The only lazy people in a capitalist society are the ones at the top. Everyone else is busting their ass, or dying. But the lazy assholes who control the flow of money do like to project their laziness on everyone else.
“Lazy” is a lazy concept. It replaces “lack of motivation” and masks it with judgment and assumptions. People with trauma can collapse and give up. What they need is healing, not judgment, which only serves to create more barriers. It’s both easier and lazier to call them lazy and then we don’t have to do the work of understanding and facing the discomfort of of looking at where we might have been luckier and be humble about it. It’s another mark of trauma when we need to make it look like we are superior, hard workers and more deserving. It shows we aren’t comfortable in our own skin, or our belonging.
Lazy is a narrative empty of substance.
And maybe, just maybe, lazy is also more spiritual, because it gives our brains the downtime to connect, something sorely needed in today’s eco-disaster world of overdone productivity.
People would choose to do so many things they cannot choose now if they didn’t need to worry about their basic needs being met. Art and creativity and innovation do not come from the grind but from having space and time to relax and imagine. The grind only has people imagining escape, not imagining new technologies, new worlds, new ways of doing art, new ways of expressing.
We are a very pro-science and pro-technology culture. And both of those are great. But we need to be more pro-art and pro-philosophy. It would add so much to our world.
With less time working, with less stress over meeting basic needs humans could imagine and take part in science, technology, art and philosophy in ways we cannot even dream of currently.
While I appreciate Marx for his analysis and insight, I'm a stateless Socialist. Although I share the same ultimate aims as most Socialists, I part ways with some of them on the issue of hierarchy.
Soc Anth here, despairing st how deeply that shitty old capitalist-modernist protestant work ethic has been naturalised, moralised, promulgated. It's an absolute poison. Measuring people's worth by their "productivity". Elderly, infants, people with disabilities, and a load of others - less worthy than fit young hyperactives? Vile way to run any society. It's going to take time to undo this deeeeeeep ideology.
Lots of good points. I tend to agree with Dr Price that laziness isn’t real - it’s a cultural judgement. Almost anything in life is “work” (in the sense of effort) and you literally can’t avoid it. Cooking, cleaning, bathing, walking, art, learning, conversations etc etc. “Work” and “job” are very different things (tho modern folks conflate them constantly). But effort is amoral. Stay at home moms work incredibly hard doing socially valuable work that isn’t a “job”. A weapons manufacturer CEO works hard doing less socially valuable work at his “job”.
I think people might be surprised to find that being a homeless addict is a lot of “work”. It doesn’t really fit the definition of “lazy”. Most people put up with jobs to meet their basic needs. Addicts’ have just developed a different kind of basic need and their reservoir of effort has been hijacked to meet it.
I do think that all life is effort - and humans innately seek to put their own effort into something meaningful. When they can’t (addiction, meaningless work etc) it generates sickness in society.
Ants are seen as an example of a society where everybody contributes equally, but this is not the case. "In 2015, biologists at the University of Arizona reported that a sizable chunk of the "workers" that make up an ant colony spent the vast majority of their day engaging in one task: doing absolutely nothing." https://phys.org/news/2017-09-lazy-ants-unexpected-ways.html
Cool!! I'm curious, though, what your response would be to those who argue that those examples of non-capitalist, non-money societies were all much smaller scale societies than our present one, and that such a society can't work at our current mass scale? I ask because I run into that argument on the regular!
Some non-hierarchal civilisations - like the Indus & Zomia - had millions of people and lasted almost two thousand years over large areas, so we know it is possible at least to that extent. The problem is that most people are unaware of such groups or even more recent examples.
But let's say once you hit a one-hundred thousand people in a city or a million people in a. given area it wasn't possible to avoid having hierarchy or using money, then the answer is in the problem - organise people around regions that size or smaller.
The regions can still co-operate with each other and people can move between them, but if the benefits of sub-dividing in such a way was such a better society, and the cost of not doing it is very negative outcomes, then it would be much better to reorganise in this way than carrying on as we have been doing.
