Stop being so useful

[Zeno]

In Praise of Idleness


Like most of my generation, I was brought up on the saying: 'Satan finds some mischief for idle hands to do.' Being a highly virtuous child, I believed all that I was told, and acquired a conscience which has kept me working hard down to the present moment. But although my conscience has controlled my actions, my opinions have undergone a revolution. I think that there is far too much work done in the world, that immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous, and that what needs to be preached in modern industrial countries is quite different from what always has been preached. Everyone knows the story of the traveler in Naples who saw twelve beggars lying in the sun (it was before the days of Mussolini), and offered a lira to the laziest of them. Eleven of them jumped up to claim it, so he gave it to the twelfth. This traveler was on the right lines. But in countries which do not enjoy Mediterranean sunshine idleness is more difficult, and a great public propaganda will be required to inaugurate it. I hope that, after reading the following pages, the leaders of the YMCA will start a campaign to induce good young men to do nothing. If so, I shall not have lived in vain.

Before advancing my own arguments for laziness, I must dispose of one which I cannot accept. Whenever a person who already has enough to live on proposes to engage in some everyday kind of job, such as school-teaching or typing, he or she is told that such conduct takes the bread out of other people's mouths, and is therefore wicked. If this argument were valid, it would only be necessary for us all to be idle in order that we should all have our mouths full of bread. What people who say such things forget is that what a man earns he usually spends, and in spending he gives employment. As long as a man spends his income, he puts just as much bread into people's mouths in spending as he takes out of other people's mouths in earning. The real villain, from this point of view, is the man who saves. If he merely puts his savings in a stocking, like the proverbial French peasant, it is obvious that they do not give employment. If he invests his savings, the matter is less obvious, and different cases arise.

One of the commonest things to do with savings is to lend them to some Government. In view of the fact that the bulk of the public expenditure of most civilized Governments consists in payment for past wars or preparation for future wars, the man who lends his money to a Government is in the same position as the bad men in Shakespeare who hire murderers. The net result of the man's economical habits is to increase the armed forces of the State to which he lends his savings. Obviously it would be better if he spent the money, even if he spent it in drink or gambling.

But, I shall be told, the case is quite different when savings are invested in industrial enterprises. When such enterprises succeed, and produce something useful, this may be conceded. In these days, however, no one will deny that most enterprises fail. That means that a large amount of human labor, which might have been devoted to producing something that could be enjoyed, was expended on producing machines which, when produced, lay idle and did no good to anyone. The man who invests his savings in a concern that goes bankrupt is therefore injuring others as well as himself. If he spent his money, say, in giving parties for his friends, they (we may hope) would get pleasure, and so would all those upon whom he spent money, such as the butcher, the baker, and the bootlegger. But if he spends it (let us say) upon laying down rails for surface cars in some place where surface cars turn out not to be wanted, he has diverted a mass of labor into channels where it gives pleasure to no one. Nevertheless, when he becomes poor through failure of his investment he will be regarded as a victim of undeserved misfortune, whereas the gay spendthrift, who has spent his money philanthropically, will be despised as a fool and a frivolous person.

All this is only preliminary. I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.

[hmkpoker]

Good god.

This equates the act of saving to the act of destroying money (which, although it would almost never happen, creates deflation and increased worth for all other money holders). The difference is striking; people don't save so they can die with lots of money, they save so that they can buy something of percieved greater value at a later time. The person who saves to buy a house manages to do so by not blowing his money on drink and gambling, and the seller of the property reaps the benefit that he would not have otherwise acquired.

[ QUOTE ]
But if he spends it (let us say) upon laying down rails for surface cars in some place where surface cars turn out not to be wanted, he has diverted a mass of labor into channels where it gives pleasure to no one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and accordingly he has an incentive not to do this (unlike governments). This makes it a superior method of production. Of course, Russel seems to be making the argument that there shouldn't be any means of production, which is so far beyond dumb that I don't feel like rebutting it. If you want to live without transportation, health care, eduction, security, houses that are of greater quality than a thatched hut, tasty food and a life expectancy that is below middle age, go live with a tribe somewhere. I like civilization; you have the option to produce extra valuable resources, but not the obligation.

[John21]

The premise that economics is the management of scarce resources has been proven false.

[Borodog]

===> SMP

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
||
||
||
\/
SMP

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[Joe Camel]

That was a very interesting read. I had never heard of Bertrand Russell, but I've always felt the same way about working long hours. Working 8 or more hours per day leaves almost no time at all for the fun part of living. It's a shame that if you want a decent job, your choices are to work many hours, or none at all. I am unemployed, but I would happily take a job for four hours (or less!) per day if they weren't all so awful (Mcdonald's, walmart, etc.). I like the security that a steady income provides, but I'm not about to trade my whole life for it!

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Good god.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe in God - good, bad, or otherwise and there is ample evidence that neither did BR. Nevertheless, a few things in BR's introductory paragraphs are somewhat, shall we say - arresting.

I enjoyed the anecdote about the traveler from Naples, a sufficiently adequate reason for the post in my opinion.

In praise of Idleness is only one essay in a book of the same title by Russell, which first appeared in Britain in 1935. The essay ‘The Case for Socialism' is also contained in this book. I direct the more languid socialist adherents of this forum to reading it. I am fairly certain it is available via some web link.

The essay ‘The Ancestry of Fascism’ is also contained in this book. Only a very few people should read this essay as it borders the margins of rationality.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
===> SMP

[/ QUOTE ]


I honestly have no idea what this means.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
The premise that economics is the management of scarce resources has been proven false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not by God I hope. Anyway, does this apply in any way to "Peak Oil"?

-Zeno, Idling at the light and spewing out noxious chemicals

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in God

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an atheist too. God makes an excellent interjection though.

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed the anecdote about the traveler from Naples, a sufficiently adequate reason for the post in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? There's no meaning to it.

Russell is grossly overestimating the amount of resources we have in today's society. He seems to claim that technology is so advanced that we can just sit on our butts and the machines will pour forth our resources. If this were true, then why are the capitalist regimes (who own these devices) employing people?

I agree that American society is way too consumer-oriented, and tend to put their basic needs (food, water, shelter, basic financial security) at risk for trendy outlandish needs (big house on an ARM, Mercedes, big TV's) that ultimately get them screwed. This is not an argument against capitalism though, it's an argument against consumer stupidity. I'm still able, in a capitalist system, to have a house, a car, a part time job, and hang out in the shade all day long.

A blanket advocation of laziness and entitlement has and will continue to result in poverty and death. I wonder if he'd have said the same thing if he wrote this after he got to witness the failures of Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong.