Social production of goods and services actually yields a good deal more time and energy to spend on optional activities. IF we had to produce our own goods and services, (food, clothing, shelter, fuel for heat, water, etc.) we would have to work exceedingly hard and for very long hours every day, and even then we wouldn't have everything we needed.

All the empty rhetoric of the work place come into play when managers have nothing better to do with their time. When factories, offices, mines, mills, hospitals, etc. are working well, and the managers have actual work to do, you don't hear this stuff a lot.

See C. Wright Mills, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, 1951. It's a classic sociology text. In one chapter he described how academics, feeling trapped and under-paid in their liberal arts college offices, sometimes set up consultancies to advise corporations on how to achieve greater productivity in the work force. Sixty some years later managers are still looking for advice, though there are now whole bookstores full of it. And now there are a lot of less-than-professors out hawking industrial nostrums to spur apathetic workers (and cure them of their insensitive racist, sexist, transphobic, tendencies).

Social production of goods and services actually yields a good deal more time and energy to spend on optional activities. IF we had to produce our own goods and services, (food, clothing, shelter, fuel for heat, water, etc.) we would have to work exceedingly hard and for very long hours every day, and even then we wouldn't have everything we needed. — Bitter Crank

Granted, but I am not proposing that we make everything ourselves either.

All the empty rhetoric of the work place come into play when managers have nothing better to do with their time. When factories, offices, mines, mills, hospitals, etc. are working well, and the managers have actual work to do, you don't hear this stuff a lot. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but I also think it is self-driven too. We "take on" these slogans so as to justify why we need to get involved with work we might otherwise not get involved with.. For example, "This task right now will prepare me for a possible future job with more money that I will tolerate more because of the higher pay". Or, perhaps the work itself is not what one would chose, but one gets caught up in the minutia because you get paid for it. Or maybe people just think about the weekends and vacations as their release and this is enough.

See C. Wright Mills, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, 1951. It's a classic sociology text. In one chapter he described how academics, feeling trapped and under-paid in their liberal arts college offices, sometimes set up consultancies to advise corporations on how to achieve greater productivity in the work force. Sixty some years later managers are still looking for advice, though there are now whole bookstores full of it. And now there are a lot of less-than-professors out hawking industrial nostrums to spur apathetic workers (and cure them of their insensitive racist, sexist, transphobic, tendencies). — Bitter Crank

Interesting, managerial interactions is a fascinating beast.

But the question still remains, is there something better than our current economic and social relations in regards to work?

The problem of pointless, meaningless, tedious hours spent in the social workplace remains. Spending 8 hours a day in activity which is perceived as pointless, meaningless, and tedious is of course a pain. Death on the installment plan, when it really gets bad.

What is the solution? Get a different job? Start a business? go back to college and get a different degree? Read more science fiction? Take the fucking job more seriously? Get more sex?

Don't ask me; it's a problem I did not solve, except to find whatever justifications for endurance that worked in the short run. Very short run.

Were you the sort of person who could read a motivational psychology book, take it seriously, apply it assiduously, consult with successful people for coaching on how to be a middle class success, you could solve this problem. And if you had wings, you could fly like a bird up in the sky.

What's funny is communism tried to solve the problem of work by changing society itself. It is a very American idea that it is YOU who has to change, not society's social relations. Business as usual for the last 150 years (with some changes to labor laws to make sure the plebeians don't change too much) is an interesting idea. We really can't fathom a different lifestyle. The only hints of this are the technophiles who that robots will solve the problem. I'm weary of that too, and that is about the only ideas that people float around.

Were you the sort of person who could read a motivational psychology book, take it seriously, apply it assiduously, consult with successful people for coaching on how to be a middle class success, you could solve this problem. And if you had wings, you could fly like a bird up in the sky. — Bitter Crank

This is hilarious.

We "take on" these slogans so as to justify why we need to get involved with work we might otherwise not get involved with.. — schopenhauer1

Right. We internalize social messages which may or may not be in our best long-term interests. In the short run, it's just easier to be agreeable.

