X Close

The terrible threat of Wokenomics There's danger in paying people for things that should be given freely

Sex workers of the world unite (Photo by WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Sex workers of the world unite (Photo by WIktor Szymanowicz/NurPhoto via Getty Images)


May 26, 2020   9 mins

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The phrase is not original to Marx, nor is the idea exclusive to Marxism. Yet, with remarkable economy, it captures the essence of the idealised communist society.

Of course, the reality of communism was best summed-up in the old Soviet-era quip — “the bosses pretend to pay us and we pretend to work,” but let’s stick with the ideal — and what makes it so attractive.

The first half of the slogan suggests a society in which everyone does their bit; and the second half, that there’s always enough to go round. It all seems so fair, so reasonable — until, that is, you notice that what you put into the system (“from each…”) is unrelated to what you get out of it (“to each…”). That’s a problem because “ability” isn’t the only determinant of productivity. In fact, the real difference is made by effort, determination, creativity and risk-taking — all of which respond to reward. So if people don’t get rewarded for the all-important extras they put in, what happens to the economy? Nothing good.

In any case, who decides what each person’s needs are — or, for that matter, what their abilities are?

If you look at Marx’s use of the phrase in context, you’ll see that he was applying it to the “higher phase of communist society” — a socialist wonderland in which material wealth flows abundantly and labour has become “life’s prime want” (because it’s all such fun). So no need for some oppressive state to direct your efforts and distribute the product, you just do what you want and take what you need.

Unfortunately, the path to this “higher phase” has never been clear and the radical Left has struggled with it ever since.

At this point, I ought to say that capitalism, though evidently more successful than communism, has also fallen short. It may be less overtly utopian, but free market economics has its own unrealistic assumptions — rational actors, perfect information, level playing fields etc. All too often, the reality is one in which asymmetries of knowledge and power allow the few to exploit the many.

Hence the enduring appeal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”: twelve words which describe a clear alternative to a deeply-flawed capitalist system. The interesting thing, though, is that they present as much of a challenge to the contemporary Left as they do to the free-market Right.

*

Leftwingery is not, and has never been, a monolith. In the 20th century, communism achieved a position of dominance on the far Left, but had to overcome rival ideologies, like anarchism. In the 21st century, it is just one of many strands of radical thought. It struggles to stand out from and is sometimes co-opted by its rivals.

The old primarily class-based analysis of society now has to contend with other kinds of identity and inequality. A non-exhaustive list includes sex, sexuality, gender, disability (problematic word), race (ditto), religion, language, culture, lifestyle, age, body shape, and all the intersections thereof. It’s all so multidimensional that it’s difficult to decant into neat ideological categories like ‘Leninism’, ‘Trotskyism’, etc. Thus, we have to rely on informalities like ‘Woke’. Yes, it’s a word that been sucked-dry by continual mockery, but it’s useful nonetheless.

The Woke Left dominates today’s radical politics — yet it is also neutralising it. For a start, we’ve seen the culture wars alienate the Left’s traditional working-class support. I’ll say no more about that, because it’s been extensively documented and debated already. Less appreciated, though, is the failure of the radicals to mobilise mass support along other dimensions of identity.

Look at what happened to the Presidential campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Their failure to enthuse the kind of voters the Democrats need to win back from Trump was bad enough. Worse was the disconnect with black voters — who swung firmly behind Joe Biden, the candidate of the centrist establishment. Neither Warren, nor Sanders, were able to extend their appeal much beyond a fanbase of young, mostly white, college-educated activists. In fact, compared to his 2016 run, Sanders went backwards.

It’s the same story across the Western world. With capitalism in crisis, the radical Left gets a hearing, but the establishment stays in power.

In the 20th century, the Left was able to build history-changing movements because their class-based politics had a clear economic programme. The identity-based politics of the contemporary Left does not. Yes, there are promises of lavish state spending — on free broadband and the like. But it doesn’t add up to a transformation of the economic order.

The old Left had the advantage of having a much simpler and clearer model of the society it wanted to change — i.e. the class system. Furthermore, the components of that system can be concretely defined by their economic relationships to one another — workers and management, labour and capital, etc.

The Woke model of society provides no such clarity. There are many more components, most which are not defined by their economic relationships to one another. The Woke Left has plenty to say about inequality, of course — but it’s expressed in terms of concepts like ‘privilege’ and ‘voice’, instead of the solid language of wages and ownership. The proposal that everyone should be paid the same, though lunacy, is at least comprehensible — but what the heck does ‘check your privilege’ mean?

Inequalities of whatever kind can have economic causes and/or consequences, but unlike orthodox Marxism, the Woke Left is not underpinned by a unifying economic theory. While Marxist economics is a major school of economic thought, there’s no such thing as Wokenomics.

Or is there?

*

While, as I say, there’s no defining economic platform — we have seen ideas emerge from various corners of the contemporary Left that would re-order economic relationships across society.

One example is the proposal that reparations should be paid to the descendants of slaves. It’s the subject of an ongoing debate that’s especially current in the United States. Those opposed say that requiring some Americans to compensate other Americans for something that was abolished in the 19th century is deeply unjust — and, indeed, racist. Those in favour argue that the injustice of slavery is not “all in the past”, but can be seen in racialised patterns of advantage and disadvantage that persist to the present day.

And yet it’s hard to think of anything in the modern world that hasn’t been influenced by some past injustice. The principle of reparations, if seriously and consistently implemented, would certainly reorder economic relationships in a pretty fundamental, if immensely complicated, way.

There’s another branch of Wokenomics that is also about compensating people — only not for some historical legacy, but for unpaid labour carried out in the present.

For instance, there’s the idea that mothers should be paid for the work of mothering. It’s a case made in the New York Times by Kim Brooks:

“…if garbage collectors and grocery store workers and hedge fund managers expect to be paid for their labor, why not those who create and sustain the human race? Why can’t we imagine some form of universal basic caretakers income to support the work mothers (or fathers or other extended kin) do at home?”

To be clear, Brooks is not merely asking for a more generous social security system — she’s demanding to be paid as a worker:

“This work, despite bringing joy and meaning to my life, shared many of the qualities of the menial jobs I’d done before… But there was one important difference: The work I’ve done as a mother I’ve done for free.”

Brooks is far from alone in seeing the world in this way. For instance, she mentions the Wages for Housework movement that dates back to the early 1970s. Then there’s the splash made by Sophie Lewis’s 2019 book, Full Surrogacy Now — which advocates a radically different view of family relationships. If I understand her correctly, all pregnancy in the capitalist system is ‘womb-work’ (though, for the most part, unpaid).

The issue here is that if the activities undertaken by a paid surrogate, childminder or cleaner are defined as work, then why is what parents do for themselves considered to be something else?

An answer is provided by Oren Cass in a counterblast for American Compass:

“Suppose we grant the premise that child-rearing is work and that by definition work should be paid. The next question would be: paid by whom? Presumably, by the child’s parents. So if Ms. Brooks wishes to charge Ms. Brooks for Ms. Brooks’s work, she is welcome to do so. But she will find the credits and debits in her account cancel out.”

(Also, think of the paperwork — would one have to pay oneself for that too?)

I presume that Kim Brooks thinks that she should be paid by the state, not by herself — on the grounds that mothers “create and sustain the human race”, which indeed they do. But as Cass points out, the state, in taking responsibility for payment, would thereby take control. That, after all, is the thing about getting paid — your employer decides what you do and how you do it. They also get to own what you produce. Is this really an arrangement we want to apply to motherhood?

Even more than the reparations argument, what is being proposed here is a fundamentally different social and economic order. Firstly, there’s the expansion of the state into private life. Secondly, there’s the transformation of family relationships into transactional relationships. And thirdly, there’s the redefinition of voluntary action as work.

One has to ask, where will it end?

One of the tenets of the Woke Left is that “sex work is work” — and therefore must not be stigmatised or criminalised in any way, but rather regulated and unionised just like the older professions. But I wonder if they’re missing a trick. Why not also argue that “sex is sex work” — and, therefore, should be remunerated in all circumstances. If parents should be paid for looking after their own children, and mothers for gestating them, then shouldn’t we apply the same logic to the start of production line?

*

OK, leaving aside the reductio ad absurdum, the fact remains that eroding the distinctions between public and private life, and between work and voluntary action, gets you into all sorts of nonsense.

In a celebrated essay for Buzzfeed last year, Anne Helen Petersen writes about the causes of “Millennial burnout”. She repeatedly uses the word “labour” (or rather “labor”) to describe the never-ending demands made on young people trying to survive in a hyper-competitive economy. She makes a lot of powerful points — for instance, having to respond to out-of-hours work emails is indeed labour, not to mention an intrusion into home life. But she also uses the word inappropriately, for instance referring to self-promotion on Instagram as “the labor of performing the self for public consumption.”

Except it very clearly isn’t labour, it’s posting on social media — and you don’t have to do it. I don’t think Petersen is demanding ‘wages for selfies’ or anything like that, but she does go on to ask what can be done “until or in lieu of a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system.” Deleting your apps would be a good start.

The concept of ‘emotional labour’ is another example of seeing everything as work. It was originally used to describe the undervalued emotional content of what a lot of employees (often in female-dominated occupations) do in the workplace — for instance the compassion of a nurse or the friendliness of a receptionist. However, it’s been extended to describe what happens in private life too — not only in caring for children and elderly relatives, but also things like consoling a friend or mediating between feuding flatmates.

Caring for others is not cost-free. Nor is the burden always equally shared — and certainly not between men and women. But there is something deeply dehumanising about applying the language of work to something that should be freely given. Moreover, if it is coerced then that should be treated as the domestic abuse that it is, not a breakdown in industrial relations.

*

What a volunteer does for a good cause is, by definition, freely given. But even here we see confusions between voluntary action and the world of work. For instance, well-meant schemes to provide incentives for volunteering — such as discount cards — introduce an element of payment. Other line-blurring elements include the dangled possibility of a paid job with the organisation one volunteers for — or merely the opportunity to embellish a CV. There’s not much difference between that and the exploitative practice of unpaid internships.

It may sound corny and clichĂ©d, but the idea of virtue being its own reward is a life-enhancing one. The things in life that don’t get dragged into the transactional sphere of economics are literally and figuratively priceless.

But Wokenomics takes the opposite view, which is that if we do value something then we must value it economically.

In a recent article (also in the New York Times) the Australian economist Justin Wolfers argues that GDP figures should record “the immense value of the sacrifices being made by millions of people who have stayed at home to stop the spread of the coronavirus”. He says that the GDP figures include the “defense services” produced by soldiers going off to fight wars, so why not also put a direct value on the contribution made by those staying at home to fight Covid-19? Why do we include soldiers’ pay in GDP, but not the support payments made to those who can’t work because of the lockdown?

The answer is straightforward: soldiers are doing a job; people staying at home are not (indeed they are supported by the state precisely because they can’t work). They are, of course, doing the right thing — by not engaging in risky behaviours that would cause themselves and others harm. But if we were to consider that as part of economic production, then why not also include what people ‘do’ by not speeding on the roads, not getting addicted to crack cocaine or not eating junk food all day? There’d be no end to it.

*

This is the trouble with Wokenomics — it turns absolutely everything into a series of politicised, administrative value judgements. As such it goes even further in its ambitions than Marxist economics. Arbitrarily putting a price on a tonne of wheat or a tractor factory is economic insanity, but doing the same for motherhood, friendship, volunteering or personal responsibility is moral madness.

That people take care of their families, respect the law, show consideration for others — and do so without incentive or recognition — is what makes a society great. We should very much value it, but not within any kind of economic paradigm.

To resort to another clichéd but true sentiment, the best things in life really are free.


Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

30 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

A very good summation of the madness or these people. On the plus side, all the woke media platforms such as Buzzfeed, Huff Post, Vice, Fusion are collapsing and their mainstream equivalents (NYT, Guardian, Atlantic, New Statesman etc) are treading water, at best. Meanwhile the decidedly unwoke Joe Rogan gets $100 million or more from Spotify. Great stuff!

The writer says:

‘With capitalism in crisis, the radical Left gets a hearing, but the establishment stays in power.’

Yes, this is true. i have remarked for some years on the fact that even though the most appalling form of capitalism is dominant, the left has failed to come to power more or less everywhere. This is because, of course, the contemporary left has no interest – intellectual or financial – in the economics of production and distribution etc.

