
Such is "work." Play is just the opposite. Play is always voluntary. What might otherwise be play is work if it's forced. This is axiomatic. Bernie de Koven has defined play as the "suspension of consequences." This is unacceptable if it implies that play is inconsequential. The point is not that play is without consequences. This is to demean play. The point is that the consequences, if any, are gratuitous. Playing and giving are closely related, they are the behavioral and transactional facets of the same impulse, the play-instinct. They share an aristocratic disdain for results. The player gets something out of playing; that's why he plays. But the core reward is the experience of the activity itself (whatever it is). Some otherwise attentive students of play, like Johan Huizinga (Homo Ludens), define it as game-playing or following rules. I respect Huizinga's erudition but emphatically reject his constraints. There are many good games (chess, baseball, Monopoly, bridge) which are rule-governed but there is much more to play than game-playing. Conversation, sex, dancing, travel -- these practices aren't rule-governed but they are surely play if anything is. And rules can be played with at least as readily as anything else.
Work makes a mockery of freedom. The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other unfortunates who aren't free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or-else, no matter how arbitrary. The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The officials who push them around are answerable only to higher-ups, public or private. Either way, dissent and disobedience are punished. Informers report regularly to the authorities. All this is supposed to be a very bad thing.
And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern workplace. The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a part time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers who work?
The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are "free" is lying or stupid. You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid monotonous work, chances are you'll end up boring, stupid and monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even such significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all their lives, handed off to work from school and bracketed by the family in the beginning and the nursing home at the end, are habituated to heirarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from people at work, they'll likely submit to heirarchy and expertise in everything. They're used to it.
We are so close to the world of work that we can't see what it does to us. We have to rely on outside observers from other times or other cultures to appreciate the extremity and the pathology of our present position. There was a time in our own past when the "work ethic" would have been incomprehensible, and perhaps Weber was on to something when he tied its appearance to a religion, Calvinism, which if it emerged today instead of four centuries ago would immediately and appropriately be labeled a cult. Be that as it may, we have only to draw upon the wisdom of antiquity to put work in perspective. The ancients saw work for what it is, and their view prevailed, the Calvinist cranks notwithstanding, until overthrown by industrialism -- but not before receiving the endorsement of its prophets.
Let's pretend for a moment that work doesn't turn people into stultified submissives. Let's pretend, in defiance of any plausible psychology and the ideology of its boosters, that it has no effect on the formation of character. And let's pretend that work isn't as boring and tiring and humiliating as we all know it really is. Even then, work would still make a mockery of all humanistic and democratic aspirations, just because it usurps so much of our time. Socrates said that manual laborers make bad friends and bad citizens because they have no time to fulfill the responsibilities of friendship and citizenship. He was right. Because of work, no matter what we do we keep looking at our watches. The only thing "free" about so-called free time is that it doesn't cost the boss anything. Free time is mostly devoted to getting ready for work, going to work, returning from work, and recovering from work. Free time is a euphemism for the peculiar way labor as a factor of production not only transports itself at its own expense to and from the workplace but assumes primary responsibility for its own maintenance and repair. Coal and steel don't do that. Lathes and typewriters don't do that. But workers do. No wonder Edward G. Robinson in one of his gangster movies exclaimed, "Work is for saps!"
Both Plato and Xenophon attribute to Socrates and obviously share with him an awareness of the destructive effects of work on the worker as a citizen and a human being. Herodotus identified contempt for work as an attribute of the classical Greeks at the zenith of their culture. To take only one Roman example, Cicero said that "whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the rank of slaves." His candor is now rare, but contemporary primitive societies which we are wont to look down upon have provided spokesmen who have enlightened Western anthropologists. The Kapauku of West Irian, according to Posposil, have a conception of balance in life and accordingly work only every other day, the day of rest designed "to regain the lost power and health." Our ancestors, even as late as the eighteenth century when they were far along the path to our present predicament, at least were aware of what we have forgotten, the underside of industrialization. Their religious devotion to "St. Monday" -- thus establishing a de facto five-day week 150-200 years before its legal consecration -- was the despair of the earliest factory owners. They took a long time in submitting to the tyranny of the bell, predecessor of the time clock. In fact it was necessary for a generation or two to replace adult males with women accustomed to obedience and children who could be molded to fit industrial needs. Even the exploited peasants of the ancient regime wrested substantial time back from their landlord's work. According to Lafargue, a fourth of the French peasants' calendar was devoted to Sundays and holidays, and Chayanov's figures from villages in Czarist Russia -- hardly a progressive society -- likewise show a fourth or fifth of peasants' days devoted to repose. Controlling for productivity, we are obviously far behind these backward societies. The exploited muzhiks would wonder why any of us are working at all. So should we.
To grasp the full enormity of our deterioration, however, consider the earliest condition of humanity, without government or property, when we wandered as hunter-gatherers. Hobbes surmised that life was then nasty, brutish and short. Others assume that life was a desperate unremitting struggle for subsistence, a war waged against a harsh Nature with death and disaster awaiting the unlucky or anyone who was unequal to the challenge of the struggle for existence. Actually, that was all a projection of fears for the collapse of government authority over communities unaccustomed to doing without it, like the England of Hobbes during the Civil War. Hobbes' compatriots had already encountered alternative forms of society which illustrated other ways of life -- in North America, particularly -- but already these were too remote from their experience to be understandable. (The lower orders, closer to the condition of the Indians, understood it better and often found it attractive. Throughout the seventeenth century, English settlers defected to Indian tribes or, captured in war, refused to return. But the Indians no more defected to white settlements than Germans climb the Berlin Wall from the west.) The "survival of the fittest" version -- the Thomas Huxley version -- of Darwinism was a better account of economic conditions in Victorian England than it was of natural selection, as the anarchist Kropotkin showed in his book Mutual Aid, A Factor of Evolution. (Kropotkin was a scientist -- a geographer -- who'd had ample involuntary opportunity for fieldwork whilst exiled in Siberia: he knew what he was talking about.) Like most social and political theory, the story Hobbes and his successors told was really unacknowledged autobiography.
The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, surveying the data on contemporary hunter-gatherers, exploded the Hobbesian myth in an article entitled "The Original Affluent Society." They work a lot less than we do, and their work is hard to distinguish from what we regard as play. Sahlins concluded that "hunters and gatherers work less than we do; and rather than a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per capita per year than in any other condition of society." They worked an average of four hours a day, assuming they were "working" at all. Their "labor," as it appears to us, was skilled labor which exercised their physical and intellectual capacities; unskilled labor on any large scale, as Sahlins says, is impossible except under industrialism. Thus it satisfied Friedrich Schiller's definition of play, the only occasion on which man realizes his complete humanity by giving full "play" to both sides of his twofold nature, thinking and feeling. As he put it: "The animal works when deprivation is the mainspring of its activity, and it plays when the fullness of its strength is this mainspring, when superabundant life is its own stimulus to activity." (A modern version -- dubiously developmental -- is Abraham Maslow's counterposition of "deficiency" and "growth" motivation.) Play and freedom are, as regards production, coextensive. Even Marx, who belongs (for all his good intentions) in the productivist pantheon, observed that "the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and external utility is required." He never could quite bring himself to identify this happy circumstance as what it is, the abolition of work -- it's rather anomalous, after all, to be pro-worker and anti-work -- but we can.
The aspiration to go backwards or forwards to a life without work is evident in every serious social or cultural history of pre-industrial Europe, among them M. Dorothy George's England In Transition and Peter Burke's Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe. Also pertinent is Daniel Bell's essay, "Work and its Discontents," the first text, I believe, to refer to the "revolt against work" in so many words and, had it been understood, an important correction to the complacency ordinarily associated with the volume in which it was collected, The End of Ideology. Neither critics nor celebrants have noticed that Bell's end-of-ideology thesis signaled not the end of social unrest but the beginning of a new, uncharted phase unconstrained and uninformed by ideology. It was Seymour Lipset (in Political Man), not Bell, who announced at the same time that "the fundamental problems of the Industrial Revolution have been solved," only a few years before the post- or meta-industrial discontents of college students drove Lipset from UC Berkeley to the relative (and temporary) tranquility of Harvard.
As Bell notes, Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, for all his enthusiasm for the market and the division of labor, was more alert to (and more honest about) the seamy side of work than Ayn Rand or the Chicago economists or any of Smith's modern epigones. As Smith observed: "The understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose life is spent in performing a few simple operations... has no occasion to exert his understanding... He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." Here, in a few blunt words, is my critique of work. Bell, writing in 1956, the Golden Age of Eisenhower imbecility and American self-satisfaction, identified the unorganized, unorganizable malaise of the 1970's and since, the one no political tendency is able to harness, the one identified in HEW's report Work in America, the one which cannot be exploited and so is ignored. That problem is the revolt against work. It does not figure in any text by any laissez-faire economist -- Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Richard Posner -- because, in their terms, as they used to say on Star Trek, "it does not compute."
If these objections, informed by the love of liberty, fail to persuade humanists of a utilitarian or even paternalist turn, there are others which they cannot disregard. Work is hazardous to your health, to borrow a book title. In fact, work is mass murder or genocide. Directly or indirectly, work will kill most of the people who read these words. Between 14,000 and 25,000 workers are killed annually in this country on the job. Over two million are disabled. Twenty to twenty-five million are injured every year. And these figures are based on a very conservative estimation of what constitutes a work-related injury. Thus they don't count the half million cases of occupational disease every year. I looked at one medical textbook on occupational diseases which was 1,200 pages long. Even this barely scratches the surface. The available statistics count the obvious cases like the 100,000 miners who have black lung disease, of whom 4,000 die every year, a much higher fatality rate than for AIDS, for instance, which gets so much media attention. This reflects the unvoiced assumption that AIDS afflicts perverts who could control their depravity whereas coal-mining is a sacrosanct activity beyond question. What the statistics don't show is that tens of millions of people have heir lifespans shortened by work -- which is all that homicide means, after all. Consider the doctors who work themselves to death in their 50's. Consider all the other workaholics.
