We often receive similar questions about what our positions are in terms
of organization, work, communization, the self-abolition of the
proletariat, and our experience of our own activities in this
environment. We hope to provide some quick answers to these questions in
this FAQ. This will continue to be a work in progress. ---- Negation of
work is the name of the process that eliminates work. Discussions of
work elimination can be confusing because different theorists writing on
the subject sometimes use the terms labor and work interchangeably,
while others have specific definitions for each term.
This is an English-specific problem though, as other languages usually
have one word for work rather than two. (Spanish: trabajo; French: travail).
The ultra-left generally sees the abolition of work as 1) a necessary
part of the process of proletariat self-destruction, 2) because in order
to liberate the proletariat from capitalism, the proletariat must
self-destruct through revolution.
As an aside, the proletariat is not just 'workers' but EVERYONE who
needs money to live, whether legal or not, directly or through someone
else. This includes those who are unable to work, the unemployed,
caregivers who are not directly paid, sex workers, etc. is included.
3) What the elimination of work essentially points to is the fact that
work as we know it is a product of history and has not always existed.
Just as wage labor and capitalism did not always exist. Therefore, for
the ultra-left, the elimination of work is necessary to the creation of
communism because work as we know it is something that arises from
capitalism itself. It is a unique social category. 4) For the
ultra-left, communism is not just about having what you want and/or
need, but about getting rid of our proletarian status altogether.
Communism would therefore be the abolition of the work/non-work duality,
because even in capitalism non-work time (leisure) is a necessary part
of work, where we are freed from the work of the day, the week, the
month (in Marx's terms: the recovery of our labour-power). It is seen
as. 5) So how to eliminate this duality? By breaking down the false
distinction between work and non-work in our activities. This does not
mean that all our time will be ONLY work or ONLY non-work, but rather
that our life paths will no longer find it necessary to divide our time
into such categories.
An example sometimes used: A bear is wandering through the forest,
scratching himself on trees, attacking insects, and then comes across a
stream with fish. The bear feels hungry and decides it's time to catch a
fish. He dives into the stream and catches one after a few tries. He
enjoys his meal as the sun begins to set. Now, at some point the bear
decides it's working? Is catching fish fun? Or is it work? Or does such
a dilemma not even make sense?
This may sound utopian, as human societies are often much more complex
than the life of a bear, but there was a time like this when human
activities were not so uniquely driven by the false capitalist scarcity
under which we live. 6) If the activity we need to do in order to live
is directly tied to our true needs and desires, then it ceases to be
work and becomes not another timetable to be punched, another
imposition, but simply doing the things that need to be done so that we
can live the lives we desire. This is part of the process of ceasing to
be workers and beginning to reconstitute the human community(ies). Even
Karl Marx, whom many Marxists see as a defender of labor rather than the
abolition of labor, states in The German Ideology that one of the
features of communist society is that our scope of activity has greatly
expanded and we no longer have overly specialized roles as in capitalism.
Of course, this doesn't mean that housework will magically stop being
housework; Rather, housework will cease to be something that only takes
place at home and remains gendered. A fair amount of prestructuring will
need to occur to dismantle the patriarchal (and often racialized)
gendering of activity required of our homes. But this activity will
necessarily become communal and will not depend only on people with high
social isolation and will not be transferred to those with lower social
status (i.e. racialized immigrants, etc.).
7) This points to another important feature of communism. Communism is
not a mode of production like capitalism. Rather, it is a way of life
that collapses the social categories of production and consumption. In
other words, it is not just another way of running the business world as
some communists and anarchists see it. These social categories,
production and consumption, exist under capitalism because ALL
production and consumption are focused on the extraction of surplus
value from the labor of the proletariat and not on the direct needs
and/or desires of those forced to work. This explains the social
division within capitalist time and space: we go to the store to consume
and we go to work 'to produce'. Many of the destructive aspects of
industrial society will likely disappear because the vast majority of
work is based on making profits, not meeting human needs or desires. In
capitalism, unless you're getting paid to get by, who wants to sit in a
shop making junk that no one really needs? 9) Communism, then, is not
about human domination over the natural world, but about reintegration
with it. There is also a collapse between city and country. And to
achieve this, work must necessarily be eliminated so that our social
relations are fundamentally changed and not just managed differently.
8) So, what is anti-work? It's a term we use to describe our position
when it comes to business and capitalism. Bruno Astarian wrote a long
article on the history of anti-workism and its differentiation from the
rejection of labor. You can access it here. Saidiya Saidiya Hartman has
also written a speculative historical essay around a young black woman,
Esther Brown, that illuminates a racialized and gendered rejection of
work in which work is seen as opposed to a directly lived, unalienated
life. You can find it here (pdf).
Of course, the horizon of a communist future seems incredibly far and
distant, but just a few generations ago people were living in communal,
non-capitalist societies around the world.