I think there are pivot points along the way in the development of any society where they can choose a different path, but of course the more they commit to dominating power structures and reliance on exploitative economic systems then the harder it may be to move away from those, but the more of us involved in our communities, aware of the potential, and willing and ready to take and make the opportunities for change, then the more possible it becomes.
Awesome!! And thanks again for another super thoughtful, considered response!! I run into the question of scale all the freaking time from a particular relative who, unfortunately, is highly educated in history and anthropology, but that study has basically lead them to be a total pessimist!
"Since producing this food only requires about 1% of the population…"
But that is on the back of some 200 slaves each of us work 24/7/365.
Prior to the exploitation of fossil sunlight, it took a dozen people working the land to support just one in the city. Today, each farmer supports about 700 in the city.
A reversion to the mean is inevitable.
Capitalism can be traced to the advent of grain agriculture, some 7,000 years ago. Prior to that time, it wasn't possible to store trophic energy (food) for more than a turn of the seasons. Therefore, there could not be hoarding or withholding, and thus stratification, hierarchy, and "power over". Granary receipts were arguably the first form of money.
This happened at about the same time in Mesopotamia (wheat), the Orient (rice), and Mesoamerica (corn). Each of them is marked by grand (but useless) architectural artifacts, which would not be possible without hierarchy and "power over".
Except… around the same time, for several thousand years, a thriving hazelnut-based civilization arose, centred around present day Hazelton, British Columbia. There are gathered hazelnut varieties from all over BC and Washington State that are not indigenous to Hazelton.
And yet, no grand architecture — the archeological evidence of hierarchy — has been found. Why is that?
Simple. Hazelnuts go rancid, and cannot be stored (or hoarded or withheld) for very long.
"[Ishmael] There's only one way you can force people to accept an intolerable lifestyle. [Julie] Yea. You have to lock up the food." — Daniel Quinn, from My Ishmael
I agree, although Graber adds some nuance to this in 'The Dawn of Everything', showing some agriculturally advanced civilisations that lasted a long time while still managing to be non-hierarchal. I presume they had a culture that was more hostile to hierarchy or prioritised the co-operative, collective and communal more.
Separately how much is perceived laziness more accurately described as major depressive disorder, agoraphobia and other anxiety disorders some of which might trouble individuals regardless of economics but are definitely exacerbated in our culture by the costs of care and lack of meaningful treatment for many. Would I be less depressed if I felt that I was contributing in a meaningful way to society? Of course. Would some mental health conditions even exist to the extent that they're considered illnesses in a different culture/economicsystem? I don't know but from what we do know it seems like that's more likely to be true than not. Everyone is lazy sometimes, but it's a combination of laziness and selfishness that's actually harmful. And that's not common except amongst people with the privilege to behave badly without being ostracized. Like say, the current administration.
I absolutely agree with you! I feel like there is an element of "The Parable of the Four Tribes" going on with our current system. The most ruthless aggressor has taken more than their fair share, and has propogandized the masses into working to ensure that they keep it. We have been brainwashed into thinking competition in all aspects of our lives is best for our species regardless of the obvious downfalls that present themselves as the ills of society. I absolutely believe cooperation would outpace competition every day of the year!
Ecologically, competition thrives in high-energy biomes, such as the tropics, while cooperation thrives in low-energy biomes, such as arctic and alpine areas.
We are about to crest the peak of fossil sunlight availability, which will mean "peak competition".
I look forward to the voluntary cooperation to come, once the downslope of involuntary degrowth becomes apparent.
Lovely little dive into the issue. Well, it was an issue for me when I was first ruminating on a non-capitalist ideal, but I now see it as a non-issue.
I know that with a loving community around you, and an inevitable concern for the well being of everyone in that community, people will do the work. Esp when the work has real meaning, a direct connection to everyone's welfare, and your own. I don't even think it will be something I would take notice of. If someone is not doing any obvious labours, I will just assume they are working on something good in their own time, even if that's just sitting and thinking about something that might well make our lives better. I also suspect that people newly out of the capitalist work abuse system will need some time to just chill and heal from their trauma, and I would be happy to work so they can facilitate that healing.
There’s a lot to agree with here but I wonder in the modern world under this system how we invest in large scale infrastructure projects? Does this require some form of wealth accumulation to pay for these and how about social benefits how are these paid for under the society described here?
Those will be the relics that future archeologists discover and study.
But those "future archeologists" may be in millions of years, the evolved descendants of today's bonobos, canids, cetaceans, etc. Humans will have long ago exterminated themselves.
I like the idea that we will be known as the Plasticocene era. Just a thin layer of melted compressed plastic to mark our time... Then of course the 6th mass-extinction event that resulted after.
In the second half of the year I'll be going into the process of creating microchips this way (as it is the most complex production process ever created - although Linux which is produced collectively and freely comes a close second)
Although I think all wealth accumulation does is get in the way of large scale infrastructure projects. Artificial capital isn't needed in a resource based economy. Likewise with the social benefits. I'll be covering that more too.
Your post made me think of some lyrics from the song "jesus does the dishes" by wingnut dishwashers union: If we can't live without dishwashers
how would we live without cops?
And so you're asking me who does the dishes after the revolution?
Well, I do my own dishes now
I'll do my own dishes then
You know it's always the ones who don't
who ask that focking question
Great folk punk song! For those who haven't heard it before - https://youtu.be/Zhs5nX5t0NI
The only line I'd change is -
Well, I do other peoples dishes now
so I'll do your dishes too then
... Because I wouldn't want anyone to be held back from being part of the revolution because of a fear of doing dishes ;-)
The only lazy people in a capitalist society are the ones at the top. Everyone else is busting their ass, or dying. But the lazy assholes who control the flow of money do like to project their laziness on everyone else.
“Lazy” is a lazy concept. It replaces “lack of motivation” and masks it with judgment and assumptions. People with trauma can collapse and give up. What they need is healing, not judgment, which only serves to create more barriers. It’s both easier and lazier to call them lazy and then we don’t have to do the work of understanding and facing the discomfort of of looking at where we might have been luckier and be humble about it. It’s another mark of trauma when we need to make it look like we are superior, hard workers and more deserving. It shows we aren’t comfortable in our own skin, or our belonging.
Lazy is a narrative empty of substance.
And maybe, just maybe, lazy is also more spiritual, because it gives our brains the downtime to connect, something sorely needed in today’s eco-disaster world of overdone productivity.
People would choose to do so many things they cannot choose now if they didn’t need to worry about their basic needs being met. Art and creativity and innovation do not come from the grind but from having space and time to relax and imagine. The grind only has people imagining escape, not imagining new technologies, new worlds, new ways of doing art, new ways of expressing.
We are a very pro-science and pro-technology culture. And both of those are great. But we need to be more pro-art and pro-philosophy. It would add so much to our world.
With less time working, with less stress over meeting basic needs humans could imagine and take part in science, technology, art and philosophy in ways we cannot even dream of currently.
Yes. I would bet under the current system MOST people do not in fact want to go to their work.
And the possibility of doing something they'd rather be doing is often prohibited by cost.
With all our modern ideas and positions, without money as an obstacle, there is far more incentive to learn and to do.
I would have studied so many different things had I been able to afford to remain a student.
Well done. Thanks for sharing.
Your essay led me to believe i was reading the work of a Socialist, yet you state you are neither a Marxist or Leninist and I'm curious to know why.
Please keep the great work coming and peace to you and yours.
Glad you enjoyed the essay!
While I appreciate Marx for his analysis and insight, I'm a stateless Socialist. Although I share the same ultimate aims as most Socialists, I part ways with some of them on the issue of hierarchy.