Even if you aren't killed or crippled while actually working, you very well might be while going to work, coming from work, looking for work, or trying to forget about work. The vast majority of victims of the automobile are either doing one of these work-obligatory activities or else fall afoul of those who do them. To this augmented body-count must be added the victims of auto-industrial pollution and work-induced alcoholism and drug addiction. Both cancer and heart disease are modern afflictions normally traceable, directly, or indirectly, to work.
Work, then, institutionalizes homicide as a way of life. People think the Cambodians were crazy for exterminating themselves, but are we any different? The Pol Pot regime at least had a vision, however blurred, of an egalitarian society. We kill people in the six-figure range (at least) in order to sell Big Macs and Cadillacs to the survivors. Our forty or fifty thousand annual highway fatalities are victims, not martyrs. They died for nothing -- or rather, they died for work. But work is nothing to die for.
Bad news for liberals: regulatory tinkering is useless in this life-and-death context. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration was designed to police the core part of the problem, workplace safety. Even before Reagan and the Supreme Court stifled it, OSHA was a farce. At previous and (by current standards) generous Carter-era funding levels, a workplace could expect a random visit from an OSHA inspector once every 46 years.
State control of the economy is no solution. Work is, if anything, more dangerous in the state-socialist countries than it is here. Thousands of Russian workers were killed or injured building the Moscow subway. Stories reverberate about covered-up Soviet nuclear disasters which make Times Beach and Three-Mile Island look like elementary-school air-raid drills. On the other hand, deregulation, currently fashionable, won't help and will probably hurt. From a health and safety standpoint, among others, work was at its worst in the days when the economy most closely approximated laissez-faire.
Historians like Eugene Genovese have argued persuasively that -- as antebellum slavery apologists insisted -- factory wage-workers in the Northern American states and in Europe were worse off than Southern plantation slaves. No rearrangement of relations among bureaucrats and businessmen seems to make much difference at the point of production. Serious enforcement of even the rather vague standards enforceable in theory by OSHA would probably bring the economy to a standstill. The enforcers apparently appreciate this, since they don't even try to crack down on most malefactors.
What I've said so far ought not to be controversial. Many workers are fed up with work. There are high and rising rates of absenteeism, turnover, employee theft and sabotage, wildcat strikes, and overall goldbricking on the job. There may be some movement toward a conscious and not just visceral rejection of work. And yet the prevalent feeling, universal among bosses and their agents and also widespread among workers themselves is that work itself is inevitable and necessary.
I disagree. It is now possible to abolish work and replace it, insofar as it serves useful purposes, with a multitude of new kinds of free activities. To abolish work requires going at it from two directions, quantitative and qualitative. On the one hand, on the quantitative side, we have to cut down massively on the amount of work being done. At present most work is useless or worse and we should simply get rid of it. On the other hand -- and I think this is the crux of the matter and the revolutionary new departure -- we have to take what useful work remains and transform it into a pleasing variety of game-like and craft-like pastimes, indistinguishable from other pleasurable pastimes, except that they happen to yield useful end-products. Surely that shouldn't make them less enticing to do. Then all the artificial barriers of power and property could come down. Creation could become recreation. And we could all stop being afraid of each other.
I don't suggest that most work is salvageable in this way. But then most work isn't worth trying to save. Only a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages. Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five percent of the work then being done -- presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now -- would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing, and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control. Right off the bat we can liberate tens of millions of salesmen, soldiers, managers, cops, stockbrokers, clergymen, bankers, lawyers, teachers, landlords, security guards, ad-men and everyone who works for them. There is a snowball effect since every time you idle some bigshot you liberate his flunkeys and underlings also. Thus the economy implodes.
Forty percent of the workforce are white-collar workers, most of whom have some of the most tedious and idiotic jobs ever concocted. Entire industries, insurance and banking and real estate for instance, consist of nothing but useless paper-shuffling. It is no accident that the "tertiary sector," the service sector, is growing while the "secondary sector" (industry) stagnates and the "primary sector" (agriculture) nearly disappears. Because work is unnecessary except to those whose power it secures, workers are shifted from relatively useful to relatively useless occupations as a measure to assure public order. Anything is better than nothing. That's why you can't go home just because you finish early. They want your time, enough of it to make you theirs, even if they have no use for most of it. Otherwise why hasn't the average work week gone down by more than a few minutes in the past fifty years?
Next we can take a meat-cleaver to production work itself. No more war production, nuclear power, junk food, feminine hygiene deodorant -- and above all, no more auto industry to speak of. An occasional Stanley Steamer or Model-T might be all right, but the auto-eroticism on which such pestholes as Detroit and Los Angeles depend on is out of the question. Already, without even trying, we've virtually solved the energy crisis, the environmental crisis and assorted other insoluble social problems.
