Bertrand Russell's argument for idleness is more relevant than ever

I'm a huge fan of sloth. I frequently take many months off between jobs, sometimes a year or more. I refuse to work more than 40 hours a week except for genuine emergencies (things like outages; being behind schedule never counts), and I'm close to drawing the line at four days a week. I always take at least three weeks off a year, and that's in a bad year. I take "mental health days" often and with no guilt. If you don't own your time, people will take it from you.

I'm perhaps speaking from a place of privilege, but it's not that hard to achieve. I've been doing this my whole life, from minimum wage jobs through decades of professional career.

Sit on the couch. Take a vacation. Quit your job. Say no to overtime always and forever. Blow off weekends often. Nothing is as important as others will tell you it is. You're going to die some day and when you're on your death bed you won't regret the times you did nothing.

>we also need to challenge the cultural ethic that teaches us to value ourselves in proportion to our capacity for “economically productive” labour. Human beings are more than just workers. We need to learn how to value idleness.

I think much more than valueing idleness it's also a massive indictement of the system we live in. The number of people who I've talked to who legitimately don't know what to do without work during the pandemic is staggering.

It says a lot that as a society there is so little attention paid to instilling curiousity in people and fostering people's potential that, left without menial work to do, nobody knows what to do with themselves.

Why did Keynes believe that, say, a doubling of efficiency (through technology) would half work time for everyone? Sure it’s a solution to the equation, but so is what actually happened[1]: half the workforce gets laid off. This halves the costs, which facilitates price reduction and thus a competitive edge. Did Keynes believe that benevolence would win over profit? Don’t get me wrong, I wish it had, but that seems a little naive.

[1] It occurs to me that another solution is to keep the work force, but double the work. This also happened; it seems like there are plenty of jobs that are just busy work with no real purpose.

Reading the title and actually reading what Bertrand Russell was talking about are two different things. Russell when he refers to leisure isn't talking about sitting on a porch staring up at the sky(or binge watching netflix), he is talking about pursuing interesting hobbies and learning into subjects not core to ones occupation(but also a little plain idleness as well). With most people in tech jobs and especially if you have a family, time is extremely constrained. I would love to get more involved in astronomy, study into physics and just learn more about various areas of history. Due to the pandemic work has for me increased tremendously and become very stressful. I sometimes wish I was unemployed so I can focus on these side projects which I love, but couldn't deal with the loss of income. If I had the extra time I would be extremely busy so to speak, so its strange when I hear about people who are bored during the past few months who are not working.

Some of the highest goods (as in, virtuous or wholesome things) are those that are sometimes described by workaholics, or parents of over achievers, as "useless" or "wastes of time".

Art, music, sport, leisure, time with family- all these things (and more) put us in touch with the greater things in life. We collectively live out the human experience in a way that crashes through barriers of language, and in my opinion, we also encounter the transcendental.

Work is simply a means - not an end in itself. I work so I can provide for my family. The good I am pursuing is the welfare of my family. That gives my work a higher meaning. Those engaged in charity work or volunteer work (also a higher good) are usually paid the least.

I find that the people who fall into the trap of treating their work as an end, are the ones the most susceptible to burn out, depression, and low life satisfaction.

Make time for the "useless" things. Go for a walk, read a book, look at the birds, listen to music, write a poem, get out those pencils you never use, play an instrument, watch a good film, go fishing, spend time with your kids, buy something nice for your wife. But for goodness sake, forget about work for enough time each week. You'll feel infinitely better.

FIRE (Financial Independence/Retire Early) is now a popular goal among the young. If you retire early, however, you're going to have to figure out what to do with all the leisure time. It would perhaps be better to have people working fewer hours, but over more years - a longterm 3-day workweek would allow for plenty of leisure as well as work.

We could start by not calling it “idleness” when we paint pictures, learn physics or read philosophy...

Also see Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work":

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolit...

Thanks to technology, the need for employment is at the lowest it has ever been, if someone is willing to make a lot of sacrifices when it comes to modern luxuries.

