In Pursuit of Laziness

I'm not miserable. [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

(Warning! Please prepare yourself for what is probably my longest post ever...) Would the word “idleness” be preferable to “laziness”? I recently wrote a piece for my blog, called “Breaking the Chain of Guilt,” which speaks of this idea that we should not be idle if it means others have to do our work – rather than going through the unnecessary toil of repeating myself, I shall provide the link here… http://www.pepsoid.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/breaking-the-chain-of-guilt/ Regarding my argument in general (and that of the likes of Tom Hodgkinson in “How to be Idle”), I shall also provide a link to Bertrand Russell’s essay, “In Praise of Idleness,” whose sentiments I believe in wholeheartedly (it was written around the 1930’s, I think, but I feel it is largely still relevant today)… http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/2528/br_idle.htm For those who don’t want to read the entire piece, however (which admittedly does occasionally have a tendency to rattle on a bit and repeat itself), I shall herewith pull out a few quotes… (I’ve managed to get it down to about a third of what it was… honest!) ... From the beginning of civilization until the Industrial Revolution, a man could, as a rule, produce by hard work little more than was required for the subsistence of himself and his family… Modern technique has made it possible for leisure, within limits, to be not the prerogative of small privileged classes, but a right evenly distributed throughout the community. The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery. … The conception of duty, speaking historically, has been a means used by the holders of power to induce others to live for the interests of their masters rather than for their own. Of course the holders of power conceal this fact from themselves by managing to believe that their interests are identical with the larger interests of humanity. … Modern technique has made it possible to diminish enormously the amount of labor required to secure the necessaries of life for everyone. This was made obvious during the war. At that time all the men in the armed forces, and all the men and women engaged in the production of munitions, all the men and women engaged in spying, war propaganda, or Government offices connected with the war, were withdrawn from productive occupations. In spite of this, the general level of well-being among unskilled wage-earners on the side of the Allies was higher than before or since. The significance of this fact was concealed by finance: borrowing made it appear as if the future was nourishing the present. But that, of course, would have been impossible; a man cannot eat a loaf of bread that does not yet exist. The war showed conclusively that, by the scientific organization of production, it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world. If, at the end of the war, the scientific organization, which had been created in order to liberate men for fighting and munition work, had been preserved, and the hours of the week had been cut down to four, all would have been well. Instead of that the old chaos was restored, those whose work was demanded were made to work long hours, and the rest were left to starve as unemployed. Why? Because work is a duty, and a man should not receive wages in proportion to what he has produced, but in proportion to his virtue as exemplified by his industry. This is the morality of the Slave State, applied in circumstances totally unlike those in which it arose. No wonder the result has been disastrous. Let us take an illustration. Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined? … In America men often work long hours even when they are well off; such men, naturally, are indignant at the idea of leisure for wage-earners, except as the grim punishment of unemployment; in fact, they dislike leisure even for their sons. … Owing to the absence of any central control over production, we produce hosts of things that are not wanted. … If you ask him [the ‘average’ worker] what he thinks the best part of his life, he is not likely to say: 'I enjoy manual work because it makes me feel that I am fulfilling man's noblest task, and because I like to think how much man can transform his planet. It is true that my body demands periods of rest, which I have to fill in as best I may, but I am never so happy as when the morning comes and I can return to the toil from which my contentment springs.' I have never heard working men say this sort of thing. They consider work, as it should be considered, a necessary means to a livelihood, and it is from their leisure that they derive whatever happiness they may enjoy. … It will be said that, while a little leisure is pleasant, men would not know how to fill their days if they had only four hours of work out of the twenty-four. In so far as this is true in the modern world, it is a condemnation of our civilization; it would not have been true at any earlier period. There was formerly a capacity for light-heartedness and play which has been to some extent inhibited by the cult of efficiency. The modern man thinks that everything ought to be done for the sake of something else, and never for its own sake. Serious-minded persons, for example, are continually condemning the habit of going to the cinema [perhaps to be compared nowadays to, for example, playing videogames?], and telling us that it leads the young into crime. But all the work that goes to producing a cinema is respectable, because it is work, and because it brings a money profit. The notion that the desirable activities are those that bring a profit has made everything topsy-turvy… we attach too little importance to enjoyment and simple happiness, and… we do not judge production by the pleasure that it gives to the consumer. … The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in which they took an active part. … In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving, however excellent his pictures may be. Young writers will not be obliged to draw attention to themselves by sensational pot-boilers, with a view to acquiring the economic independence needed for monumental works… … Above all, there will be happiness and joy of life, instead of frayed nerves, weariness, and dyspepsia. The work exacted will be enough to make leisure delightful, but not enough to produce exhaustion. Since men will not be tired in their spare time, they will not demand only such amusements as are passive and vapid… Good nature is, of all moral qualities, the one that the world needs most, and good nature is the result of ease and security, not of a life of arduous struggle. Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some and starvation for others. Hitherto we have continued to be as energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been foolish, but there is no reason to go on being foolish forever. … :-) [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