Finally, we must do away with far and away the largest occupation, the one with the longest hours, the lowest pay and some of the most tedious tasks around. I refer to housewives doing housework and child-rearing. By abolishing wage-labor and achieving full unemployment we undermine the sexual division of labor. The nuclear family as we know it is an inevitable adaptation to the division of labor imposed by modern wage-work. Like it or not, as things have been for the last century or two it is economically rational for the man to bring home the bacon, for the woman to do the shitwork to provide him with a haven in a heartless world, and for the children to be marched off to youth concentration camps called "schools," primarily to keep them out of Mom's hair but still under control, but incidentally to acquire the habits of obedience and punctuality so necessary for workers. If you would be rid of patriarchy, get rid of the nuclear family whose unpaid "shadow work," as Ivan Illich says, makes possible the work-system that makes it necessary. Bound up with this no-nukes strategy is the abolition of childhood and the closing of the schools. There are more full-time students than full-time workers in this country. We need children as teachers, not students. They have a lot to contribute to the ludic revolution because they're better at playing than grown-ups are. Adults and children are not identical but they will become equal through interdependence. Only play can bridge the generation gap.
I haven't as yet even mentioned the possibility of cutting way down on the little work that remains by automating and cybernizing it. All the scientists and engineers and technicians freed from bothering with war research and planned obsolescence would have a good time devising means to eliminate fatigue and tedium and danger from activities like mining. Undoubtedly they'll find other projects to amuse themselves with. Perhaps they'll set up world-wide all-inclusive multi-media communications systems or found space colonies. Perhaps. I myself am no gadget freak. I wouldn't care to live in a pushbutton paradise. I don't want robot slaves to do everything; I want to do things myself. There is, I think, a place for labor-saving technology, but a modest place. The historical and pre-historical record is not encouraging. When productive technology went from hunting-gathering to agriculture and on to industry, work increased while skills and self-determination diminished. The further evolution of industrialism has accentuated what Harry Braverman called the degradation of work. Intelligent observers have always been aware of this. John Stuart Mill wrote that all the labor-saving inventions ever devised haven't saved a moment's labor. Karl Marx wrote that "it would be possible to write a history of the inventions, made since 1830, for the sole purpose of supplying capital with weapons against the revolts of the working class." The enthusiastic technophiles -- Saint-Simon, Comte, Lenin, B. F. Skinner -- have always been unabashed authoritarians also; which is to say, technocrats. We should be more than sceptical about the promises of the computer mystics. They work like dogs; chances are, if they have their way, so will the rest of us. But if they have any particularized contributions more readily subordinated to human purposes than the run of high tech, let's give them a hearing.
What I really want to see is work turned into play. A first step is to discard the notions of a "job" and an "occupation." Even activities that already have some ludic content lose most of it by being reduced to jobs which certain people, and only those people are forced to do to the exclusion of all else. Is it not odd that farm workers toil painfully in the fields while their air-conditioned masters go home every weekend and putter about in their gardens? Under a system of permanent revelry, we will witness the Golden Age of the dilettante which will put the Renaissance to shame. There won't be any more jobs, just things to do and people to do them.
The secret of turning work into play, as Charles Fourier demonstrated, is to arrange useful activities to take advantage of whatever it is that various people at various times in fact enjoy doing. To make it possible for some people to do the things they could enjoy it will be enough just to eradicate the irrationalities and distortions which afflict these activities when they are reduced to work. I, for instance, would enjoy doing some (not too much) teaching, but I don't want coerced students and I don't care to suck up to pathetic pedants for tenure.
Second, there are some things that people like to do from time to time, but not for too long, and certainly not all the time. You might enjoy baby-sitting for a few hours in order to share the company of kids, but not as much as their parents do. The parents meanwhile, profoundly appreciate the time to themselves that you free up for them, although they'd get fretful if parted from their progeny for too long. These differences among individuals are what make a life of free play possible. The same principle applies to many other areas of activity, especially the primal ones. Thus many people enjoy cooking when they can practice it seriously at their leisure, but not when they're just fueling up human bodies for work.
Third -- other things being equal -- some things that are unsatisfying if done by yourself or in unpleasant surroundings or at the orders of an overlord are enjoyable, at least for a while, if these circumstances are changed. This is probably true, to some extent, of all work. People deploy their otherwise wasted ingenuity to make a game of the least inviting drudge-jobs as best they can. Activities that appeal to some people don't always appeal to all others, but everyone at least potentially has a variety of interests and an interest in variety. As the saying goes, "anything once." Fourier was the master at speculating how aberrant and perverse penchants could be put to use in post-civilized society, what he called Harmony. He thought the Emperor Nero would have turned out all right if as a child he could have indulged his taste for bloodshed by working in a slaughterhouse. Small children who notoriously relish wallowing in filth could be organized in "Little Hordes" to clean toilets and empty the garbage, with medals awarded to the outstanding. I am not arguing for these precise examples but for the underlying principle, which I think makes perfect sense as one dimension of an overall revolutionary transformation. Bear in mind that we don't have to take today's work just as we find it and match it up with the proper people, some of whom would have to be perverse indeed. If technology has a role in all this it is less to automate work out of existence than to open up new realms for re/creation. To some extent we may want to return to handicrafts, which William Morris considered a probable and desirable upshot of communist revolution. Art would be taken back from the snobs and collectors, abolished as a specialized department catering to an elite audience, and its qualities of beauty and creation restored to integral life from which they were stolen by work. It's a sobering thought that the grecian urns we write odes about and showcase in museums were used in their own time to store olive oil. I doubt our everyday artifacts will fare as well in the future, if there is one. The point is that there's no such thing as progress in the world of work; if anything it's just the opposite. We shouldn't hesitate to pilfer the past for what it has to offer, the ancients lose nothing yet we are enriched.