We can at least get clarity. The truth is that a lot of work is not intended to benefit the worker at all, and the kind of jobs where workers find direct benefit employ a smaller part of the workforce and are hotly sought after. Capitalism, and the command economy of the soviet socialist system, are not ground-up systems where workers establish priorities and methods. They are both top-down systems where powerful apparatchiks decide what is going to be done, and the individual worker can get with the program or go fuck himself.

We can at least get clarity. The truth is that a lot of work is not intended to benefit the worker at all, and the kind of jobs where workers find direct benefit employ a smaller part of the workforce and are hotly sought after. Capitalism, and the command economy of the soviet socialist system, are not ground-up systems where workers establish priorities and methods. They are both top-down systems where powerful apparatchiks decide what is going to be done, and the individual worker can get with the program or go fuck himself. — Bitter Crank

This is true. I still see the problem of work is more related to what Durkheim might call anomie, or perhaps more pointedly, what Marx called alienation. But does Marx solution really solve alienation? Whether or not plans are made by you and your coworkers through committees or what not, can't this be just as alienating as committees handed down from corporate bureaucracies or government institutions? Most work is inherently not that interesting I would presume. Life is not meant to be a wonder playground apparently. Not that I ever thought it was or will be.

Also, this all just speaks to the absurd futility of things. I just think of how happy Ford and the Dodge brothers were and other early car makers, and just the assembly line full of cars rolling out.. technology is somehow a replacement for meaning. As long as we keep working on making more things, we don't have to stop and ask why.

It's to make us "live better" so we can enjoy the stuff right? That's what most of the self-assured pragmatic types would say right?

technology is somehow a replacement for meaning. — schopenhauer1

Absolutely.

At this point I'd settle for the 20 hour work week without reduction in pay. It's not the sort of goal I dream of, but it's good.

anomie — schopenhauer1

alienation — schopenhauer1

Whether there is, in fact, a solution to anomie and alienation in Marx, or anyone else, is an unanswered` question. Uncle Karl was a prophet, preaching salvation through a revolution which would, he thought, replace the previously dominant bourgeoisie with the bearers and beneficiaries of salvation, the proletariat. We honor prophets for good reason: they perceptively judge the present times and eloquently point to a future which does not exist yet in which a much better, more just society will be (could be, can be, might be) built.

Marx didn't provide the blueprint for the better, juster society he imagined. Prophets rarely do. Isaiah says that justice will roll down like waters --but he doesn't specify what, exactly, the judicial procedures should be. Micah says to love mercy and do justice; he doesn't specify what or how, exactly, we should do. Jesus provided more specifics, but details become problems too. If the Kingdom doesn't arrive pretty quick, then what? Marx and Jesus don't say.

The fall back position is that the kingdom is within you. You may not be able to find a decent job that you feel good about and that pays you a decent wage, but you can be a rebel in your heart and resist The Corporation however you can - putting bad paper in the photocopier, making personal calls on the company dime, entering bad data, selling the company secrets to their competitor, syphoning off any excess merchandise you can get your hands on... There are satisfactions in dropping the symbolic wooden shoe into the gears, but these days, the machine tends to have sabot detectors which prevent that approach from working.

I don't know, Schopenhauer. The least we can do is keep bitching and carping about how fucked things are. Bitching is 1/2 of the prophetic task. The other half is imagining a better world. Of course, you will receive no honor in your homeland -- it's a scriptural situation. Consider yourself in good company. "For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country." JOHN 4:44

Somehow, when it comes to the major issues that we face (like the question of work), i usually arrive at the conclusion that modernity/civilization has an imbalance (among many other imbalances) when it comes to how we view our individuality and collectivity. This cuts down to the very marrow of our identities. In tribal cultures, one identifies with the group as much as (or perhaps even more than) being a particular person. At least that is my understanding.

