Why Work?
December 2024 › Forums › General discussion › Why Work?
- This topic has 15 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by SocialistPunk.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 15, 2012 at 8:49 pm #81499AnonymousInactiveAugust 16, 2012 at 8:38 am #88970ALBKeymaster
We beat them to it, by 40 years ! Here’s the editorial from the November 1971 Socialist Standard, also handed out as a leaflet at the TUC in Brighton in September 1972:
Quote:The Right to be LazyIn the course of the French revolution of 1848 the workers of Paris went into the streets to demand “The Right to Work”. Ever since, whenever unemployment has grown, trade unionists have demanded the same “right”. In fact the Clydeside shipworkers are supposed to be asserting it at this very momentBut what is this high-sounding Right to Work? To the average trade unionist it is probably the “right” to have a job and the pay packet that goes with it. It would, in other words, be more accurately called “The Right to Employment” or “The Right to Work for Wages”It should not be necessary to argue that under capitalism no such right exists, nor could it. Capitalism is based on the ownership of means of production by a minority. The rest have no alternative but to sell their ability to work — when they can — to one or other of these employers. But the employers are not philanthropists. They do not employ people in order to give these employees a living. They only employ people when they have calculated that they themselves can make a profit from selling the goods the workers produce.Production, and therefore employment, is determined under capitalism by the profit motive. The rule “no profit, no production” is the guiding economic principle. If those who own the means of production calculate — as many have done recently — that they cannot make a profit by selling the goods their factories could turn out, then they will run those factories below full capacity or even close them down altogether. The result is the mounting redundancies and growing unemployment we are now experiencing.This is the normal way capitalism works and is one reason why the Right to Work is a completely unrealistic demand. It amounts to demanding that employers abandon the profit motive and operate their system on some other principle. But they could not do this even if they wanted to, since what they can do is limited by the working of capitalism’s market forces. Nor could they be forced to do it even by the most militant trade union or political action. If pressed too far, they would merely shut up shop. The stark fact is that capitalism creates, and needs to create, rising unemployment from time to time.So, our average trade unionist may now be thinking, are you saying that in order to get the Right to Work we must get rid of capitalism and establish Socialism? No, we are not! We are not in favour of the Right to Work in the first place. Remember the Right to Work is merely a fancy way of referring to the Right of Employment, the Right to Work for Wages. In our view, this is demanding the Right To Be Exploited. It involves accepting capitalism and its wages system. The employer/employee relationship is based on exploitation since, if the employer is to make a profit, the wages he pays his employees must be less than the value of what they produce. The system of employment for wages shows that human brain and muscle power has become a mere commodity, to be bought and sold like some object. It signifies that those who actually produce the wealth of society are excluded from ownership and control of the means of production and so have no choice but to operate them for the employers on the employers’ terms — and at the employers’ convenience. The wage packet is in fact a badge of slavery.No, Socialists don’t want the Right to Work. It would be more accurate to say that we want its opposite, the Right To Be Lazy. This isn’t as way-out as might seem. Just think of developments in technology over the past hundred or so years, developments which are still going on, and you will see that the bulk of the hard grind of production is now done, and could be done even more, by machines. Automation could now relieve human beings of the burden of boring toil. Nobody need do a job he doesn’t like doing. The set working day could be reduced to two or three hours, freeing men to engage in the activities of their choice, including even producing useful things.Of course, this will never happen as long as the means of production are the property of a minority. It could only happen in a society where the factories, farms and other places where wealth is produced are commonly owned by all the people. There would then be no employers, nor wage-earners. Instead everybody would be an equal member of a free community organised to produce an abundance of good-quality consumer goods for people to take freely according to their needs.Actually, so long as it is enjoyable, work is a natural human activity, not to say need. In this sense to talk of the Right To Be Lazy can be misleading. But although men will always work, there is no reason for it take the form of boring toil. It could and should be interesting and so become like some of today’s leisure-time activities — done for the fun of it.To convert work from boring toil to creative activity is now possible. The ethic of hard work — necessary perhaps in the past to build up the means of production to the point where they can now turn out abundance — is outdated, and worse: it helps to keep capitalism going. No five words better sum up the Socialist’s emphatic rejection of the dogma that boring toil must be the lot of mankind than the slogan “The Right To Be Lazy”. Speed the day when trade unionists begin to demonstrate for this rather than some spurious Right to Work.August 16, 2012 at 8:38 pm #88971AnonymousInactiveExactly! So this stuff is all out there, the echos of old ideas, so as a Party why are we not capitalising on them more? How can we ‘re-package’ our ideas for a new, modern audience?