The reinvention of daily life means marching off the edge of our maps. There is, it is true, more suggestive speculation than most people suspect. Besides Fourier and Morris -- and even a hint, here and there, in Marx -- there are the writings of Kropotkin, the syndicalists Pataud and Pouget, anarcho-communists old (Berkman) and new (Bookchin). The Goodman brothers' Communitas is exemplary for illustrating what forms follow from given functions (purposes), and there is something to be gleaned from the often hazy heralds of alternative/appropriate/intermediate/convivial technology, like Schumacher and especially Illich, once you disconnect their fog machines. The situationists -- as represented by Vaneigem's Revolution of Daily Life and in the Situationist International Anthology -- are so ruthlessly lucid as to be exhilarating, even if they never did quite square the endorsement of the rule of the worker's councils with the abolition of work. Better their incongruity, though than any extant version of leftism, whose devotees look to be the last champions of work, for if there were no work there would be no workers, and without workers, who would the left have to organize?
So the abolitionists would be largely on their own. No one can say what would result from unleashing the creative power stultified by work. Anything can happen. The tiresome debater's problem of freedom vs. necessity, with its theological overtones, resolves itself practically once the production of use-values is coextensive with the consumption of delightful play-activity.
Life will become a game, or rather many games, but not -- as it is now - -- a zero/sum game. An optimal sexual encounter is the paradigm of productive play, The participants potentiate each other's pleasures, nobody keeps score, and everybody wins. The more you give, the more you get. In the ludic life, the best of sex will diffuse into the better part of daily life. Generalized play leads to the libidinization of life. Sex, in turn, can become less urgent and desperate, more playful. If we play our cards right, we can all get more out of life than we put into it; but only if we play for keeps.
No one should ever work. Workers of the world... relax!
Anarchist Reading List - http://www.zpub.com/notes/aan-read.html
[ This is a typed-in version of Bob Black's 1985 essay, "The Abolition of Work", which appeared in his anthology of essays, "The Abolition of Work and Other Essays", published by Loompanics Unlimited, Port Townsend WA 98368 [ISBN 0-915179-41-5]. The following disclaimer is reproduced from the verso of the title page: "Not Copyrighted. Any of the material in this book may be freely reproduced, translated or adapted, even without mentioning the source." ]
Source: http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/black/sp000156.txt
Typos corrected 19-Dec-2003
[snip]Contributed by Greg Lipman (glipman@hotmail.com) on May 20, 1999.
[snip]Contributed by steven bolin (sbolin@kc.rr.com) on January 11, 2001.
[snip]Contributed by Steve (waverider63@hotmail.com) on March 27, 2001.
May I start of by saying that the other contributers miss the point. While it is true that Black's work may be construed as utopian, that does not necessarily mean that these goals are lofty or noble. And besides, what is a wrong with utopianism anyway. I think it was Oscar Wilde that said , "history is the realization of utopia's". Other points raised by the other contributers are suspect to say the least. If Black is saying anything, he is saying that the internal dynamics of capitalism is driving an ever more warped and alienating division of labour. If one has to go, then by definition the other one has to go as well. BUContributed by (makhno@genie.co.uk) on April 2, 2001.
I believe that the other contributers miss the point completely.Whether or not Black's work can be construed as utopianism is besides the point. Maybe it can, but that does not necessarily mean that these goals are lofty or noble. Indeed, what is wrong with utopianism anyway. I think it was Oscar Wilde that said, "history is the realization of utopias".Contributed by Lee (makhno@genie.co.uk) on April 3, 2001.Other points made by the other contributers are flawed as well. It would seem that these other contributers believe that Black wished for the abolition of work to take place within a mainly capitalist world. If this was the case then capitalism would cease to exist, thereby declaring their arguments null and void.It is capitalism(and state socialism as well developed a pathological love for work) that has created the alienating and warped division of labour. In other words by reason of its own internal dynamics of efficiency driven by the profit motive, competition and control. This is why there can be no middle way; this is why technology cannot be harnessed to serve man rather than enslave him. To talk about about "garbage collection", global "methods of transportation" and "power generation" is to slap on those capitalist conceptual spectacles once again. The point that Black is trying to make (although I don't think he says it),is that there is a difference between "needs" and "wants". Most garbage is created by things that we do not need, or in most cases, even want.As for transportation, most of those things we do not need are ferried half way around the world just to end up in landfill.Its growth orientated (capitalism expands or dies) and profit driven capitalism that has to create new "wants", that is it's raison d etre; that is why it exists and whilever it exists, the warped and alientating division of labour exists as well. Man's "needs" are very few and as such, his time taken up by satisfying his "needs" is very short.
I know Black will hate me for saying this, but I think that Murray Bookchin offers the way out that Black seems to want to take. This way out is not a "return to the idyllic life of hunter gatherers", as one contributer so foolishly put, (after all, one does not de-invent the wheel, or any technology for that matter) but to harness technology in small communites in an ecological friendly manner,or in tune with the natural environnment thats unexploitative and which creates more time for play.(and probably saves humanity from extinction as well) Indeed, when the strict superspecialised division of labour has gone, why shouldn't people enjoy their work. Why can't work become play? What will stop you from doing numerous different things throughout the day?
As for one contributer arguing that Black ignores many of the foundations, "that make their dream society possible",then I start to think that him and I were not reading the same piece. Black doesn't ignore the foundations, how can he, when throughout the Abolition of Work Black explictly argues that it is the foundation(capitalism, the state, heirarchial society which includes the complete superstructure(including schools,the church,the traditional nuclear family etc)),that has created the pathological destructive work ethic and as such is not a foundation that should be perpetuated.(see arguments above which show that the foundation argument is a silly one) The contributer might want to argue that it is the specialized divison of labour and the way this has contributed to building a "need and want" fulfilling superstructure. Unfortunately, he is putting the cart before the horse, in that this is not the foundation, but merely a reflection of it.
[snip]Contributed by Gina Ruth (ghads@mail.microsfto.mt) on June 29, 2001.
I am all for the abolition of work. I'm also all for the abolition of schools, for schools are nothing more than detention centers that regulate the flow of young competitors into the work place. (Humans have never needed a classroom and bell schedule in order to learn.) Since billions of us are compelled day after day to drag stones up the world devouring pyramid called civilization, we are all in effect held captive by our own cultural mythology. This worldwide mythology is why we all work. It's why a hierarchy structures our daily behavior. Unfortunately, this cultural mythology is virually undetectable and infects billions of people with a delusion that is fundamental to every society where people work. People feel like they aren't getting the whole truth about life and that they are being manipulated, which is why the movie "The Matrix" was a box-office smash. Would you ever believe that there is a connection between the POPULARITY of the television shows "Gilligan's Island" and "The X-files"? E-mail me for the connection. One point that wasn't really made anywhere on this site was this: People have lived without "working" on this planet for millions of years!!! In fact, there are still people who live without work. And I'm not talking about the poor and homeless people in our society that we ignore or despise. Granted, the non-working people I'm talking about account for way less than 1% of the entire homo-sapien population, and exist now simply because we haven't gotten around to conquering them/removing them to a "reservation" yet. These people live without work. They also live without schools, police, prisons, psychiatrists, and retirement homes. FACT: "Pre-historic" peoples lived a life of leisure and security, and still do if they happen to live in a remote place that we haven't yet converted entirely into human food. Although our cultural mythology teaches us that "pre-historic" peoples struggle while constantly fighting for survival, the fact is, any intelligent anthropologist will say they live a life of leisure and security. "Settlers" arrived on North America just a few centuries ago and we have already turned the continent into a toilet. It doesn't take a lot of time to completely devour and destroy when we effectively wage war against the earth just so we can amass a huge surplus of food. With our culture, it comes down to this: more food, more people, more food, more people, more food, more people, more food, more people, more food,...and so on and so forth. It's taken only 10,000 years for our cultural mythology to bring about the threat of our own extinction. That's a hiccup in the scale of geological time that accounts for human history. (what the hell is "pre"-history anyway? Isn't "history" the account of all events past?) So, just several centuries ago, there one continent left on the planet that was populated entirely by people that did not work. Good thing we conquered them. Hell, they were letting all this great farming land go to waste. How does the rest of over 6 billion people live? WORK. How do you get people to work? Why do we all do it? How do you get people to work their ass off, day after day, filling prescriptions of anti-depressant drugs for everyone in the whole family while the children scream for help with disturbing art and deadly weapons? Simple. You lock up the food.Contributed by Chazz Carr (chazz@americanequalaccess.com) on September 9, 2001.
I believe that work exists because people are greedy. If there was no greed in the world, companies would not pursue profits, money would hold no value, share markets would not exist, there will be no banks, and there won't be any industry. But because people are inherently greedy, sooner or later, greed compels someone to coax, cajole and coerce others into work and it is all downhill from there. To abolish work, therefore, we must eliminate greed. To eliminate greed, we must learn to live within our means, not borrow too much; we must teach our children to be frugal and not buy them too many toys. We must eat less and spend less. When we learn to consume less, we will need to earn less and we won't have to work so hard.Contributed by Azhar Ali Abidi (azhar@onthe.net.au) on October 25, 2001.
[snip]Contributed by george jones (qwed23@juno.com) on February 27, 2002.