As for our culture, circumstances are obviously different, but our DNA and human needs remain little changed. Though it is difficult sometimes to feel a connection with the person down the street, let alone across the country. We are atomized and isolated, interpersonally speaking. Intra-personally, we are equally splintered. Our Ego fights with our Id which resents the Superego. Left brain intellect vs. right brain feelings. Capitalism (of course) capitalizes on all this division and strife. But this mindset seems centuries, even millennia older than capitalism (as in the biblical examples BC gave).

Some say technology will save us (eventually). Some say there is no way to change flawed, sinful human nature. There is another view that says if the future is to be different, it will come not from machines or powerful computers, but from people with changed minds.

I really like how you framed the problem there.

Going back to how technology replaces meaning- what do you think humans' relationship with technology is? Are tools one and the same with what it means to be a fully functioning Homo sapien? Some posters on here seem to place technology as the be all and end all it seems. Our very brains are said to work similar to specific kinds of computer- connectionist programming networks with neurons acting like transistors or circuits of sorts. What's funny is that if robots became fully sentient, I don't think it would end up like a Terminator scenario, but more like a Douglas Adams book. That is to say, the computers would have existential angst like us humans, and not be able to compute the systemic futility of existence. That would be truly horrifying for the poor little machine bastard.

Some say technology will save us (eventually). Some say there is no way to change flawed, sinful human nature. There is another view that says if the future is to be different, it will come not from machines or powerful computers, but from people with changed minds. — 0 thru 9

Yes indeed, but what does that require from us? What would we have to do to end the despair of the modern work life? Right. Now.

Work will continue to be alienating so long as capitalism is instituted. If capitalism is to go, then there has to be something to replace it with, and socialism isn't going to work with the massive human population. Seizing the means of production (of new workers) by the workers themselves and the subsequent abstaining from producing new workers will deprive capitalists of their labor force.

In that sense, condoms and other forms of birth control are symbols of liberation. No political philosophy will ever be satisfactory, and a contributing reason why this is so is because it just is not possible to get along with as many people as there are. Less people = less potential for conflict.

At this point I'd settle for the 20 hour work week without reduction in pay. It's not the sort of goal I dream of, but it's good. — Moliere

At this point I’d settle for 25million in my bank account for sitting on my arse all year round. If Prince Charles deserves it, I don’t see why I wouldn’t.

In that sense, condoms and other forms of birth control are symbols of liberation. No political philosophy will ever be satisfactory, and a contributing reason why this is so is because it just is not possible to get along with as many people as there are. Less people = less potential for conflict. — darthbarracuda

Well, you bring up the problem of large populations- this adds to alienation. Think about how many people made the goods and services, the complicated technology you use. What did you have to do with it besides consuming it? All the processes to make all our goods are so complex, that we can never in a lifetime understand it all. The processes and those who get the "privilege" of making the complex technology lives in large labs in corporations and universities. The rest get to run the cogs.. I don't mean computer programmers- they are modern bricklayers.. It's the Intels, Apples, IBMs, Ciscos, etc. etc. and the Harvards, and Oxfords, and MITs, etc.etc . Sure, some might get to be a part of it, but most will be simply the ones who get the final products in consumption form or nicely printed "How things work" books to ease the mind enough to not "really" want to know the complexities and minutia. Essentially there are those who make the cogs, and those who run the cogs. Probably 98% run the cogs.

Thanks for your posts here. Good stuff as usual. In fact, you could probably just go through your post history, collect the best of them, and have a dern good book to publish. Call it “Philosophy in the Age of Assault Rifle Porn” and you’ll have a bestseller! :sweat:

The processes and those who get the "privilege" of making the complex technology lives in large labs in corporations and universities. The rest get to run the cogs.. I don't mean computer programmers- they are modern bricklayers.. It's the Intels, Apples, IBMs, Ciscos, etc. etc. and the Harvards, and Oxfords, and MITs, etc.etc . Sure, some might get to be a part of it, but most will be simply the ones who get the final products in consumption form or nicely printed "How things work" books to ease the mind enough to not "really" want to know the complexities and minutia. Essentially there are those who make the cogs, and those who run the cogs. Probably 98% run the cogs. — schopenhauer1

Hahaha, this is somewhat ironic in my case since I just recently switched majors from engineering to computer science. One thing I realized in my experience with engineering is how janky things tend to be. It actually sort of lowered my confidence in many pieces of technology that I regularly use. When the only thing that keeps something running is a single resistor, and the rate of failure of this resistor is relatively high, suddenly the whole thing looks as if it's already broken.

