Scan barcode
A review by adribarnett
The Abolition of Work by Bob Black
1.0
Bob Black is a moron and he sucks at writing.
******
Reread 5/16/2024
The biggest hole in Black's argument is that he assumes that in the absence of coerced work, people will find enough joy in those "truly necessary" activities (which he defines as those providing food, shelter, or clothing - more on that later) that we'd have enough to survive and thrive. The idea is that many people would find those activities nice for a short time, if not forced to do them, and that the sum of all those uncoerced efforts would clothe, feed, and house all of us. I simply don't find that convincing or compelling.
The next big hole is his assertion that only food, shelter, and clothing are work worth saving, and I, again, simply don't agree. If we were content to live a perfectly ascetic existence then sure, maybe, but presumably people would still enjoy pleasures like decorating their homes, taking road trips (Black argues that the auto industry should essentially be abolished), biking, traveling, etc etc. There are a million and one things that people enjoy that aren't strictly necessary, and personally, I would rather live in a system that requires us all to work in order to have access to those things than to not work and not have access to them.
Another hole - Black creates an argument for abolishing work based on a bunch of haphazard generalizations that do not apply to work throughout history, or even in present day. As an example, he claims that common, repetitive, "low skill" jobs dull the brain. Even if we accept that as true, will Black then make an exception for jobs like lawyers? Professors? Accountants? Researchers? And all the other jobs out there that are perfectly stimulating (even if they do not meet Black's definition of "useful")? What about shoemakers? Technicians? Electricians? Etc. etc.?
******
Reread 5/16/2024
The biggest hole in Black's argument is that he assumes that in the absence of coerced work, people will find enough joy in those "truly necessary" activities (which he defines as those providing food, shelter, or clothing - more on that later) that we'd have enough to survive and thrive. The idea is that many people would find those activities nice for a short time, if not forced to do them, and that the sum of all those uncoerced efforts would clothe, feed, and house all of us. I simply don't find that convincing or compelling.
The next big hole is his assertion that only food, shelter, and clothing are work worth saving, and I, again, simply don't agree. If we were content to live a perfectly ascetic existence then sure, maybe, but presumably people would still enjoy pleasures like decorating their homes, taking road trips (Black argues that the auto industry should essentially be abolished), biking, traveling, etc etc. There are a million and one things that people enjoy that aren't strictly necessary, and personally, I would rather live in a system that requires us all to work in order to have access to those things than to not work and not have access to them.
Another hole - Black creates an argument for abolishing work based on a bunch of haphazard generalizations that do not apply to work throughout history, or even in present day. As an example, he claims that common, repetitive, "low skill" jobs dull the brain. Even if we accept that as true, will Black then make an exception for jobs like lawyers? Professors? Accountants? Researchers? And all the other jobs out there that are perfectly stimulating (even if they do not meet Black's definition of "useful")? What about shoemakers? Technicians? Electricians? Etc. etc.?