However, if one desires to live with luxuries such as, gasp, housing and medical care, then life becomes extremely expensive, especially in US cities.

So increasingly as I see it, you either need to be making big bucks as a developer/executive, or you need to be living in a tent on BLM public land with your only expenses being food and a phone bill.

> ... we have realised that it is worth taking an economic hit in order to preserve health.

Have we realized this? I think you'd find a sizable chunk of the country that disagrees. And I also think it's still too soon to say.

> That, after all, is what money is for.

Money that we don't have. We can keep conjuring money out of thin air if we want, but the effects of infinitely deepening debt seem negative in every case study I've ever read (to say the least).

Another important reason that "idleness is more relevant than ever" is climate crisis

https://cepr.net/documents/publications/climate-change-works...

The core issue here is Democracy and Human greed. Why would a majority vote for a 15h working week for everyone, when they could vote for a zero hour working week for themselves and a 60h working weak for some poor beleaguered minority? That's what we have today: employment rates are around 50%, the rest opt out and vote republican. Republicans cut things used by working people and throw money indiscriminately at pensioners and the rich (2 groups exempt from having to work).

This is the exact same issue with UBI. The universality of it undermines support.

It's always seemed strange to me that the average work week, decreasing steadily for quite some period of time, seems to have stagnated around 40 hour work-weeks for decades, despite the massive increases in productivity leveraged by technological advances.

Personally I decided long ago that I simply don't care enough about money to try & advance upwards into high paying positions that would eat upwards of 60 hours a week, and possibly much more w/ off-time emails, phone calls, texts, etc. Instead I have a 40-hour work week, occasional emergencies where I of course do a little extra. I'm paid well for it, and have turned down every overture of advancement because I neither want the extra stress nor do I want to leave behind meaningful work in place of important-but-not-enjoyable work I'd have to do if I moved up a level. Instead I get to perform mission-critical work solving interesting problems, and get home early enough to have a nice family dinner, talk to my kids about their day, get beat by those same kids in Fortnite, and pursue multiple hobbies. Not only do I get ample vacation time, I don't work in a place that frowns upon actually using it.

I don't see why everyone couldn't have jobs that allow for this sort of lifestyle.

The article sets up a bit of a false dichotomy. It's partly inherent in using idleness as the alternative to economically productive work. Did Russell himself use that term (edit: yes :-))? I'm guessing it's supposed to be provocative, to make it stick. But I'd imagine that's part of the problem. Many people would balk, and I think rightly so, at the connotations. There's nothing positive about undirected free time over a long period. And the article doesn't help with glosses like "Netflix in pyjamas."

The best alternatives to economically productive work are equally productive in different domains. For example, take gardening. You might be surprised at the quality of aerobic exercise you get working a large yard and garden. I recently took a heart rate monitor and found I could replace my morning jog. My heart rate was actually higher on average, and the sense of purpose was a welcome distraction from the work.

Unfortunately few are taught these kinds of healthful alternatives. I can only imagine what a difference in health and cognition there would be if schools taught hands-on agriculture and gave students garden plots.

> Instead, the factory owner will opt to keep half the workers on the same hours and lay off the rest.

People are the hardest resource to manage for a business. Finding them. Keeping them. Motivating them. Training them. Etc. Double the workers with half the working time is a lot more expensive.

So business will never choose to do this. If this would be better for society (emphasis on IF) then only regulation will make it happen.

You get to praise idleness only after you burn out writing Principia Mathematica.

Josef Pieper's "Muße und Kult" comes to mind as well:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/08/10/leisure-the-basis-o...

From the article: "Recalling the famous example of the pin factory that Adam Smith used to explain the division of labour, Russell imagined a new technology that will halve the amount of time it takes to make a pin. If the market for pins is already saturated, what will happen?