Just as there are only a few that actually design the products we use and consume, there are also a very, very small amount of researchers and explorers who actually get to take the pictures you see in Nat Geo. The hope is to be one of these few, but the chances are small. But it's better than working as a desk-slave, designing products that will be replicated ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

Hahaha, this is somewhat ironic in my case since I just recently switched majors from engineering to computer science. One thing I realized in my experience with engineering is how janky things tend to be. It actually sort of lowered my confidence in many pieces of technology that I regularly use. When the only thing that keeps something running is a single resistor, and the rate of failure of this resistor is relatively high, suddenly the whole thing looks as if it's already broken. — darthbarracuda

That's funny actually.. any product types in particular? I've had TVs with shitty speakers and hard drives that break real easily, but I'm not sure if that is much resistors as other technology.. hard drives that aren't solid state can break easily due to their physical movement of parts.

Just as there are only a few that actually design the products we use and consume, there are also a very, very small amount of researchers and explorers who actually get to take the pictures you see in Nat Geo. The hope is to be one of these few, but the chances are small. But it's better than working as a desk-slave, designing products that will be replicated ad infinitum and ad nauseum. — darthbarracuda

Yes, most technology is foreign to us. I guess I'll pose the question to you that I posed to BC:

Going back to how technology replaces meaning- what do you think humans' relationship with technology is? Are tools one and the same with what it means to be a fully functioning Homo sapien? Some posters on here seem to place technology as the be all and end all it seems. Our very brains are said to work similar to specific kinds of computer- connectionist programming networks with neurons acting like transistors or circuits of sorts. What's funny is that if robots became fully sentient, I don't think it would end up like a Terminator scenario, but more like a Douglas Adams book. That is to say, the computers would have existential angst like us humans, and not be able to compute the systemic futility of existence. That would be truly horrifying for the poor little machine bastard.

Yes indeed, but what does that require from us? What would we have to do to end the despair of the modern work life? Right. Now. — schopenhauer1

Ahh... well that’s the tricky part, isn’t it? The devil hides in the details. I’d imagine that there would have to be many different approaches, coming not just from experts and scientists, but from anyone who has something useful to add. For example... perhaps if a significant percentage (not even a majority, just a spark so to speak) really were convinced that humans are more than just a bowlful of isolated marbles barely touching, never intersecting, merely bouncing off each other either painfully or pleasurably ad Infinitum (I am a rock... I am an iiiii-aaa-land. And a rock can feel no pain. And an island never cries)... Then just maybe, life and work on this third rock from the sun, this blue-green space marble might actually be quite enjoyable.

For inspiration of this sort, i usually turn to the Tao Te Ching, and the writings of Daniel Quinn, Joseph Campbell, Ken Wilber, and some others.

Ahh... well that’s the tricky part, isn’t it? The devil hides in the details. I’d imagine that there would have to be many different approaches, coming not just from experts and scientists, but from anyone who has something useful to add. For example... perhaps if a significant percentage (not even a majority, just a spark so to speak) really were convinced that humans are more than just a bowlful of isolated marbles barely touching, never intersecting, merely bouncing off each other either painfully or pleasurably ad Infinitum (I am a rock... I am an iiiii-aaa-land. And a rock can feel no pain. And an island never cries)... Then just maybe, life and work on this third rock from the sun, this blue-green space marble might actually be quite enjoyable.

For inspiration of this sort, i usually turn to the Tao Te Ching, and the writings of Daniel Quinn, Joseph Campbell, Ken Wilber, and some others. — 0 thru 9

Is it a change in how products and services are distributed? Is it a change in what we value? Is it a change in relations? Is it a change in how we think? And then how would it all come together? Yep too much for my mind. As we've seen, any "attempt" at some kind of change led to violence and domination of one class or group over another. Better to just accept no?