August 16, 2012 at 10:24 pm #88972Hud955ParticipantThere is a prior question to that. Why is it that we repeatedly ask this question and others like it, but usually come up with so few positive answers? Is it a failure of imagination or perception on our part or is it the intractability of the situation we find ourselves in? Or a little of both? I think the last. But I don’t think our situation is so intractable that we can’t find a way forward with this.
At the Stock Exchange Occupy site at St Pauls last year I had a lot of conversations with people who accused the party of peddling old and tired solutions to new problems. These were mostly people in their teens, twenties and thirties. The ironic thing is that the ‘brand new’ reformist-type solutions that so many of them were proposing had been around even before the party was formed right back in 1904. The ‘solutions’ they were mostly discovering were new, but only to them. Had they been willing even to listen to what a tired old socialist case had to offer, they might have realised they were hearing something genuinely different – something that they hadn’t cobbled together out of the standard ideology.There is a communictions issue here separate from any debates about the substance of the socialist case itself. We do need to update our presentation. The question is how do we reframe it without losing its specifically socialist character.
Like many of us, I’ve got as far as asking the question and bothering my head with it a bit, but I haven’t seriously researched it or tried to come to any real conclusions. What I have experienced is that whenever we raise this question we start trying to explain the problem away rather than putting effort into answering it. And that is an even more effective way of achieving nothing than avoiding the question altogether. I know from personal experience that the temptation is remarkably strong. The socialist case remains a powerful one whenever it responds directly to the way working people experience and think about the world. It is not that well adapted nowadays to meeting that challenge. Frankly, you’re right, SS. It needs a makeover.
OK, so how do we find new ways of presenting a socialist world view more in tune with the socially fragmented and overloaded capitalist environment we live in?
We are having a workshop coming up on the confernce weekend to discuss how we should be engaging with the current disquiet over capitalism so that we put the socialist case more effectively. Are you going to be there?August 16, 2012 at 11:26 pm #88973AnonymousInactiveI plan on attending the march that day but not sure if I can attend the workshop after as I have family considerations and need to get back (not everyone in the Party is London based as you know!).I am glad that someone else thinks similar to what I do. Our message is right but it is not, I feel, often presented in a way that a modern working person can relate to without masses of effort on their part and from a world that requires minimum effort for most things, its a big ask.I think that most people think changing the world ie beyond them, that politics are for men in suits, that most ‘real’ things like money, economics, etc are nothing or little to do with them on a personal level, so why bother about them.Perhaps one way is for us to bring our message into this personal world, hence my postings like this one and the one on minimalism – people don’t care about politices, but they do care about lifstyles and lifestyle choices and many of them chime with our sentiments albeit on a personal rather than our more abstract political level. This is a road in I think. This gets people thinking about themselves and then we can lead onto the wider context and introduce our ideas.Many reject working 9-5 for nothing, many reject consumerism, many reject the status quo but on a personal level and not on any wider context or understanding – if we can get into their personal way of thinking I am sure we can broaden those views into our wider political understanding.How? That’s a million dollar question and one I haven’t been able to think through clearly enough to provide a detailed answer. Perhaps other comrades can join in and help, rather than wasting time debating the minute of events 80years ago and the true nature of Lenin’ underpants with members of the ‘left’ who will never accept our ideas anyway.
August 17, 2012 at 10:10 am #88974AnonymousInactiveIf you can’t see what’s in front of your face then there is no hope. People searching for solutions and looking to the SPGB find other people with similar developing ideas being vilified and riduculed by party members. Why should they listen to us?
August 17, 2012 at 8:50 pm #88976Hud955ParticipantHi SS
I think there are really two questions here. One is about media – how do we make best use of the media that are available to us – what skills do we have to acquire to use them effectively, etc?. The other is more about personal presentation and that’s something we all have to develop ourselves. Everyone has their own style that works best for them and that can’t be forced. The important point though is that it doesn’t come naturally: it is something that has to be worked at. and the question of the best and most appropriate way of getting a point across is part of that.
So, even before all the detailed questions, there is the question of presentation itself. It is very rarely addressed within the party. So long as we put the case, so the belief goes, we can rely on it to do the work for us. There is this assumption (implied, at any rate) that we don’t have to work too hard, or at all, on how we present it. So we forget about such matters.I could be wrong, but I get the impression that some members believe the whole question of presentation is a little anti-socialist. The idea that there are maybe better ways of getting the message across suggests deviousness and manipulation and they don’t like it. It’s a bit like engaging in PR and all that implies. The problem is that there is no escaping this issue. There are better ways of getting the message across and that means that there are also worse ways as well. And you have to choose. Because I think we so often choose not to choose we end up with something less effective than we might.August 17, 2012 at 11:21 pm #88975SocialistPunkParticipantHello to everyone, just joined.
