In Praise of Idleness (2/3)

by Bertrand Russell
Part 1: • In Praise of Idleness ...
Part 2: • In Praise of Idleness ...
Part 3: • In Praise of Idleness ...
Playlist: www.youtube.com...
Transcript: www.whywork.org...
Attribution: norelpref.com/cc/
License: creativecommons...

[@Bremerxxxx]

Persuasive and logical article by Russell. Thanks for reading and for reading well.

[@tombeast17]

@NoMorFear - I think you ask a lot of good questions that are very hard to answer. What i would say though is that the system is unfair in a sense that a small few are born into a situation that gives them the means to produce and are raised with that in mind, whilst the vast majority are born trapped in situations that mean they will serve the few and make them richer and are brought up to accept this way of life. Machines, not poor people, can now be used to supply the demand. continued

[@decenthypocrite]

the end of overwork is coming to an end, it isnt sustainable anymore.

[@jystyle]

hmm... Interesting and most excellent ideas!!!

[@TerraSleet]

6:42 You read "A similar thing has happened in Russia as regards manual work" twice. :P

[@NoMorFear]

I also like how you use "primitive accumulation". As if to say one only acquires property off the work of other's, right? Well...if not for the start-up capital of the owner, there would be no property to build up and there would be no means to employ workers who voluntarily choose to work. Workers build up the property ONLY because there is accumulated property to begin with, which was acquired by a person taking a risk to acquire said property by using their capital to start a business

[@walmartramen]

In Canada I think you still have to have overtime approved, by your boss.

[@samsonlovesyou]

Typo correction: "claim that the only reason people work is because of capitalists!" Can you imagine there were no bosses? We'd have all of these factories with so much machinery just lying empty, scratching our heads and going "Duh? Uhhhhh....DUH!

[@tombeast17]

@NoMorFear - Cont... Afterall, the few born into situations that enable them to rule/employ others have not earned this position. With regards to decision making. Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one, that should never be forgotten. Democracy could still exist. Leaders would be elected, and people running for power would have had to have excelled in a FAIR education system, one that gives people from all backgrounds the same start in life.

[@NoMorFear]

2nd: You say "can you imagine if there were no bosses" but fail to realize WHY there are factories. There are factories because of owners who take risks, build a business to meet demand, and employ those who volunteer to use HIS capital to acquire their OWN wealth. This is an obscenely simple concept and you can't grasp it. continued...

[@NoMorFear]

Right, right...and your alternative to property rights would be...to put them into the hands of the state (as you point to marx)? Or, do you have a more grand Libertarian Socialist scheme that magically organizes a society into common ownership? Even if you could magically do that, how would demand be met? How would jobs be assigned? How would value be determined for one's work, say a poet, without the Market? You see, these are difficult questions that LS does not answer well.

[@NoMorFear]

Cool story. And nice vague ad hominem response that addressed none of my points. Russell denounces work ethic on the grounds that there's "enough to go around", that it is unnecessary to work hard since there are ample resources and labor to go around for all. My question, is how does a society orgainze itself like that? What determines that there's "enough to go around"? How is value determined? How are jobs determined voluntarily w/o supply and demand? You see, logical questions...

[@NoMorFear]

I'm really tired of this, but after I checked out your link, you just proved me right. Under the examples they gave, an ad hominem argument was classified as such: "B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person." You have engaged in the argument, and instead of addressing my points, you dismissed them and went on to attack me with strawmans. That is ad hominem, fool.

[@NoMorFear]

I am all ears for a better system and I only really favor free market out of default. But what other mechanism is there? Reality shows us our society is not ready for some "libertarian socialist" type utopia and that authoritarian socialism is, shall we say, ineffcient. The logistics of bringing about a LS society are really beyond us. How would things be organized? Who would make decisions? Wouldn't there have to be "organizers"? How would the division of labor be accounted for?

[@NoMorFear]

There are indeed problems with capitalism, but what does he prepose? How is one to bypass the division of labor and other unfavorable facets of capitalism, "free market", or what have you? It would almost seem he advocates a centrally planned economy, which may make things worse if anything. Free Market is fundamentally predicated on property rights and free association between property rights. Everything that comes after that are de facto propensities.

[@samsonlovesyou]

TL;DR