Source: Ultra-Left FAQ - The abolition of work / negation of work /
Anti-work
Translation: heimatloskultu / Konzept
https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2024/04/10/ultra-sol-hakkinda-sikca-sorulan-sorular-ediciones-ineditas/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
of organization, work, communization, the self-abolition of the
proletariat, and our experience of our own activities in this
environment. We hope to provide some quick answers to these questions in
this FAQ. This will continue to be a work in progress. ---- Negation of
work is the name of the process that eliminates work. Discussions of
work elimination can be confusing because different theorists writing on
the subject sometimes use the terms labor and work interchangeably,
while others have specific definitions for each term.
This is an English-specific problem though, as other languages usually
have one word for work rather than two. (Spanish: trabajo; French: travail).
The ultra-left generally sees the abolition of work as 1) a necessary
part of the process of proletariat self-destruction, 2) because in order
to liberate the proletariat from capitalism, the proletariat must
self-destruct through revolution.
As an aside, the proletariat is not just 'workers' but EVERYONE who
needs money to live, whether legal or not, directly or through someone
else. This includes those who are unable to work, the unemployed,
caregivers who are not directly paid, sex workers, etc. is included.
3) What the elimination of work essentially points to is the fact that
work as we know it is a product of history and has not always existed.
Just as wage labor and capitalism did not always exist. Therefore, for
the ultra-left, the elimination of work is necessary to the creation of
communism because work as we know it is something that arises from
capitalism itself. It is a unique social category. 4) For the
ultra-left, communism is not just about having what you want and/or
need, but about getting rid of our proletarian status altogether.
Communism would therefore be the abolition of the work/non-work duality,
because even in capitalism non-work time (leisure) is a necessary part
of work, where we are freed from the work of the day, the week, the
month (in Marx's terms: the recovery of our labour-power). It is seen
as. 5) So how to eliminate this duality? By breaking down the false
distinction between work and non-work in our activities. This does not
mean that all our time will be ONLY work or ONLY non-work, but rather
that our life paths will no longer find it necessary to divide our time
into such categories.
An example sometimes used: A bear is wandering through the forest,
scratching himself on trees, attacking insects, and then comes across a
stream with fish. The bear feels hungry and decides it's time to catch a
fish. He dives into the stream and catches one after a few tries. He
enjoys his meal as the sun begins to set. Now, at some point the bear
decides it's working? Is catching fish fun? Or is it work? Or does such
a dilemma not even make sense?
This may sound utopian, as human societies are often much more complex
than the life of a bear, but there was a time like this when human
activities were not so uniquely driven by the false capitalist scarcity
under which we live. 6) If the activity we need to do in order to live
is directly tied to our true needs and desires, then it ceases to be
work and becomes not another timetable to be punched, another
imposition, but simply doing the things that need to be done so that we
can live the lives we desire. This is part of the process of ceasing to
be workers and beginning to reconstitute the human community(ies). Even
Karl Marx, whom many Marxists see as a defender of labor rather than the
abolition of labor, states in The German Ideology that one of the
features of communist society is that our scope of activity has greatly
expanded and we no longer have overly specialized roles as in capitalism.
Of course, this doesn't mean that housework will magically stop being
housework; Rather, housework will cease to be something that only takes
place at home and remains gendered. A fair amount of prestructuring will
need to occur to dismantle the patriarchal (and often racialized)
gendering of activity required of our homes. But this activity will
necessarily become communal and will not depend only on people with high
social isolation and will not be transferred to those with lower social
status (i.e. racialized immigrants, etc.).
7) This points to another important feature of communism. Communism is
not a mode of production like capitalism. Rather, it is a way of life
that collapses the social categories of production and consumption. In
other words, it is not just another way of running the business world as
some communists and anarchists see it. These social categories,
production and consumption, exist under capitalism because ALL
production and consumption are focused on the extraction of surplus
value from the labor of the proletariat and not on the direct needs
and/or desires of those forced to work. This explains the social
division within capitalist time and space: we go to the store to consume
and we go to work 'to produce'. Many of the destructive aspects of
industrial society will likely disappear because the vast majority of
work is based on making profits, not meeting human needs or desires. In
capitalism, unless you're getting paid to get by, who wants to sit in a
shop making junk that no one really needs? 9) Communism, then, is not
about human domination over the natural world, but about reintegration
with it. There is also a collapse between city and country. And to
achieve this, work must necessarily be eliminated so that our social
relations are fundamentally changed and not just managed differently.
8) So, what is anti-work? It's a term we use to describe our position
when it comes to business and capitalism. Bruno Astarian wrote a long
article on the history of anti-workism and its differentiation from the
rejection of labor. You can access it here. Saidiya Saidiya Hartman has
also written a speculative historical essay around a young black woman,
Esther Brown, that illuminates a racialized and gendered rejection of
work in which work is seen as opposed to a directly lived, unalienated
life. You can find it here (pdf).
Of course, the horizon of a communist future seems incredibly far and
distant, but just a few generations ago people were living in communal,
non-capitalist societies around the world.
Source: Ultra-Left FAQ - The abolition of work / negation of work /
Anti-work
Translation: heimatloskultu / Konzept
https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2024/04/10/ultra-sol-hakkinda-sikca-sorulan-sorular-ediciones-ineditas/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten