I mean, the answer is agency. You enjoy doing things that you choose to do—which you choose to do because you enjoy them, it’s just a tad selective and cyclic there.
Most people don’t choose to work because they enjoy it; they work to survive, doing what the market will support.
Some few very very lucky people get to do work they would otherwise choose to do anyways.
I feel like below a certain wage threshold, jobs are made shitty on purpose.
There is no need for a cashier to stand all the time, a small and high chair would suffice. There are boards used by mechanics to slide around on the shop floor when working beneath cars, but there are no carts for workers filling up lower shelves. Etc.
I worked in engineering and now process management and I could exit most B2C shops screaming of frustration for their inefficiency and spiteful brutalism.
Ergonomics is one of the main factors for worker health, happiness and productivity, but if you have literal wage slaves, you can even save the peanuts. True Greed.
From what I remember from college, I think what you're talking about is mostly about intrinsic motivation vs. extrinsic motivation, into which there's a lot of research. Just adding it in case someone wanted to look more into it, and was looking for some keywords.
It's one of the things that's worth knowing about, because you can somehow work around it to get motivated better, and it's one of the more important topics in game design. So, in general a usefull piece of psychology knowledge.
Stuff like this is why I come here. Thank you for taking the time to post.
Nailed it.
Because "Work" is just effort for some stranger's benefit; a CEO or Corporation. Whereas the result of effort enriches you and/or the people you love.
Bingo.
As if you don't get anything in return for the effort you put in and are just doing charity to benefit someone else.
"In exchange for making me rich, I grant you the privilege of having enough money to pay your bills and maybe go to disneyland once in a while."
That's not a return on your effort for your own benefit; it's quite literally serfdom with extra steps. "You harvest me 1,000 acres and I'll let you keep two acres to take care of your family."
Food isn't free. It takes effort to maintain and protect it from pests, keep it well-fed and watered, and encourage it to bear fruit.
A common theme on social media is "Reject humanity return to monke." That said, most would fail a survival test.
I wonder how many prehistoric humans would fail a survival test. Given they rarely lived in tribes smaller than 50 people, there's got to have been quite a few that just didn't bother to learn every survival skill.
Karl Marx talked about this extensively, and he was writing for us workers. its always breathtaking to hear "why hasn't anyone talked about this," when everybody knows there were people who talked about this, made it their life's scientific work, set the intellectual foundation for those of us who figured it out to go deeper with our inquiries and understanding, but because others who control the ideas of society have so successfully stigmatized these ideas and their proponents, we workers have internalized the hate for ourselves and our ideas that the ruling classes have for us.
First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague. External labor, labor in which man alienates himself, is a labor of self-sacrifice, of mortification. Lastly, the external character of labor for the worker appears in the fact that it is not his own, but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, that in it he belongs, not to himself, but to another. Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self. -- Economic and Philosophic manuscripts, 1844
And later in Capital:
within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital. But all methods for the production of surplus-value are at the same time methods of accumulation; and every extension of accumulation becomes again a means for the development of those methods. It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment high or low, must grow worse. The law, finally, that always equilibrates the relative surplus population, or industrial reserve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law rivets the labourer to capital more firmly than the wedges of Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an accumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital. - chapter 25 sec 4
everybody knows
others who control the ideas of society have so successfully stigmatized these ideas and their proponents
Resulting in everyone "knowing" that the existing system is how things are supposed to be, and thinking differently is just laziness/entitlement. Or straight up heresy.
Marx citations
Bingo (long version that most won't take the time to read let alone consider)
I'm not sure where you're coming from here, are you saying that you think it is pointless to try and refer to Marx, because the passages are too complicated for most workers? Because I know for a fact that isn't universal. My gripe is this very assumption. Marx may be very hard, but (I'm repeating myself) he was writing for us. not the intelligentsia, or the ruling class intellectuals, or university administrators, or any of that. Which means once you get around the difficulty of the subject you realize that actually his writing is about our lives, and what we go through, but not only what but how it functions, from whence it came and where it is headed. It isn't difficult it's just a lot at first. I know literally hundreds of workers from all different ages, backgrounds, languages, who all better understand their revolutionary role opposing the capitalism system because they took to studying history using Marx's scientific methods. I myself have little formal education, yet ive become educated. It may not come natural at first, because there's so much distraction, but over time you gain knowledge and experience and it starts to click. And once it does, you wouldn't want to live without the works of Marx. We read them over and over, we discuss them and how it applies to our lives.
Maybe that isn't your experience, and that's fine, but that isn't universal. Maybe you aren't convinced,and that's fine, because maybe I don't think I can convince you all at once, that it takes time and exposure and eventually it starts making sense.
I have as severe ADHD as anyone I've ever met, I have learned this stuff and it has helped me, like I'm much better off as a person since I've started studying like this. I don't believe it is unnatural for workers, in fact I think it is a sign of our unnatural, alienated conditions that we are inclined not to.
When communist workmen gather together, their immediate aim is instruction, propaganda, etc. But at the same time, they acquire a new need – the need for society – and what appears as a means had become an end. This practical development can be most strikingly observed in the gatherings of French socialist workers. Smoking, eating, and drinking, etc., are no longer means of creating links between people. Company, association, conversation, which in turn has society as its goal, is enough for them. The brotherhood of man is not a hollow phrase, it is a reality, and the nobility of man shines forth upon us from their work-worn figures. -- KM, EPM 1844
Not trying to twist your comment into something you didn't mean however, so if I misinterpreted your intent or meaning, please correct me :)
Have you ever tried to produce food, though. It is surely not free, and I refer you to the labour theory of value (LTV) for a straightforward explanation of that.
Food is literally free here in sweden at least, thanks to the right to roam. You have the legal right to pick mushrooms and berries in the wild.
There is not enough wild growing food to feed the entire human population. You are welcome to live in the woods and survive on only berries and mushrooms go right ahead.
Agriculture is hard work. Hard work has value and therefore the resulting product of agriculture (food) has value and is not free.
I am not some capitalist pig, I generally agree with anti-work sentiment and am pro work reform. I am working class, working to live, if i dont work I'll be homeless in 2 months. But also I realise that if you build an extremist ideology based upon blatant falsehoods like that in the posted image, it is doomed to fail.
Echoing the other reply - please think about the reality of this.
We can do that too to most extents. But that's not really the same thing as being discussed.
You don't like your job. I don't like mine either. Effort feels good, but having no agency as to what you put that effort into, and actively feeling as though it's wasted, is of course going to feel bad.
"None of the pro-work people can answer the question" Tumblr hyperbole is so annoying lol
Doing it for yourself vs for someone else. You get the reward if you do it for yourself, then you’re done.
If you do it for someone else as a job, they get the reward, you’re presented with more problems to solve, and there isn’t any additional reward.
That's a tad spurious though.
"Work" isn't about having to get things from those that guard it, not inherently.
It's also about specialization. If I'm a better hunter, and you're a better farmer, then why waste effort by splitting our time and energy each doing something we're not as good at.
You expand that until you've got specialists that aren't "working" with food at all, they're making bows for me, and making plows for you.
The problem is the system of resource allocation. It ends up where resources are hoarded by some rather than being used. In a non capitalist system, working to eat doesn't mean wage slavery or grinding at something only to be able to eat, it's about keeping the wheels of social exchange moving. Allocation of resources, where you do whatever it is you'd be good at, or be willing to get good at so that someone else that's good at other things doesn't need to do that, and you all eat because you all worked.
Not that any given system of resource allocation is perfect or free from problems, but the concept of having a job, of working, doesn't have to be oppressive. Hell, in a well enough regulated capitalist system, it would be less oppressive than it is; you can see that in worker owned businesses.
"food is literally free" go enjoy picking berries like a squirrel, I'm going to the supermarket because it saves a lot of time
Just be sure to not make eye-contact with the homeless family asking for help in the parking lot! Would hate for them to miss out on the chance to pick berries like a squirrel!
/s
You wouldn't need that time if the food were free though
Ok go bring me free food, I'll be playing video games. Thanks 😊
Does Marx’ concept of alienation measure up?
Interestingly I was watching a Howard Marks video (investment billionare, know thine enemy) anyhoo, he was asked why he bothered still going to work, he answerd that if you'd rather be anywhere else doing somwthing else, it's work otherwise it isn't..
That nonsesne is the problem with nearly all of society, I doubt he cleans the toilets in the Oaktree office building.
It's a bit nuanced. But by this definition, I would not call my job "work". I love what I do and I out effort into it.
Effort does not feel good lol
I'm not doing it for you, get off your arse and dig this trench.
PDA profile/ autism