I’ve been watching this forum on and off for a few months and thought, why not get in there.
I used to be a member of the SPGB North East branch going back a few years. I had been exposed to the party in my early teens by my dad who was friends with a party member (both miners).
I joined mid nineties after my younger brother died, as a result of NHS negligence and cost cutting.
I was twenty five and angry and wanted to do something, get active. I ended up joining, encouraged by a local party member who is now a very good friend.
My point is that I spent two years in the branch, writing letters, talking with people, helping to contest a few elections. While there were some hard working individuals, I felt the majority were content simply to be in a social club where like minded “revolutionaries” swapped complaints about capitalism and lamented the good old days when they had more members etc.
I often felt hindered when trying to put forward ideas for promotional activities, but got no alternatives from my critics.
I ended up drifting away from the party, as I expect many do. I still consider myself a socialist and put the case forward when I find it warranted.
I agree that the party approach needs updating, and that far too much time is devoted to fruitless argument with left wing groups.
If I come up with any suggestions I will post them on this forum.
Hope to chat with you lot soon.August 17, 2012 at 11:42 pm #88977zundapParticipantCould we not send the whywork.org the 72 Standard editorial?
August 18, 2012 at 6:44 am #88979ALBKeymasterIt’s now on the Socialist Standard Archives section here (along with other new stuff from the 1970s):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1971/no-807-november-1971/right-be-lazy
August 18, 2012 at 11:05 am #88980AnonymousInactiveSocialist Punk wrote:My point is that I spent two years in the branch, writing letters, talking with people, helping to contest a few elections. While there were some hard working individuals, I felt the majority were content simply to be in a social club where like minded “revolutionaries” swapped complaints about capitalism and lamented the good old days when they had more members etc.I left the North east branch in the late 80s and we did have a large thriving branch; I believe 40 members and many of us were very active. It was around the time of the old thriving Islington branch . We invited Coleman, Slapper, Knight, May, Young and others up to speak at public meetings. We had big ideas – a socialist book shop/coffee shop and standing for election. It is dificult to put your finger on why you give up. Perhaps it is simply that members of the working class have not listened to you for 10 years so why bother. I am a firm believer in materialism – socialism is not a religion, it is my selfish interests. I have rejoined after watching the occupy movement with false hope and of course there are not 2 socialist parties in the UK.. Good to hear from you tho’
August 18, 2012 at 12:05 pm #88978ALBKeymasterSocialistPunk wrote:Hello to everyone, just joined.I’ve been watching this forum on and off for a few months and thought, why not get in there.I used to be a member of the SPGB North East branch going back a few years.Welcome. This is a coincidence. I don’t know if you are still in the North East but there is still a branch their with 16 members on the books. But it can’t be said to be thriving. And at the moment we are trying to revive it on the basis of the new model we have adopted of a regional branch (meeting in a regional centre on the Saturday or Sunday during the day rather than in a town on a weekday evening). This has worked in other parts of the country. We need all the help anyone can offer to get something going again in the North East where we’ve put in a lot of work over the years contesting Westminster, European and local elections.
SocialistPunk wrote:I agree that the party approach needs updating, and that far too much time is devoted to fruitless argument with left wing groups.I’m not sure we do as much of that as we did at one time. But it’s still true that most of those who have joined for the first time in recent years have still come from the “left” (Labour, Communist, Militant) though a couple have come from the Liberals and even one from UKIP (don’t know what that means).
August 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm #88981SocialistPunkParticipantHi ALB and The Old Grey Whistle,
I still live in the North East.
As I stated I still consider myself a socialist and I still read the Standard.
Recently I have found myself becoming more and more pissed off with what is going on in the world and the inability of people to realise they are being screwed big time.
There is a lot of frustration and anger out there, that much I do know which is kinda encouraging. Although it seems mainly aimed at bankers.
Given that we are in a world wide recession, a big one at that. If the SPGB and companion parties around the world can’t make significant progress with the case for socialism, then I fear it may never be achieved.
That could be me being pessimistic?August 19, 2012 at 7:15 pm #88982AnonymousInactiveNot pessimistic. However it must be remembered that the SPGB comparitively is a small party with fewer active members and without the active members, the message is difficult to get across against the power of the capitalist media. We have to do what we can, when we can with what resources we have. Of course extra help in any capacity is appreciated……!
August 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm #88983HollyHeadParticipantWhether one is an optimist, a pessimist, or a pessimistic optimist there is really no alternative to spreading what socialist understanding one can.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.