Surely many do not want reduction in working time. They are hooked on the American dream, now become globalised, on more and more material wealth and are willing to work longer in attempts to attain it. The infinite consumer is hardly obsolete. Those who die with the most toys win the game. People would certainly opt for shorter hours with the same pay but then many would then opt to work part time on another job to increase income even further or to payoff some of their debt. Certainly many also feel alienated during the workday but are conditioned to put up with this as a means to amassing more material goods, the good life. I recall some workers during a strike in northern Manitoba commenting in an interview that they were surprised how pleasant it was to be able to go fishing or work in the garden or around the house according to their own schedule and just to enjoy the Spring weather. But then the strike was over and things returned to "normal"!
Cheers, Ken Hanly --- Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/2/08, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > May Day -- The capitalist workday, the socialist > workday > > http://links.org.au/node/374 > > > > By Michael A. Lebowitz > > > > This article was > > presented as initiating remarks to the > "Roundtable Discussion on the > > Reduction of the Workday" held on April 24, 2008, > at the Centro > > International Miranda, Caracas, Venezuela. > > > Oh, how I would love to hear a report on what > transpired at the > roundtable discussion! Maybe I can track Mike L. > down at UBC this > week. > > Meanwhile, I'd like to offer the Sandwichman's > uninvited contribution > to the roundtable discussion. > > First, as important as the distinction Mike makes > between the > capitalist and the socialist workday may be, I think > it is a mistake > to conceptualize the contemporary workday as either > thoroughly > capitalist or unremittingly alienated and miserable. > People do derive > some degree of "satisfaction" (that is to say an > inherent "use value" > aside from the exchange value of remuneration) from > their work. If you > tell them that work under capitalism is unrelievedly > painful then they > will begin to think you don't know what you're > talking about. The > trick is that what is "joyful" about work is not > capitalist and what > is capitalist about it is not joyful. The smart > manager or clever > propagandist will be eager to blur that distinction. > Meanwhile, > painting the contemporary workday in such bleak > greys has the > unfortunate tendency of making the projected "comes > the revolution" > socialist workday seem like either a Utopian fantasy > or a Stakhovinite > delusion. The question for me, really, is what part > of life, as it is > actually lived -- now, do we want to augment, what > part do we want to > diminish? > > Second, is Marx's analysis of surplus value really > the first and last > word on the reduction of the workday? I think not. > Marx's analysis is > indeed central but it is not indispensible. A > "bourgeois > auto-critique" every bit as thoroughgoing as Marx's > could be cobbled > together starting from the scraps of non-Marxist > worktime thought: > that is from the "anonymous" pamphlet, The Source > and Remedy of the > National Difficulties, the Ira Steward/George Gunton > shorter workday > philosophy of the AF of L and Sydney Chapman's > neoclassical theory of > the hours of labour. Not solely *from* those but > also from a > historical examination of what has happened to those > contributions -- > namely why (and how) have they "disappeared" or > fallen silent. "There > will come a time when our silence will be more > powerful than the > voices you strangle today!" Haymarket martyr, August > Spies proclaimed > from the gallows. Those words could be either futile > bravado or > programmatic. The silence of the dead attains its > power through acts > of remembrance by the living. That is, not through > memorial rituals > but through the construction of images linking those > forgotten words > and deeds with contemporary events. > > "No student of American labor history can fail to be > struck with the > extraordinary importance of the eight-hour issue in > union thinking > during the formative years of the American > Federation of Labor." wrote > economist and Nation editor Henry Mussey in 1927. > Taking that > statement as a baseline, no observer of contemporary > North American > organized labor could fail to be astounded by the > extraordinary > *absence* of the issue of the reduction of working > time from union > thinking. > > -- > Sandwichman > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
