Scan barcode
marjoleiein's review against another edition
4.0
Interesting perspective on how to differently frame the idea of work and stop working as a compulsory element of life
aidaniamb's review against another edition
3.0
Certainly interesting. Want to follow this thread more.
rotorguy64's review against another edition
2.0
This is one of the works that I was reading back when I was exploring anarchy more generally, instead of anarchocapitalism in particular (which, arguably, is a break from anarchist tradition, but frankly, I don't really care at this point). Let no one say I didn't give left-wing political philosophy a fair chance. I really, really did. God and the State, Towards a New Socialism, and Mother also come to my mind. Of these, only the last one was genuinely good.
The Abolition of Work is more on the anarchist side of socialism, but no less socialistic for it. Bob Blacks idea is that we should all just chill and make work fun again, the way it (supposedly) was in the far past. I don't fully disagree with him as far as the problem is concerned, and in fact have little sympathy for the work-save-die mindset fostered by certain religious reformers, unlike many of my capitalist brethren. I don't think capitalism in general, or labor management in particular, are to blame for the state of affairs, however. Things like the income tax or inflation force us to work long and grueling hours. With inflation, I don't think I have to explain much (when saving your money is discouraged, you can hardly make provision for taking long periods off from work), but that the income tax also discourages leisure does sound absurd, on the face of it. It isn't necessarily so, however. It can discourage working, the same way taxing smoking discourages smoking, but it also reduces overall living standards, and working is how we sustain our living standards. If you really badly want to live in a house with two bedrooms, then you might be willing to work the extra hours to pay for it under a scheme of income taxation. It all depends on how you value your leisure time against your living standards, as Bertrand de Jouvenel described in [b: The Ethics of Redistribution|1490396|The Ethics of Redistribution|Bertrand De Jouvenel|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328776869s/1490396.jpg|1481647]. Add progressive income taxation to the mix, and you can essentially lock people into their current workload. If you work for seventy hours one week, and fourty the next, you may easily end up unable to pay the taxes from your more laborious week, forcing you to work another seventy hour week, especially when there is high interest on your tax debt. I have seen this in effect, and it's diabolic. There is no other word for this.
Bob Blacks solution, from what I remember, is to turn labor into a game of sorts. How he envisions that, I do not know. I don't think you can make picking up trash a fun leisure activity by adding highscores to it. If you could, you could also bet some manager would've thought of doing that to motivate his workers, under the cries of "bread and circuces" from a dozen Marxists, who only want workers to have fun when it also pisses off the capitalists. The main problem is not that we cannot all work less and have fun (income taxation aside), but that we cannot do so and maintain our living standards. There is a reason workers get paid: Because otherwise, they wouldn't work nearly as smart, hard, or long. If you don't pay them but only rely on their instinct to have fun in your steel factory, then chances are they won't even work enough to make up for the depletion of your capital. If that happens in several industries, the economy is as good as doomed. As I indicated above, I am not one to insist that we should uphold our material living standards by all means necessary, but we also shouldn't stupidly sacrifice them to the point where we may not have enough wealth to afford food, clothing, housing, and basic medical care. This is exactly what would happen if we tried to turn the economy into a game, though. Bob Black insists that wouldn't be the case, as most jobs "aren't needed". Then why do they exist? Evidently, someone must have thought they're worthwhile, and that was either a legislator or a government - in which case Bob Black should've just sided with the Chicagoans and Austrians - or a capitalist who inexplicably decided to outright waste money, instead of funneling it back into his business to increase its profitability, or directly into his own pocket. Besides, Bob Black tells us, we don't need "war production, nuclear power, junk food, feminine hygiene deodorant" and... cars. Yes, cars. Disregarding the fact that much more is at stake than junk food (and that nuclear power is creating and not destroying wealth), Bob Blacks attitude of "stop liking what I don't like" rubs me the wrong way. Why is my girlfriend not allowed to wear deodorant, but he is allowed to read hellenic philosophers recreationally? Because his tastes are more refined? There is always someone whose tastes are more refined than yours, someone who reads Plato and all the commentaries ever published on him, someone who not just refuses to eat junk food, but who also eats everything in moderation and only if it is particularly nutritious. It is perfectly fine to have standards, to see some pastimes as lesser than others, and it is even possible to draw a line and declare that some pastimes are worthless or positively harmful (from which it doesn't follow that they should be prohibited, I should add). However, it appears to me that Bob Black drew this line at himself, as those who attack materialism are wont to do.
Bob Black is a typical utopian, but at least he is a legitimate utopian. His vision isn't a bad one, at least, we'd all rather live in a world where all activities are fulfilling and where we can live on our own terms. He has that on certain other leftists, whose visions of gangs of kids running around correcting everyones grammar scare me more than any horror movie. That is why I award this two stars, instead of one. His solutions are unworkable, at least if we want to also have anything close resembling our current living standards, and his agitation, far from making the workers of the world more relaxed, will only make impressionable college students even more pissed at the Amazon storehouses they don't work in. This is a criticism I have of leftist thought generally: It doesn't deliver on its promises, be that radical scientific advancement, fulfillment through hedonism or collectivism, or enlightenment through the deconstruction of religious ideas. It is destructive, not constructive, but as it turns out, if you keep destructing everything, from hierarchies to romantic love to religion, you end up with a void. Granted, relaxing our work ethic would not always be the greatest loss, but we cannot go half as far as Bob Black expects us to go.
The Abolition of Work is more on the anarchist side of socialism, but no less socialistic for it. Bob Blacks idea is that we should all just chill and make work fun again, the way it (supposedly) was in the far past. I don't fully disagree with him as far as the problem is concerned, and in fact have little sympathy for the work-save-die mindset fostered by certain religious reformers, unlike many of my capitalist brethren. I don't think capitalism in general, or labor management in particular, are to blame for the state of affairs, however. Things like the income tax or inflation force us to work long and grueling hours. With inflation, I don't think I have to explain much (when saving your money is discouraged, you can hardly make provision for taking long periods off from work), but that the income tax also discourages leisure does sound absurd, on the face of it. It isn't necessarily so, however. It can discourage working, the same way taxing smoking discourages smoking, but it also reduces overall living standards, and working is how we sustain our living standards. If you really badly want to live in a house with two bedrooms, then you might be willing to work the extra hours to pay for it under a scheme of income taxation. It all depends on how you value your leisure time against your living standards, as Bertrand de Jouvenel described in [b: The Ethics of Redistribution|1490396|The Ethics of Redistribution|Bertrand De Jouvenel|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1328776869s/1490396.jpg|1481647]. Add progressive income taxation to the mix, and you can essentially lock people into their current workload. If you work for seventy hours one week, and fourty the next, you may easily end up unable to pay the taxes from your more laborious week, forcing you to work another seventy hour week, especially when there is high interest on your tax debt. I have seen this in effect, and it's diabolic. There is no other word for this.
Bob Blacks solution, from what I remember, is to turn labor into a game of sorts. How he envisions that, I do not know. I don't think you can make picking up trash a fun leisure activity by adding highscores to it. If you could, you could also bet some manager would've thought of doing that to motivate his workers, under the cries of "bread and circuces" from a dozen Marxists, who only want workers to have fun when it also pisses off the capitalists. The main problem is not that we cannot all work less and have fun (income taxation aside), but that we cannot do so and maintain our living standards. There is a reason workers get paid: Because otherwise, they wouldn't work nearly as smart, hard, or long. If you don't pay them but only rely on their instinct to have fun in your steel factory, then chances are they won't even work enough to make up for the depletion of your capital. If that happens in several industries, the economy is as good as doomed. As I indicated above, I am not one to insist that we should uphold our material living standards by all means necessary, but we also shouldn't stupidly sacrifice them to the point where we may not have enough wealth to afford food, clothing, housing, and basic medical care. This is exactly what would happen if we tried to turn the economy into a game, though. Bob Black insists that wouldn't be the case, as most jobs "aren't needed". Then why do they exist? Evidently, someone must have thought they're worthwhile, and that was either a legislator or a government - in which case Bob Black should've just sided with the Chicagoans and Austrians - or a capitalist who inexplicably decided to outright waste money, instead of funneling it back into his business to increase its profitability, or directly into his own pocket. Besides, Bob Black tells us, we don't need "war production, nuclear power, junk food, feminine hygiene deodorant" and... cars. Yes, cars. Disregarding the fact that much more is at stake than junk food (and that nuclear power is creating and not destroying wealth), Bob Blacks attitude of "stop liking what I don't like" rubs me the wrong way. Why is my girlfriend not allowed to wear deodorant, but he is allowed to read hellenic philosophers recreationally? Because his tastes are more refined? There is always someone whose tastes are more refined than yours, someone who reads Plato and all the commentaries ever published on him, someone who not just refuses to eat junk food, but who also eats everything in moderation and only if it is particularly nutritious. It is perfectly fine to have standards, to see some pastimes as lesser than others, and it is even possible to draw a line and declare that some pastimes are worthless or positively harmful (from which it doesn't follow that they should be prohibited, I should add). However, it appears to me that Bob Black drew this line at himself, as those who attack materialism are wont to do.
Bob Black is a typical utopian, but at least he is a legitimate utopian. His vision isn't a bad one, at least, we'd all rather live in a world where all activities are fulfilling and where we can live on our own terms. He has that on certain other leftists, whose visions of gangs of kids running around correcting everyones grammar scare me more than any horror movie. That is why I award this two stars, instead of one. His solutions are unworkable, at least if we want to also have anything close resembling our current living standards, and his agitation, far from making the workers of the world more relaxed, will only make impressionable college students even more pissed at the Amazon storehouses they don't work in. This is a criticism I have of leftist thought generally: It doesn't deliver on its promises, be that radical scientific advancement, fulfillment through hedonism or collectivism, or enlightenment through the deconstruction of religious ideas. It is destructive, not constructive, but as it turns out, if you keep destructing everything, from hierarchies to romantic love to religion, you end up with a void. Granted, relaxing our work ethic would not always be the greatest loss, but we cannot go half as far as Bob Black expects us to go.