I think Bob Black is on target when he describes the proliferation of useless or counter- productive "service" work as a means of social regimentation and demoralization. At least people who work on farms, in mines or on the assembly line have something tangible to point to at the end of the day as evidence that they weren't toiling in vain. That sort of work might be tiring, dangerous and humiliating, but it does relate somehow to the material quality of life. It does instantiate somehow what the human mind can imagine and create, much like what an artist can do, though perhaps not as aesthetically pleasing. Because advances in productivity have gotten us to the point where we don't need nearly as many people to produce things (whether needed or not), you'd think that by now we'd be granted more leisure and perhaps some sort of negative income tax so that the less employable people could live in some minimal standard of decency. Instead we've seen the cancerous growth of low- paid service work [refer to Barbara Ehrenreich's book _Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America_], which not coincidentally is aimed at absorbing the time and energies of socially marginal groups like single mothers, immigrants and displaced blue-collar workers. And I know from my own experience that this sort of "work," especially at its current inadequate rates of compensation, is totally lacking in value, and is not fit for people living in what is supposed to be a "free" society. However, given the current political climate in the U.S., I don't see how this system is going to change. The individual who wants to disinvent work for himself necessarily has to use the system in his favor by cutting back on consumption and investing and saving his money until he becomes financially independent, as Larry Roth describes in his book _Beating the System: The Next American Revolution_ (which also reprints Black's essay in an appendix). The flipside of rejecting the work ethic requires you to reject the consumption ethic as well.Contributed by Mark Plus (markplus@hotmail.com) on March 18, 2002.
[snip]Contributed by william tell (werd23@juno.com) on June 25, 2002.
[snip]Contributed by Pablo Contreras (etnoz@mexico.com) on July 3, 2002.
[snip]Contributed by william tell (werd23@juno.com) on July 9, 2002.
from my memory of the abolition of work, i don't think i saw in it the idea of regressing to an 'idyllic primitive society' that some previous commentators did.Contributed by bob black (fin2r2d@leeds.ac.uk) on February 18, 2003.there is a danger of setting up an opposition between now and then, industrial and primitive, alienated and unalienated labour which presents the past to us in nostalgic form. (see david lowenthal et al in the history workshop on the dangers of nostalgia)
as i read the abolition of work, it was a description, making no concessions for reality, of black's perfect world. he does not pretend to make suggestions as to how it might be achieved. however, my limited understanding suggests that it was the situationists who decided that the representation of the world as it is or could be on canvas or paper should be replaced by efforts to change the world itself, with society itself as the artistic creation. bob black, with the abolition of work, is still describing the world as he wishes it was instead of creating it anew.
bob black
This is a persistent comment, not an alternative one. Bob Black may want to consider defining work. Work by itself has no meaning, - or +. Perhaps the abolition of the exploitation of the human spirit?Contributed by spbaxter (spbaxter121371@juno.com) on May 6, 2003.
I wish I could retract my previous statements. This essay is good, and it does shed new light and perspective on a subject that is studiously ignored. Recently, I have read Black's "Lightning Smokestacks" and it clarifies some of the points in this essay a great deal. For a while I had some stupid fetish with Marx. Keep up the good work Bob Black.Contributed by william tell (werd23@hotmail.com) on September 16, 2003.
Bob Black's text is excellent reading. I'm member of the Basic Income European Network and Belgian www.Vivant.be. The ideas of Vivant are:Contributed by Fre Re (frere@blibla.net) on December 19, 2003.- An unconditional basic income for all, in the range of 200,-$/kid, 600,-$/adult, 900,-$/elderly (all monthly) - Suppression of all tax on work
The interesting thing is that this can be achieved perfectly TODAY. The Belgium entrepreneur who started the Vivant party paid independent economists to work it out objectively. Their conclusion is very much positive.
1) We need a tax reform: replace work tax by product tax. In Europe, this would just mean remove the huge work taxes (100 to 300%) and raise VAT (Value Added Tax, it's a product tax). The goverment keeps its income (if it needs to), prices remain stable (if they have to). 2) We need to cut into the civil servant "army": 40% of the active population in Belgium. By taking away work taxes, unemployment, allowances etc and replacing them by Basic Income and product tax, a big chunk will be freed from their stupid occupation
The consequences of such a pragmatic and simple reform would already be overwhelming. I think they would certainly get us a lot closer to Bob Black's playful world.
That raises an interesting point, how the Belgian army accounts for 40% of the active population, or how here in Freiburg, whole industries are created just to keep people from unemployment, or how, as Black estimates, in general, 95+% of work is just not neccessary. We can all agree that most jobs keep you occupied, keep you earning money for not only a boss but a nation, when the food is there, the clothing is there, etc. So whether or not we all agree that ALL work can be eliminated, can't we agree that MOST should? Should we all have to work just to make it fair for those who do? Why don't we just divide up these toilsome jobs evenly? Which leads me to address the first critic at the top: have you ever considered that some people ENJOY building cars, or technology, or growing food, or sewing? Many people just like doing things that enrich society. When access to food isn't under lock and key anymore, the people who volunteered at soup kitchens could just start growing food, or cooking soup, or building community kitchens. People who enjoy building cars would also enjoy seeing them put to good use. And without the false incentive of profit, its a good bet that their use would be good. Or maybe you're some liberal arts student who thinks that the only fun ways to spend free time is by painting, or writing, or riding your favorite bike trail. That's not to knock art or biking (i love both), just to point out that some people LIKE to do things that benefit society and not just the individual. The one thing that nobody I know really likes to do is take care of the sewage system, which is why I say we should up Chrystal Meth production and set the tweekers to cleaning! How's that for "joking AND serious"? No offense to any of you tweekers. Now go clean your kitchen.Contributed by boogers (CTarlow@aol.com) on March 6, 2004.
