- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Hobbies vs. Necessary Labor

Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on November 17, 1999 at 14:57:08:

In Reply to: odd definition of work posted by Gee on November 17, 1999 at 13:46:51:

: My argument was - what would he be doing if he undertook the coaching job himself whilst owning the team? He would be working.

SDF: It's a hobby, an OPTIONAL job, a job that DOESN'T BRING HOME THE BACON for those who NEED it.

: Likewise a fellow who owns a corporation but still comes in to do actual productive work, whether it be a spot of accounts or some welding is working - the nature of the activity does not change because of his bank statement.

SDF: People who work at hobbies are, of course, working. My point in distinguishing hobbies from necessary labor is that the owning class DOESN'T HAVE TO WORK whereas the working class DOES.

: : SDF: Excuse me, billionaires don't make tables with their own hands for $20 in order to become billionaires,

: The point is that were they to undertake *any* kind of productive work they would be working regardless of how much they owned. the point is that the imaginary billionaire table maker and the imaginary poor table maker would both be working. the former's productive output is not somehow invalidated on account of his wealth.

SDF: But the productive output of the WORKING CLASS is invalidated DAILY by a pattern of ownership that requires that almost everyone work FOR A SMALL MINORITY. One can see this invalidation in a propaganda way, in the way procapitalists on this board credit ENTREPRENEURS, and ONLY ENTREPRENEURS, for making the capitalist world strong, whilst at the same time ignoring the accomplishments of those who poured the concrete, installed the plumbing fixtures, and did so much work only to find that their only reward for such work was a wage.

Otherwise, your intense concern for the plight of the working rich is touching.

: I am describing what productive work is an absolute, not making that relative and conditional upon a persons wealth.

: : SDF: Still conflating management with ownership, Gee? A CEO is not an owner, but you can pretend that one is, if you want to.

: If the CEO was the owner then presumably you would explode in a shower of sparks like a 60's Star Trek episode computer unable to deal with some apparent contradiction.

SDF: Nope, it's that you seem to find it enjoyable to muddle even the most simple of distinctions.

: Work and owning wealth are not mutually exlcusive phenonoma as you appear, remarkably, to suggest.

SDF: But we distinguish between work and ownership in order to THINK ECONOMICALLY. Are you frightened at the thought that others might think economically?

Follow Ups:

  • 'Necessary' Gee si November 17 1999 (1)
    • Whatever Samuel Day Fassbinder Citizens for Mustard Greens USA November 18 1999 (0)

The Debating Room Post a Followup