As excellent left-wing writers such as Matt Stoller have said, these things just don’t exist for the woke, modern left. They derive their incomes from the state, think tanks and NGOs etc so the concept of making and selling something means absolutely nothing to them. As Tim Pool often points out, these people don’t even understand that things have to be designed, made, and distributed. They literally think that food and goods just appear on the shelves, or deliver as if my magic by Amazon. (Well, Amazon is a form or magic I suppose, although I refuse to have anything to do with them).

In fact, it’s even worse. As Paul Embery states in his article, the modern left actively despises anybody who makes or sells anything for profit, from shop keepers to industrialists like Elon Must. Just look at the way that Democrat politicians in California are persecuting Elon Musk for the time of making something and employing thousands of people. One of them literally told him to ‘f**** off’.

These people embody a few strain of left-wing madness, the like of which we have never quite seen before. The results can be seen in cities like San Francisco, where crime is rewarded and small business are deliberately destroyed. It would have happened across the UK if Corbyn had to power. We had a narrow escape.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

You are right. Across the world, people tend to vote for centre right parties, but they end up with loogie-left societies.

Liscarkat
Liscarkat
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Was “loogie” a typo for “loonie”? I’m trying in my imagination to equate leftists with viscous wads of disgusting mucoid material. The concept has a certain appeal.

Liscarkat
Liscarkat
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

“the left has failed to come to power more or less everywhere.”

I agree with just about all you’ve said here; however, California, New York, and the House of Representatives are very big somewheres that are dominated by the left (unfortunately).

d.tjarlz
d.tjarlz
3 years ago

It’s not at all straightforward to argue that people are contributing anything meaningful to GDP simply because they “have a job”. Anyone who has worked in the public service knows this: i.e. there are plenty of jobs that are just ‘make work’, and I don’t much see the difference between them and being paid to stay at home.

ian.g.weaver
ian.g.weaver
3 years ago

An interesting article that rebuts a lot of the nonsense quite well. But why the arbitrary straw man about sex work campaigners? They have never suggested all sex should be paid work, and they don’t fit into the themes of your article. They aren’t asking the state to step in and pay for their work where the market wouldn’t, they have a market, they are asking to be free to operate it without state harassment.

Geoffrey Simon Hicking
Geoffrey Simon Hicking
3 years ago
Reply to  ian.g.weaver

It allows the picture at the top, which serves as useful clockbait.

Lang Cleg
Lang Cleg
3 years ago
Reply to  ian.g.weaver

Should unemployed people be required to take a job in the sex industry if a vacancy occurs (man or woman) or lose their benefits? If sex work is work, why not?

Silke David
Silke David
3 years ago
Reply to  Lang Cleg

No unemployed person – in my limited knowledge – is required to take any job that is offered. Otherwise they would now be on the fields picking fruit and vegetables. But if they are interested in taking up sex work in a safe, supported way with the usual benefits available, why not?

ian.g.weaver
ian.g.weaver
3 years ago
Reply to  Lang Cleg

I’ve got a fear of heights, and like most people I couldn’t do a Fred Dibnah and scale a gigantic chimney stack or TV mast for a living. Does the fact that most people cannot work at extreme height, mean that working at extreme height isn’t actually work?

Gudrun Smith
Gudrun Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  ian.g.weaver

Is it not just a question of time though before it is announced that Sex-workers have been ruthlessly exploited,coerced,victims of abuse and grooming? Imagine the boost in numbers for the likes of the ‘Me too’ campaigns.

Andrew Best
Andrew Best
3 years ago

Identify politics, the woke movement is destroying Britain.
Why any sjw or leftie thinks that berating people and judging them racist because of the fact they have “white privilege” is going to win over anyone to their cause is incomprehensible!
Go woke
Go broke
Just ask labour and soon the democrats

Andrew Roman
Andrew Roman
3 years ago

A key element of Wokenomics today is tied to climate change panic with allegedly no more than 12 years to save the planet from destruction. If Naomi Klein is right that “this changes everything” then capitalism’s central problem is not the unequal distribution of wealth or the exploitation of workers by capitalists but capitalism’s emphasis on economic growth and the alleged resulting destruction of the global climate. This is partly a neo-Malthusian view and partly taking the UN politicians’ alarms about climate change to their logical conclusion.

