4 ms·

I dont know where this idea of relieving people from work came from. Humans are workers, it's a part of our being and their wouldn't be a civilisation without i

by calsy 10y ago

I dont know where this idea of relieving people from work came from. Humans are workers, it's a part of our being and their wouldn't be a civilisation without it. The idea that everyone really just wants to put their feet up in a hammock and relax but these damn social constructs are keeping us tied to work is crazy. If the need to work and strive for something is taken away, I can tell you bad things will happen.

burkaman 10y ago
Just replace "work" in that comment with "jobs". It's about removing the necessity of work, and working for other people, not getting rid of work as a concept.
- calsy 10y ago
  The idea of working with other people is also a part of our being. 'I scratch your back, you scratch mine', we bond as humans by assisting each other, that's how communities are built. Humans have a hard time accepting people into their community who do not wish to work simple because they don't 'feel like it', machine or no machine. It maybe unfortunate, but people as a whole have always taken a dim view of those who don't pull their weight in a group.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    That's fine. There's still a difference between "I want to work" and "I have to work".
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >The idea of working for other people is also a part of our being. Poppycock. This is tired ideology used to say that humans need unjustified authority, someone to give the product of their labour to. And it's hardly a "you scratch mine" relationship when the boss decides who gets how much profit, despite having little to no involvement in the labour process itself. Working may be something humans "need" to do (even that is so far unfounded) but the idea that we need to work for other people is exactly what was pushed on the serfs during feudalism and it's exactly what's being pushed by the state, the church and the owners of capital on the labourers of today. With regard to your second point, humans may indeed have a hard time accepting people who don't want to pull weight, but that pulling doesn't have to be done for someone else. It can be, sure - and I feel as though many or most people would be happy to work for collective good, for whatever motivation, but to force someone to work in such a fashion is authoritarian. Just as being forced to sell labour is authoritarian.
    - calsy 10y ago
      I should have said 'working with other people' not 'working for other people', that was my point. Funny how a single word changes my entire point, whoops.
wallacoloo 10y ago
I think what you're getting at is that work can be fulfilling. I'm sure loads of people here on HN have at some point had a project they wanted to pursue, but were never able to because doing so would mean losing the income of their office job, which they need to survive. Having all your basic needs fulfilled solves this scenario. The only work being done is that driven by passion, and the ability to exercise those passions is more accessible to the typical person.
ue_ 10y ago
I'm sorry for confusion. I meant to say, to relieve people of unnecessary work. There are plenty of things that need work, such as services for other humans (at least in the short term), programming (again, at least in the short term) and in fact many hobbies and things that people do for their own leisure that require work, like learning languages, mathematics, sport, etc. Socialism is all about the fact that people really do want to do something. Nowhere did I want to imply that humans ought to be idle, or that the natural state of the human is idle. I'm saying that a lot of the work that we currently do is for naught, producing massive amounts of waste and generally items which have emerged as part of a culture that's all about consumerism rather than what we need in order to be happy. And if labouring is what you need, by all means please do it! :) There will be necessary work under any system, make no mistake. But fewer people would need to work, and fewer hours would need to be spent per person if the load is distributed in a better way.
- calsy 10y ago
  I think consumerism does make people happy. Call it shallow, but people enjoying buying new things like TVs, cars. Its not like we have all been brainwashed to think that way (contrary to what some people think). Even as children, we have this urge to get things that other kids our age have, a new console, a new toy. Consumerism and capitalism allows a particular level of freedom where if I want something I can get it if I do enough work. The machine is almost a socialist construct, with limited jobs available, its up to the machine to determine whether I can have something or not.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    If consumerism makes people happy than let it be so. I'm not proposing to stop that, rather I am saying that in my judgement it is unfortunate that capitalism, thanks to the powerful hand of advertising has convinced many people that they need things that they don't really need at all; in fact, this is a large part of for example the entertainment business. Stupidly large amounts are spent on advertising. We produce for the sake of production, for the sake of handing our product (labour) over to other people. I think it's horrible. A lot of the reason why children want toys is thanks to advertising, either direct (TV, internet, and nowadays Youtube) or indirect (seeing their friends playing with one). Whether it's most of the reason or not, I don't know. But I know that there would be fewer wants if the people wanting didn't know that it existed. Both direct and indirect advertising do not present the object in an objective light, intentionally or not. The idea that children wouldn't be happy without the newest toys and consoles is dubious at best. >if I want something I can get it if I do enough work. It's a good thing that you don't want the product of your labour, because nobody is going to hand that to you, regardless of how hard you work. Can the sweatshop workers get themselves out of their predicament by doing enough work? How about the programmer? How many people have worked under this puerile delusion that they will be rewarded if they work hard enough? I say to abolish the reward and the giver of the reward. It is not enough to say that people should be rewarded. There should be no concept of reward to start with. You get what you work for, and it isn't appropriated. That's not a reward any more than getting the wood from a tree is a reward.