Phew! I feared for a minute people would be scared off by my gargantuan quote. As they haven’t, however… … JC: “If anything, we've got more time for leisure time than ever, not to mention more ways of relaxing.” The point BR was making, and I think it still applies today, is that we should have more leisure time than ever, but in fact we don’t. This is as a direct result of the “work ethic” and has nothing to do with how much work needs to be done. JC: “I think the raw truth is that a greater percentage of the population are able to relax and feel good about themselves than ever before.” “raw”? Really? Do you really think people are happier today than at any previous point in the entire history of the world? Obviously I don’t know, as I’ve only lived for 34 years, and even during those I haven’t had a direct link to the happiness level of every living human being, but it does seem pretty unlikely. Bukharin: "Have you ever tried being crucified?" Oddly enough, no, but I wouldn't say Jesus pursued crucifixion as an act of work. … Generally speaking, my point is that although we would have an enormous mountain to climb in reversing the oppressive capitalist tide (pardon the mixed metaphors), we will never do so unless we stop believing that work is, in and of itself, a virtue. Things need to get done – food needs to be made, children need to be raised, etc. That’s obvious. But unless we dispense with this culture of guilt surrounding how much we should be “contributing” to the system, we will never allow ourselves to even consider that we deserve to have more work-free time, in which to do the things which will have a positive spiritual (in the general sense) benefit to the world, never mind actually making the first moves towards changing how things are. [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

JC: “Jeez, Peps, we even have leisure time *while* we work - every post you make in this forum is effectively done at your leisure!” My employer doesn’t give me that time… I steal it back off them! I allow myself to do this, because I don’t feel guilty that I am not “contributing” enough. JC: “I will say this though - people are content these days to the extent that there is zero chance of any kind of revolution or uprising in this country.” Content or oppressed? Could it be that people don't revolt, because they don't feel it would do any good? JC: “We can believe that work is a virtue and still reject the core ethic of capitalism…” Well maybe the “work ethic” doesn’t absolutely equate with capitalism, but it certainly helps to perpetuate the oppressive nature of such. [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

Indeed people were “up with cock (!) and in bed as soon as cows come home” in days of Yore, Mr Yan, but there was apparently more time for leisure between those hours – for long lunches, lying about on hillocks chewing grass, etc (Tom Hodgkinson (my hero of the moment, as you might have guessed) speaks of such things, btw – have you made purchase of “How to be Idle” yet?). This is because before the industrial so-called “revolution,” there was less of a concern with working a particular number of hours and more with producing a particular amount of whatever you were producing. Certainly not the case nowadays! Putting aside for now the argument as to whether we technically have more or less leisure time, what is particularly oppressive about the present “system” is the inability, amongst the vast majority of workers, to apply an output-based flexibility to one’s work/leisure ratio. In most office jobs, if you work you socks off to get those invoices posted in half the normal time, what is your reward? Half a day off with full pay? Not likely! The reward for hard work is often more hard work… [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