Soc Anth here, despairing st how deeply that shitty old capitalist-modernist protestant work ethic has been naturalised, moralised, promulgated. It's an absolute poison. Measuring people's worth by their "productivity". Elderly, infants, people with disabilities, and a load of others - less worthy than fit young hyperactives? Vile way to run any society. It's going to take time to undo this deeeeeeep ideology.
https://www.publicbooks.org/marshall-sahlins-original-affluent-society-at-50/
Leisure and freedom as values. Ones we need to reclaim.
The research shows that UBI doesn't make people lazy, it reduces stress, and enables work.
https://open.substack.com/pub/twvme/p/project-2026-a-check-with-no-strings?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=5bacoo
Lots of good points. I tend to agree with Dr Price that laziness isn’t real - it’s a cultural judgement. Almost anything in life is “work” (in the sense of effort) and you literally can’t avoid it. Cooking, cleaning, bathing, walking, art, learning, conversations etc etc. “Work” and “job” are very different things (tho modern folks conflate them constantly). But effort is amoral. Stay at home moms work incredibly hard doing socially valuable work that isn’t a “job”. A weapons manufacturer CEO works hard doing less socially valuable work at his “job”.
I think people might be surprised to find that being a homeless addict is a lot of “work”. It doesn’t really fit the definition of “lazy”. Most people put up with jobs to meet their basic needs. Addicts’ have just developed a different kind of basic need and their reservoir of effort has been hijacked to meet it.
I do think that all life is effort - and humans innately seek to put their own effort into something meaningful. When they can’t (addiction, meaningless work etc) it generates sickness in society.
Ants are seen as an example of a society where everybody contributes equally, but this is not the case. "In 2015, biologists at the University of Arizona reported that a sizable chunk of the "workers" that make up an ant colony spent the vast majority of their day engaging in one task: doing absolutely nothing." https://phys.org/news/2017-09-lazy-ants-unexpected-ways.html
Cool!! I'm curious, though, what your response would be to those who argue that those examples of non-capitalist, non-money societies were all much smaller scale societies than our present one, and that such a society can't work at our current mass scale? I ask because I run into that argument on the regular!
Some non-hierarchal civilisations - like the Indus & Zomia - had millions of people and lasted almost two thousand years over large areas, so we know it is possible at least to that extent. The problem is that most people are unaware of such groups or even more recent examples.
But let's say once you hit a one-hundred thousand people in a city or a million people in a. given area it wasn't possible to avoid having hierarchy or using money, then the answer is in the problem - organise people around regions that size or smaller.
The regions can still co-operate with each other and people can move between them, but if the benefits of sub-dividing in such a way was such a better society, and the cost of not doing it is very negative outcomes, then it would be much better to reorganise in this way than carrying on as we have been doing.
I think there are pivot points along the way in the development of any society where they can choose a different path, but of course the more they commit to dominating power structures and reliance on exploitative economic systems then the harder it may be to move away from those, but the more of us involved in our communities, aware of the potential, and willing and ready to take and make the opportunities for change, then the more possible it becomes.
Awesome!! And thanks again for another super thoughtful, considered response!! I run into the question of scale all the freaking time from a particular relative who, unfortunately, is highly educated in history and anthropology, but that study has basically lead them to be a total pessimist!
"Since producing this food only requires about 1% of the population…"
But that is on the back of some 200 slaves each of us work 24/7/365.
Prior to the exploitation of fossil sunlight, it took a dozen people working the land to support just one in the city. Today, each farmer supports about 700 in the city.
A reversion to the mean is inevitable.
Capitalism can be traced to the advent of grain agriculture, some 7,000 years ago. Prior to that time, it wasn't possible to store trophic energy (food) for more than a turn of the seasons. Therefore, there could not be hoarding or withholding, and thus stratification, hierarchy, and "power over". Granary receipts were arguably the first form of money.
This happened at about the same time in Mesopotamia (wheat), the Orient (rice), and Mesoamerica (corn). Each of them is marked by grand (but useless) architectural artifacts, which would not be possible without hierarchy and "power over".
Except… around the same time, for several thousand years, a thriving hazelnut-based civilization arose, centred around present day Hazelton, British Columbia. There are gathered hazelnut varieties from all over BC and Washington State that are not indigenous to Hazelton.
And yet, no grand architecture — the archeological evidence of hierarchy — has been found. Why is that?
Simple. Hazelnuts go rancid, and cannot be stored (or hoarded or withheld) for very long.
"[Ishmael] There's only one way you can force people to accept an intolerable lifestyle. [Julie] Yea. You have to lock up the food." — Daniel Quinn, from My Ishmael
I agree, although Graber adds some nuance to this in 'The Dawn of Everything', showing some agriculturally advanced civilisations that lasted a long time while still managing to be non-hierarchal. I presume they had a culture that was more hostile to hierarchy or prioritised the co-operative, collective and communal more.
Separately how much is perceived laziness more accurately described as major depressive disorder, agoraphobia and other anxiety disorders some of which might trouble individuals regardless of economics but are definitely exacerbated in our culture by the costs of care and lack of meaningful treatment for many. Would I be less depressed if I felt that I was contributing in a meaningful way to society? Of course. Would some mental health conditions even exist to the extent that they're considered illnesses in a different culture/economicsystem? I don't know but from what we do know it seems like that's more likely to be true than not. Everyone is lazy sometimes, but it's a combination of laziness and selfishness that's actually harmful. And that's not common except amongst people with the privilege to behave badly without being ostracized. Like say, the current administration.
I absolutely agree with you! I feel like there is an element of "The Parable of the Four Tribes" going on with our current system. The most ruthless aggressor has taken more than their fair share, and has propogandized the masses into working to ensure that they keep it. We have been brainwashed into thinking competition in all aspects of our lives is best for our species regardless of the obvious downfalls that present themselves as the ills of society. I absolutely believe cooperation would outpace competition every day of the year!
Ecologically, competition thrives in high-energy biomes, such as the tropics, while cooperation thrives in low-energy biomes, such as arctic and alpine areas.
We are about to crest the peak of fossil sunlight availability, which will mean "peak competition".
I look forward to the voluntary cooperation to come, once the downslope of involuntary degrowth becomes apparent.
Lovely little dive into the issue. Well, it was an issue for me when I was first ruminating on a non-capitalist ideal, but I now see it as a non-issue.
I know that with a loving community around you, and an inevitable concern for the well being of everyone in that community, people will do the work. Esp when the work has real meaning, a direct connection to everyone's welfare, and your own. I don't even think it will be something I would take notice of. If someone is not doing any obvious labours, I will just assume they are working on something good in their own time, even if that's just sitting and thinking about something that might well make our lives better. I also suspect that people newly out of the capitalist work abuse system will need some time to just chill and heal from their trauma, and I would be happy to work so they can facilitate that healing.
There’s a lot to agree with here but I wonder in the modern world under this system how we invest in large scale infrastructure projects? Does this require some form of wealth accumulation to pay for these and how about social benefits how are these paid for under the society described here?
We need to stop doing 'large scale infrastructure' projects.
Those will be the relics that future archeologists discover and study.
But those "future archeologists" may be in millions of years, the evolved descendants of today's bonobos, canids, cetaceans, etc. Humans will have long ago exterminated themselves.
I like the idea that we will be known as the Plasticocene era. Just a thin layer of melted compressed plastic to mark our time... Then of course the 6th mass-extinction event that resulted after.
Fortunately someone has already written a guide for this ;-)
https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/i-pencil-the-true-story
(especially the 'We Pencils' second half)
Stafford Beers worked out some of the logistics back in the 60s, and Walmart and Amazon already do this internally.
You may also find this interesting, as it looks into the organisational side of this process -
https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/organising-without-rulers
In the second half of the year I'll be going into the process of creating microchips this way (as it is the most complex production process ever created - although Linux which is produced collectively and freely comes a close second)
Although I think all wealth accumulation does is get in the way of large scale infrastructure projects. Artificial capital isn't needed in a resource based economy. Likewise with the social benefits. I'll be covering that more too.