That's funny actually.. any product types in particular? I've had TVs with shitty speakers and hard drives that break real easily, but I'm not sure if that is much resistors as other technology.. hard drives that aren't solid state can break easily due to their physical movement of parts. — schopenhauer1

New products tend to break because they were rushed, always wait for future versions. With a little bit of technical background you can fix a lot of things on your own. My point was more about the "phenomenology" of technology. For many people, myself included at times, learning how something works is cool. Oftentimes, however, I find myself struck by how kludge-like things are. The documentation isn't always great, sometimes non-existent. When you ask professional engineers for help with some device and they tell you "I don't know", that doesn't always instill confidence. It's also scary how many people are desperate to get through error checking, testing, etc.

What's super sketchy are unregulated products. Literally, use at your own risk. A lot of things aren't regulated, and even if they are, the standards aren't always satisfactory.

Going back to how technology replaces meaning- what do you think humans' relationship with technology is? Are tools one and the same with what it means to be a fully functioning Homo sapien? Some posters on here seem to place technology as the be all and end all it seems. Our very brains are said to work similar to specific kinds of computer- connectionist programming networks with neurons acting like transistors or circuits of sorts. What's funny is that if robots became fully sentient, I don't think it would end up like a Terminator scenario, but more like a Douglas Adams book. That is to say, the computers would have existential angst like us humans, and not be able to compute the systemic futility of existence. That would be truly horrifying for the poor little machine bastard. — schopenhauer1

I've always been amused by the niche cult surrounding artificial intelligence, because as much as it's "transhumanist" and "futurist", the hype fundamentally is related to our own insecurities. Those touting A.I. do so because they seem to think A.I. will do everything we don't want to. They will work - we won't have to. But what will we do instead? We'll still have the existential angst, and even more so when we realize that the A.I. is, in that respect, superior to us by being able to work without burden. Artificial intelligence might make some people question the value of human existence qua human existence, as A.I. presumably would do most of the work while we sit around idly, twiddling our fingers.

If the creation is "better" than the creator ... what will motivate people to reproduce? Why make humans, when artificial intelligence is even better? But without humans, what's the point of artificial intelligence? Hold on, back up a moment - what's the point of humanity in general?

Perhaps this is one manifestation of Heidegger's fear of technology - eventually we won't need humans, and if humans lack the understanding of Being, they won't see the value of being dasein. Or something.

Going back to how technology replaces meaning- what do you think humans' relationship with technology is? — schopenhauer1

There is technology and then there is technology. A man taking a piece of suitable rock and chipping a sharp arrow head from it, and then fixing it to the end of a shaft which he had made, binding and gluing it into place with pitch from baked birch bark which he had also made, is one kind of technology. It is very good technology, and it was in use for perhaps 20-30,000 years. It incorporated several technologies which an individual (in a community) could learn and use. The individual had mastery over the technology.

You get the picture: Hands on.

"Technology" more often than not now means digital equipment -- cell phones, lap tops, desk tops, pods, pads, routers, printers, and so on. We buy this technology ready made -- it would be exceedingly difficult for us to build our gadgets from scratch. There is too much densely integrated circuitry crammed into the little cases.

The consumer does not "own" advanced technology. Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Intel, Qualcomm, Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, etc. own and operate the technology. We may hold it in our hot little hands, but we have little control over it how it works or in many cases, what it can be used for.

Digital technology was sold to us because the analog equipment market was completely saturated. Nearly everyone who wanted a phone (analog) had one. Everyone had a more or less adequate analog sound system to play vinyl records, listen to the radio, watch television, and so forth. 8mm film and Sony video allowed one to record events. Still-photo cameras and photographic film had reached a high degree of refinement and capability. So what was the matter with what we were using?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The problem was a saturated market in the North America, Europe, Japan and some other parts of the world. If new investment, manufacturing, and retail opportunities were to exist, acts of creative destruction were required to wreck big old markets and create huge new markets.