I’m not really making a political point here, Radio. The reason I’m not saying, “Destroy capitalism” and “Replace it with communism” (for example) is that I will concede that the political system behind the sort of pro-work oppression I am referring to is perhaps irrelevant. In some of the bits of Russell’s essay I didn’t quote (well you didn’t want me quoting the whole darned thing, did you?) he speaks of how communist (supposedly) systems experience similar anti-idle problems, and then he goes on to propose potential solutions. Whether it is within capitalism, communism or whatever-ism, my point is that the “work ethic” that so many people of all sorts of political leanings believe in is misguided and exploitative. There is (as far as I am aware) not one type of existing political system in which the “work ethic” is inherently absent. Therefore in order to be free of this virtue of work (if, that is, we decide that we need to be free of it), we need not to necessarily replace one political system with another, but rather replace one value with another – which is perhaps a trickier and less clear-cut prospect! [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

JC: “Hard work for me has nothing to do with serving captains of industry. Likewise, you don't have to have a guilt complex about not 'contributing'. I don't think that's a very pervasive feeling in this society. Most people are quite happy to take advantage of holes in the system - some to a piss-taking extent.” I refer the learned gentleman back to my own “Breaking the Chain of Guilt” (http://pepsoid.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/breaking-the-chain-of-guilt/). JC: “Well, this is exactly what you want! If you reward people for hard work, that's as good as teaching people hard work is a virtue. The pay-per-hour system is surely what you're after if you're against working hard, as it rewards people for their time, rather than their industriousness.” No, no, no! You misunderstand me! I don’t expect to not have to do any work. But when I do work hard, I want to be rewarded for it, because I have given my time to do this thing which I don’t want to do. I want to be rewarded with leisure time. I want to be appreciated for the quality of my work, rather than the quantity of hours I put into it. How is it right that if I do 16 hours worth of work in 8 hours, I am paid the same as someone who does 4 hours worth of work in the same time? As I am neither rewarded with time or money for working hard, but with more work, I consequently don’t work as hard as I could in my job. I steal back what time I can. The pay-per-hour system encourages people like me to be “lazy”! As it is so engrained within the western way of doing things, however, it is seen as being right. Perhaps not overtly so, but how many people, do you think, if asked, would say it is wrong? ... Regarding increased retirement age... pft!! (not heard about the later school-leaving age thing... How will that work then? Will kids just spend more years in school? Or will they start school later as well? If not , will they learn more (allegedly) or just spend longer doing what they would’ve done anyway?) ... [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

Just found this website... http://www.slowdownnow.org/content/view/14/23/ ...which has the quote... The Ancient Greeks understood that we work in order to have leisure. ...which is it in a nutshell! Working is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Also on the same website is the following animation... http://www.slowdownnow.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,31/ ...which is apparently based on the American experience, but can apply, with one or two adjustments, probably just about anywhere in the "first" (irony) world... Surely no one can believe that this is the way things should be! [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

I googled Tao and the first result was... http://tao-group.com/ ... gaaahhhhhh!!! But then the second result was... http://www.thetao.info/ ... Phew! Read a book about the Tao. The Tao is... . . . . . [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

Greetings, slothful! ;-) Occams’s Razor: the simplest solution is usually right… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

I think the thing with chores, similarly with clutter and life in general really, is that one should always, where possible, look to simplify. How many of these chores are strictly necessary? Of those that are, how can I spend a little less time on them, do them a little less frequently or delegate to those who perhaps do a little less than they could (e.g. children)? If one can shave little bits of time off here and there, one can find delightful little nuggets of time one didn’t realise one had! [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")

Taoism is an approach to solving problems, not a solution to problems (except perhaps for the problem of problem-solving)… subtle difference! [[[~P~]]] ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com - latest... Review of "Casino Royale")