I believe that the other contributers miss the point completely. Whether or not Black's work can be construed as utopianism is besides the point. Maybe it can, but that does not necessarily mean that these goals are lofty or noble. Indeed, what is wrong with utopianism anyway. I think it was Oscar Wilde that said, "history is the realization of utopias". Other points made by the other contributers are flawed as well. It would seem that these other contributers believe that Black wished for the abolition of work to take place within a mainly capitalist world. If this was the case then capitalism would cease to exist, thereby declaring their arguments null and void.It is capitalism(and state socialism as well developed a pathological love for work) that has created the alienating and warped division of labour. In other words by reason of its own internal dynamics of efficiency driven by the profit motive, competition and control. This is why there can be no middle way; this is why technology cannot be harnessed to serve man rather than enslave him. To talk about about "garbage collection", global "methods of transportation" and "power generation" is to slap on those capitalist conceptual spectacles once again. The point that Black is trying to make (although I don't think he says it),is that there is a difference between "needs" and "wants". Most garbage is created by things that we do not need, or in most cases, even want.As for transportation, most of those things we do not need are ferried half way around the world just to end up in landfill.Its growth orientated (capitalism expands or dies) and profit driven capitalism that has to create new "wants", that is it's raison d etre; that is why it exists and whilever it exists, the warped and alientating division of labour exists as well. Man's "needs" are very few and as such, his time taken up by satisfying his "needs" is very short.Contributed by Rahul Gulati (http://www.krindia.com) on March 25, 2004.I know Black will hate me for saying this, but I think that Murray Bookchin offers the way out that Black seems to want to take. This way out is not a "return to the idyllic life of hunter gatherers", as one contributer so foolishly put, (after all, one does not de-invent the wheel, or any technology for that matter) but to harness technology in small communites in an ecological friendly manner,or in tune with the natural environnment thats unexploitative and which creates more time for play.(and probably saves humanity from extinction as well) Indeed, when the strict superspecialised division of labour has gone, why shouldn't people enjoy their work. Why can't work become play? What will stop you from doing numerous different things throughout the day?
As for one contributer arguing that Black ignores many of the foundations, "that make their dream society possible",then I start to think that him and I were not reading the same piece. Black doesn't ignore the foundations, how can he, when throughout the Abolition of Work Black explictly argues that it is the foundation(capitalism, the state, heirarchial society which includes the complete superstructure(including schools,the church,the traditional nuclear family etc)),that has created the pathological destructive work ethic and as such is not a foundation that should be perpetuated.(see arguments above which show that the foundation argument is a silly one) The contributer might want to argue that it is the specialized divison of labour and the way this has contributed to building a "need and want" fulfilling superstructure. Unfortunately, he is putting the cart before the horse, in that this is not the foundation, but merely a reflection of it. http://www.krindia.com/Business_process_outsourcing_services.asp
This piece is brilliant. It's clear that we have entered a new phase in the history of technology. The 'jobless recovery' is one symptom of this change. It's the natural result of the realization of Moore's Law and the Internet. It's not bad, it's a good thing. Read a bit about Taylor and scientific management, or reengineering, and you will see that the goal is to eliminate all jobs, (but especially high wage jobs) or commoditize them so that they are standardized.Contributed by Hello Kitty (Hello@kitty.com) on April 2, 2004.No square pegs in our round holes! :) You can't unionize workers who don't exist!
Efficiency, that's the answer. More productivity. People are too expensive and they will increasingly be redundant.
In the future, very few people will need to work.
*laugh* But seriously, folks.. That day is closer than most of us realize..
We should get ready for this day by shortening the work week and day, and letting people take early retirement so that younger workers won't burn out.
(and so they will have children, necessary for the survival of the species!)
We should also financially incentivize companies to be good citizens. Right now, we encourage them to be parasites. Our system right now actually discourages them from being good citizens. In fact, it encourages companies to move jobs to low-wage countries. Sure, those jobs will soon be automated, but there will be decent jobs repairing the robots for some time to come. Better that than indentured servitude, bankrupcy and the organ banks for your children! ;)
As this implies, we really don't have any alternative to doing the things I mention. The alternative is a terribly cruel situation characterized by widespread anarchy and chaos!
Cheerio!
Loved the article. Sorry nothing astounding to say, just agree work is toxic. Unpleasant bureaucrats actually turn into human beings when they clock off. It's like seeing moths becoming butterflies. A ditty I composed: Avast ye sad and labouring monkeys, Ye moaning, sour and gruesome flunkeys. Where's nobility of toil ? Tis just a figleaf on a boil. Why don't you let my people go, they don't like fast, they just like slow. We are at heart a race of these who much prefer to take our ease. Ta.Contributed by Julian McHale (julian.mchale@ntlworld.com) on April 6, 2004.