Records were dropped and replaced by CDs which required new equipment. Typewriters were replaced by computers and software -- all needing to be purchased and updated. The excellence of 35mm film photography was replaced with (so-so) digital photography. Landlines were replaced by cell phones. Sony Walkmen cassette players were replaced by digital players. The internet was introduced (not initially as an act of creative destruction). Simple shirt pocket calculators (+, /, x, -) were replaced powerful shirt-pocket calculators that could read tiny little magnetic cards and do very complex statistics.

We didn't ask for all the digital technology we have; it was thrust upon us. Our relationship to this technology is one of servile dependency, the same way we are dependent on big pharma and drugstores for blood pressure meds, anti-depressants, insulin, ibuprofen, and Desenex athletes foot powder.

Are tools one and the same with what it means to be a fully functioning Homo sapien? — schopenhauer1

Sure. Homo faber -- man the tool maker. The industrial revolution centralized and fragmented work in such a way that workers didn't make or own tools. He used tools and machines in a manner specified and for purposes chosen by the factory owner. Skilled craftsmen and craftswomen have always used tools or made tools to their own liking. Carpenters, for instance, have their own tools and perform work mostly on a contract basis for individuals (as opposed to construction workers...)

One of the reasons we all are dissatisfied with life is that we don't have our own tools to perform our own work for our own customers. You might like to make cloth from flax and wool by yourself, and you could. People do it. But up against the fabrics industries, an individual isn't likely to make a living doing that.

When you ask professional engineers for help with some device and they tell you "I don't know", that doesn't always instill confidence. It's also scary how many people are desperate to get through error checking, testing, etc. — darthbarracuda

I know that one first hand.. tables upon tables.. all work together intricately.. you never know how one table might affect another with a bit of change to the code.. I'm not talking coffee tables obviously :).

Artificial intelligence might make some people question the value of human existence qua human existence, as A.I. presumably would do most of the work while we sit around idly, twiddling our fingers.

If the creation is "better" than the creator ... what will motivate people to reproduce? Why make humans, when artificial intelligence is even better? But without humans, what's the point of artificial intelligence? Hold on, back up a moment - what's the point of humanity in general? — darthbarracuda

Bingo.. what ARE we doing. What is humanity's point? The error written in our code is that self-awareness leads to understanding of systemic futility. If projects work with functions, the fully self-aware human has to trick himself into constantly being "driven" by these programs.. Every once in a while the baseline futility seeps in; the eternal WHY creeps in and haunts us. It's as if the software has run out of programs to execute.

“Philosophy in the Age of Assault Rifle Porn” — 0 thru 9

Mein Gott im Himmel -- that is an inspired title.

Some tools are good for shit.

Again, another inspired post, thank you.

If new investment, manufacturing, and retail opportunities were to exist, acts of creative destruction were required to wreck big old markets and create huge new markets. — Bitter Crank

So is this good or bad? Does new mean better? Your implication is no. Why not? New technologies were created through the process. Isn't this ENOUGH to proclaim it GOOD in and of itself? (to be read sarcastically).

Skilled craftsmen and craftswomen have always used tools or made tools to their own liking. Carpenters, for instance, have their own tools and perform work mostly on a contract basis for individuals (as opposed to construction workers...)

One of the reasons we all are dissatisfied with life is that we don't have our own tools to perform our own work for our own customers. You might like to make cloth from flax and wool by yourself, and you could. People do it. But up against the fabrics industries, an individual isn't likely to make a living doing that. — Bitter Crank

So creating something by oneself rather than relying on others is the answer? What if that is not satisfying either? It's just the whole day filled up with making stuff rather than inventing new stuff. What is the trade off? Besides that it fits the model of Marx' idea that somehow not being alienated from the sources of production is better for the individual, what makes this inherently better/good/satisfying? What makes this any better than what we have now?

Mein Gott im Himmel -- that is an inspired title. — Bitter Crank

:grin: I’ll even write a blurb for the book, if you’d like: “I laughed, I cried, and my chair needs to be dried. Couldn’t stop myself, though I really tried.”