But the appeal is not to make workers better off, or to pay women for raising babies, it is to save the planet. And anyone who disagrees is an evil climate denier bent on destroying the only home we all have. The goal is to smash a somewhat cartoonish view of “capitalism” and replace it with a somewhat utopian view of green socialism, thereby saving the planet as well as creating social justice.

The big hole in the Green New Deal and its non-US versions is the Woke assumption that as goes the US (or Canada or Germany) so goes the planet. So if the US, representing 13% of global CO2 emissions or Canada representing 1.6% will change their economies and societies from capitalism to socialism that will save the planet ” regardless of what China (26% of global CO2 emissions and rising rapidly) and the growing Indian economy do.

David George
David George
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Roman

Agree, the climate change panic is the useful idiot to a miserable, failed doctrine: socialism is obviously a proven failure? Simply change the subject to climate.
With a tyrannical, centralised, bureaucratic, globalised, collectivist regime presented as the one hope, the saviour of the planet, and anyone opposing or even questioning it an Evil Destroyer of Worlds.
How convenient!

David Barnett
David Barnett
3 years ago

The woke have taken the wrong lesson from the observation that housework etc are not represented adequately (or at all) in the financial economy. Instead of acknowledging that not everything is readily reduced to financial equivalence, the woke want to financialise everything.

A similar error is made by those who think that GDP represents the economy, and that growth in this number is an indication of economic health.

Some examples demonstrate the above fallacies.

(1)When a hurricane destroys a town, the rebuilding activity is counted as an uptick in GDP. What about the capital destroyed by the hurricane?

(2) When the government makes a new regulation or accounting rule, the extra fees enterprises pay to advisors and accountants counts as an uptick in GDP. What about the waste of the entrepreneurs time and resources on compliance at the expense of investment in something productive?

(3) When a daycare centre started charging a “fine” for parents who were late in picking up their children, the number of late pickups actually increased! By trying to put their inconvenience into financial terms, the daycare centre had removed the personal value of good will and consideration for others from the equation. The parents no longer felt obliged to minimise the inconvenience to the day-carers because they could now prioritise their own convenience for a monetary fee.

Finance works best when it can be equated to material things. Its application to other areas of human interaction is more complex. Paradoxically, the left is especially prone to material reductionism

titan0
titan0
3 years ago
Reply to  David Barnett

Probably why parking was for the most part, free a few decades ago … You would provide a useful service or purchase something tangible in that town.
Now instead, you overdo the purchasing time wise or go the extra mile in your service provision and pay even more in the form of penalties.
The charges either way contribute to GDP but produce little except profits for those with little interest in what goes on in that town and the needs of people to be there. All of which needs generally produce something or purchase something tangible.

Miriam UĂ­
Miriam UĂ­
3 years ago

Excellent essay. The fundamental value in this system is actually money – not justice- so everything that’s valuable should be paid for.
At its most extreme, this monetizes everything – from famlliy relationships to volunteering, and gives the State incredible responsibility/control in private lives and over children.
Of course, the issue of justice for all remains .

‘This is the trouble with Wokenomics ” it turns absolutely everything into a series of politicised, administrative value judgements. As such it goes even further in its ambitions than Marxist economics. Arbitrarily putting a price on a tonne of wheat or a tractor factory is economic insanity, but doing the same for motherhood, friendship, volunteering or personal responsibility is moral madness.. ‘

h w
h w
3 years ago

Problem with this argument: since the numbers of those working for wages paid for production of goods has dramatically decreased due to automation and/or globalization, GDP grows by commodifying and ‘colonizing’ unwaged service endeavors. Thus have accelerated commodification of care of children, disabled, elders, dying; grief and other types of counselors; dog walkers; house cleaners; foster care of children; all types of child learning activities, school lunches and breakfasts, etc. All of which is perhaps not too big a deal EXCEPT that the state starts preferentially funding these previously unwaged/voluntary activities. Then public sector unions form and expand around them demanding more funds, private corporations and non-profits set up to do the work with government subsidies while at the same time billions do the work (it’s not a bad word) voluntarily and are made invisible or seen as ‘unprofessional’, low quality, unlicensed, ‘not working’, etc. We end up having to compete with gov-funded ‘professionals’ to provide for our own loved ones while having to fund their ‘work’.

Jordan Flower
Jordan Flower
3 years ago

I would like to propose paying citizens to use the bathroom. Specifically going poo. With our increasingly unhealthy diets of highly processed/low fiber foods, passing a stool has become”well”quite laborious. And we all know the kind of mood it puts you in when you don’t “lay a good cable” to start your day. For these reasons, and the for the sake of a happy and harmonious “regular” society, the state should mandate all defecatory activity and issue stimulus [in more ways than one] checks at a rate of $40,000 per pound of poo, to be submitted annually as an attachment to your tax return, and to be processed by the IRS, who will now be known as the Internal Regularity Service.

d.tjarlz
d.tjarlz
3 years ago
Reply to  Jordan Flower

Tongue in cheek and delightfully Victorian at the same time.

Silke David
Silke David
3 years ago

Not quite related, but something I would like to know:
Why is the word disability a “problematic word”?
I guess you suggest we should use a different word? Which is/are?

titan0
titan0
3 years ago
Reply to  Silke David

I would imagine it is as problematic as my having several but not always interacting health conditions that in a strong willed person, individually, would not present as a disability.
Imagine having real flu. You would be incapacitated but not actually disabled in simple human terms. You could get out given that a fire ensues. I have always joked that given a 200 metre crawl for a friend with no legs, would end in a big bag of diamonds, he would do it. But he cannot reliably attend work places.
So the word is problematical given the ideas of which the author is writing about. He is deflecting the inevitable criticism by the unimaginative who insist on shouting about a word while failing to take the real meaning from all of them.

Derek Hurton
Derek Hurton
3 years ago

I see the issue as being the over-commodification of everything. In the current culture there seems to be an expectation that exploiting for monetary reward is not only always acceptable but is to be encouraged. As a result many “goods” that were previously created by individuals or a community for common enjoyment are now bought and sold. One result of this is that the market drives out common goods. Often the people exploiting these goods have only a sketchy idea of their true value or the culture surrounding them. Weird though it may seem, the English sport of fellrunning is currently going through this process and the people responsible are too thick to realise they’re destroying precisely the essence of the sport that makes it attractive.

Liscarkat
Liscarkat
3 years ago

Prostitutes already get paid. That’s why they’re called prostitutes (or whores, hoors, hos, etc.), and not sluts or mistresses.

Liscarkat
Liscarkat
3 years ago

In the early 1960s my dad began giving me a weekly allowance of twenty-five cents in exchange for doing my chores. By the late 1960s my salary for mowing the lawn, taking out the rubbish, etc. was up to two dollars a week. I should have done these tasks out of the goodness of my heart and love for my parents; alas, I was greedy. I craved comic books, Hershey bars, and Saturday matinees.

titan0
titan0
3 years ago
Reply to  Liscarkat

Or you dad gave you the beginning of understanding money and how to obtain it with some degree of fairness. How what you want, just like what he wanted, has a cost.

Derek M
Derek M
3 years ago

On the whole I agree with this article’s thrust but people staying at home in Lock-down are not doing the right thing, they are doing the wrong thing at the diktat of the government and thereby destroying the economy for no good reason. It’s not their fault, it’s the governments’s (aided and abetted by the media and the rest of the ‘establishment’) but it’s still not the ‘right thing’.

matthew hilton
matthew hilton
3 years ago

Interesting essay. Internet makes possible micro payments and monetisation as part of social rewarding, tho this may become graded privilege access as in China. Philosophically work is a slippery concept. DH Lawrence said

the great problem of life was what to do with one’s excess (energy).

.Most people sell it more or less willingly – a very few create and construct with it. I worked a week in a blanket factory and was not a happy bunny so I got out and into public service (fire) then into cultural entrepreneurship. Now work is the gardening that liberates from self and the weekly hike to map lost roads.

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
3 years ago

So according to Peter, posting on social media isn’t real work, because you don’t have to do it. Perhaps he’s right and I should try to do less of it, and find a more productive use of my time.

Drahcir Nevarc
Drahcir Nevarc
3 years ago

“In the 20th century, communism achieved a position of dominance on the far Left, but had to overcome rival ideologies, like anarchism.”

Anarchism is right wing.