4 ms·

since people are having trouble with the wall of text, the bit that gets to the "argument" of it pretty quick without having to read all the article "Savagely

since people are having trouble with the wall of text, the bit that gets to the "argument" of it pretty quick without having to read all the article "Savagely compressed, Hägglund’s argument goes something like this: If what makes our lives meaningful is that time ends, then what defines us is what Marx called “an economy of time.” Marx is, in this sense, probably the most secular thinker who ever lived, the one most deeply engaged with the question of what we do with our time. He divided life into what he called the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom. Hägglund adopts these categories: the realm of necessity involves socially necessary labor and the realm of freedom involves socially available free time. Rationally, Hägglund says, we should strive to reduce the realm of necessity and increase the realm of freedom. But capitalism is systemically committed to exploiting most of us, and to steadily increasing the amount of labor at the expense of our freedom. Capitalism treats the means of economic life, labor, as though it were the purpose of life. But, if we are to cherish this life, we have to treat what we do as an end in itself. “The real measure of value,” Hägglund says, “is not how much work we have done or have to do (quantity of labor time) but how much disposable time we have to pursue and explore what matters to us (quality of free time).”

LatteLazy 7y ago
Thanks, that helped!
gridlockd 7y ago
In a working capitalist system, where prices are not artificially held high (zoning laws etc), the cost of living is low enough that even that average worker can trade off working time for leisure time. That just means giving up on more consumption, or funding one's own retirement. It's evident though that most people prefer consuming over anything else. They buy shiny things, go into debt for it, then are forced to work off the debt. Thinkers like Marx may feel different about the whole thing, they need their time off to do what fulfills them. Most workers, even those performing hard manual labor, feel empty if they don't work.
jackhiggs 7y ago
This is such a naive and bourgeois argument isn't it? Free time is only valuable or meaningful if you have the means to make it so, and have been given opportunities to cultivate interests. If you're living in poverty, the quantity of disposable time will not make up for the lack of cash.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  There is definitely a trade-off between the two, though. There is a freedom in poverty (no assets to look after, no job to go to, no-one telling you what to do or who to be). I was definitely more miserable earning a good salary in a 9-5 job that I hated than when I was homeless and penniless.
- keithnz 7y ago
  I think it shows the problems of trying to boil down things such as "what makes life worthy?" to a very simplified rule. I think if we look at other disciplines other than philosophy, like psychology to look at the things that give people a sense of well being, we get more nuanced answers that while influence the kinds of political systems we should have, don't dictate what exactly it should be.
marcus_holmes 7y ago
>> Capitalism treats the means of economic life, labor, as though it were the purpose of life I got an involuntary [citation needed] mental response at this. Anyone know if this is a quote from the book, or the author's opinion?
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
> But capitalism is systemically committed to exploiting most of us, and to steadily increasing the amount of labor at the expense of our freedom. It was under capitalism that we got a 40-hour week. In fact, the history of capitalism over the last 150 years shows a trend of decreasing time working. So I'm not buying this point in the argument.
- subsection1h 7y ago
  We have a 40-hour work week because of labor unions. Saying that "it was under capitalism that we got a 40-hour week" is like saying it was under Christian leadership that we got same-sex marriage. Both statements are true but misleading.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I acknowledge the union involvement. And yet, I deny that it is the whole story. For example: "Over the 20th century, work hours shortened by almost half, mostly due to rising wages brought about by renewed economic growth, with a supporting role from trade unions, collective bargaining, and progressive legislation. The workweek, in most of the industrialized world, dropped steadily, to about 40 hours after World War II." (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#History ) "Mostly due to rising wages brought about by economic growth." Without the economic growth, we're left with the choice of longer hours or a painfully reduced standard of living.

LatteLazy 7y ago

Thanks, that helped!

gridlockd 7y ago

In a working capitalist system, where prices are not artificially held high (zoning laws etc), the cost of living is low enough that even that average worker can trade off working time for leisure time. That just means giving up on more consumption, or funding one's own retirement. It's evident though that most people prefer consuming over anything else. They buy shiny things, go into debt for it, then are forced to work off the debt. Thinkers like Marx may feel different about the whole thing, they need their time off to do what fulfills them. Most workers, even those performing hard manual labor, feel empty if they don't work.

jackhiggs 7y ago

This is such a naive and bourgeois argument isn't it? Free time is only valuable or meaningful if you have the means to make it so, and have been given opportunities to cultivate interests. If you're living in poverty, the quantity of disposable time will not make up for the lack of cash.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
There is definitely a trade-off between the two, though. There is a freedom in poverty (no assets to look after, no job to go to, no-one telling you what to do or who to be). I was definitely more miserable earning a good salary in a 9-5 job that I hated than when I was homeless and penniless.
keithnz 7y ago
I think it shows the problems of trying to boil down things such as "what makes life worthy?" to a very simplified rule. I think if we look at other disciplines other than philosophy, like psychology to look at the things that give people a sense of well being, we get more nuanced answers that while influence the kinds of political systems we should have, don't dictate what exactly it should be.

marcus_holmes 7y ago

>> Capitalism treats the means of economic life, labor, as though it were the purpose of life I got an involuntary [citation needed] mental response at this. Anyone know if this is a quote from the book, or the author's opinion?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

> But capitalism is systemically committed to exploiting most of us, and to steadily increasing the amount of labor at the expense of our freedom. It was under capitalism that we got a 40-hour week. In fact, the history of capitalism over the last 150 years shows a trend of decreasing time working. So I'm not buying this point in the argument.

subsection1h 7y ago
We have a 40-hour work week because of labor unions. Saying that "it was under capitalism that we got a 40-hour week" is like saying it was under Christian leadership that we got same-sex marriage. Both statements are true but misleading.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I acknowledge the union involvement. And yet, I deny that it is the whole story. For example: "Over the 20th century, work hours shortened by almost half, mostly due to rising wages brought about by renewed economic growth, with a supporting role from trade unions, collective bargaining, and progressive legislation. The workweek, in most of the industrialized world, dropped steadily, to about 40 hours after World War II." (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#History ) "Mostly due to rising wages brought about by economic growth." Without the economic growth, we're left with the choice of longer hours or a painfully reduced standard of living.