by calsy 10y ago

burkaman 10y ago

Just replace "work" in that comment with "jobs". It's about removing the necessity of work, and working for other people, not getting rid of work as a concept.

calsy 10y ago
The idea of working with other people is also a part of our being. 'I scratch your back, you scratch mine', we bond as humans by assisting each other, that's how communities are built. Humans have a hard time accepting people into their community who do not wish to work simple because they don't 'feel like it', machine or no machine. It maybe unfortunate, but people as a whole have always taken a dim view of those who don't pull their weight in a group.
- burkaman 10y ago
  That's fine. There's still a difference between "I want to work" and "I have to work".
- ue_ 10y ago
  >The idea of working for other people is also a part of our being. Poppycock. This is tired ideology used to say that humans need unjustified authority, someone to give the product of their labour to. And it's hardly a "you scratch mine" relationship when the boss decides who gets how much profit, despite having little to no involvement in the labour process itself. Working may be something humans "need" to do (even that is so far unfounded) but the idea that we need to work for other people is exactly what was pushed on the serfs during feudalism and it's exactly what's being pushed by the state, the church and the owners of capital on the labourers of today. With regard to your second point, humans may indeed have a hard time accepting people who don't want to pull weight, but that pulling doesn't have to be done for someone else. It can be, sure - and I feel as though many or most people would be happy to work for collective good, for whatever motivation, but to force someone to work in such a fashion is authoritarian. Just as being forced to sell labour is authoritarian.
  - calsy 10y ago
    I should have said 'working with other people' not 'working for other people', that was my point. Funny how a single word changes my entire point, whoops.

wallacoloo 10y ago

I think what you're getting at is that work can be fulfilling. I'm sure loads of people here on HN have at some point had a project they wanted to pursue, but were never able to because doing so would mean losing the income of their office job, which they need to survive. Having all your basic needs fulfilled solves this scenario. The only work being done is that driven by passion, and the ability to exercise those passions is more accessible to the typical person.

ue_ 10y ago

I'm sorry for confusion. I meant to say, to relieve people of unnecessary work. There are plenty of things that need work, such as services for other humans (at least in the short term), programming (again, at least in the short term) and in fact many hobbies and things that people do for their own leisure that require work, like learning languages, mathematics, sport, etc. Socialism is all about the fact that people really do want to do something. Nowhere did I want to imply that humans ought to be idle, or that the natural state of the human is idle. I'm saying that a lot of the work that we currently do is for naught, producing massive amounts of waste and generally items which have emerged as part of a culture that's all about consumerism rather than what we need in order to be happy. And if labouring is what you need, by all means please do it! :) There will be necessary work under any system, make no mistake. But fewer people would need to work, and fewer hours would need to be spent per person if the load is distributed in a better way.

calsy 10y ago
I think consumerism does make people happy. Call it shallow, but people enjoying buying new things like TVs, cars. Its not like we have all been brainwashed to think that way (contrary to what some people think). Even as children, we have this urge to get things that other kids our age have, a new console, a new toy. Consumerism and capitalism allows a particular level of freedom where if I want something I can get it if I do enough work. The machine is almost a socialist construct, with limited jobs available, its up to the machine to determine whether I can have something or not.
- ue_ 10y ago
  If consumerism makes people happy than let it be so. I'm not proposing to stop that, rather I am saying that in my judgement it is unfortunate that capitalism, thanks to the powerful hand of advertising has convinced many people that they need things that they don't really need at all; in fact, this is a large part of for example the entertainment business. Stupidly large amounts are spent on advertising. We produce for the sake of production, for the sake of handing our product (labour) over to other people. I think it's horrible. A lot of the reason why children want toys is thanks to advertising, either direct (TV, internet, and nowadays Youtube) or indirect (seeing their friends playing with one). Whether it's most of the reason or not, I don't know. But I know that there would be fewer wants if the people wanting didn't know that it existed. Both direct and indirect advertising do not present the object in an objective light, intentionally or not. The idea that children wouldn't be happy without the newest toys and consoles is dubious at best. >if I want something I can get it if I do enough work. It's a good thing that you don't want the product of your labour, because nobody is going to hand that to you, regardless of how hard you work. Can the sweatshop workers get themselves out of their predicament by doing enough work? How about the programmer? How many people have worked under this puerile delusion that they will be rewarded if they work hard enough? I say to abolish the reward and the giver of the reward. It is not enough to say that people should be rewarded. There should be no concept of reward to start with. You get what you work for, and it isn't appropriated. That's not a reward any more than getting the wood from a tree is a reward.