In a sane world, Russell thought, the factory would simply halve working hours, maintaining the same wages but greatly increasing the time that the workers could devote to the joys of leisure. But, as Russell observed, this rarely happens. Instead, the factory owner will opt to keep half the workers on the same hours and lay off the rest. The gains from the advances of technology will be realised not as an expansion of leisure but rather as drudgery for some and jobless destitution for others, with the savings enjoyed only by the winner, the factory owner."

This is, amazingly and depressingly, the only thing that will ever happen. This is capitalism, unfortunately, and profits flow up, not down. Capitalism seems to work best when the bottom feeders continue to feed at the bottom, in the same ways, without dramatic changes in behavior.

Can regulation fix this?

That's like asking if regulation can solve racism, or stop domestic violence. It can help, but it won't minimize it to such a significant level that it will mitigate the issue.

Russell's argument is great, but the cold harsh winds of our capitalist reality blow in the other direction.

>"Recalling the famous example of the pin factory that Adam Smith used to explain the division of labour, Russell imagined a new technology that will halve the amount of time it takes to make a pin. If the market for pins is already saturated, what will happen?

In a sane world, Russell thought, the factory would simply halve working hours, maintaining the same wages but greatly increasing the time that the workers could devote to the joys of leisure. But, as Russell observed, this rarely happens. Instead, the factory owner will opt to keep half the workers on the same hours and lay off the rest."

The cost for a single pin will be reduced and the labor required to consume a single pin will also be reduced. Money saved is an opportunity for leisure.

> Bertrand Russell wrote “In Praise of Idleness” in 1932, at the height of the Great Depression, idleness was an unavoidable reality for the millions who had lost their jobs

What a passive attitude. Unless you're in a straight jacket idleness is a thoroughly avoidable reality. Hustle matters most when you're broke and unemployed. If you're doing it right being unemployed is a full-time job, job hunting. Or building your own.

All this thought about the economy and working and idleness doesn't take things far enough. What we really need to abolish is human metabolism. The fact that we need to eat and hustle to grow and acquire calories and nutrients is the real oppressor. We need to scientifically find out how to stop metabolism so we all don't need to work and will never starve. Attack the root of the problem. Next in line is mortality.

Speaking from experience, simply wait for retirement. Then your idleness cup shall runneth over. But even that too shall eventually prove to be a bore...

There are already movements applying this. Early retirement (FIRE), Tim Ferris 4-hour work week. Stoicism is also useful.

I distinguish at least two kinds of work: one where you earn money because you have no other sources of income. And work that relates to whatever you are doing on you own behalf - which can be very productive as well.

The first kind of work is a productive factor, like capital or land. It's just the brains and hands of a piece of flesh that does what it is told. A worker is always subordinated to capital, you are working for the capital of others. You never get the full reward, whereas people you never met will earn a share of every piece of value you provide.

It's funny, almost every second product I buy these days comes from firms which went to one or even multiple private equity hands in the past two decades. It is one of the reasons why I reduce my consumption to a minimum.

Neoliberalism hates equality, it hates social progress and it has absolutely no idea of how to do something different that would benefit society at large. There is no society for capital, there is revenue, returns and all human activity you are observing is partially there, because there is someone who just wants their profit.

Poles are melting, climate changes, species die out, capitalism (as it is implemented; the theory is much more progressive) could not care less about killing its own foundations.

It reminds me of avant-garde capitalists operation like facebook. It could only start on an open web, and its endgame is own all you presence online. Walled gardens, armes guards, cash flow.

Interesting article. It poses a huge dilemma. As more jobs become redundant, how should 'useless people' be compensated relative to 'useful people' without whom the economy could not operate?

To complicate matters, many of the 'useless people' could be highly skilled and could theoretically launch their own businesses and start competing against established businesses and take away some market share... But if the market is already saturated and consumers are already satisfied beyond their perceptual capacity, launching a business in such a saturated industry could not be regarded as a 'useful' activity in a broad sense (it's a zero-sum game). This means that being able to capture economic value (profits) from an industry would not necessarily imply that someone is useful; in fact, an increase in profits may not bear any correlation with an increase in consumer satisfaction in that industry; in a saturated market, the profits for a specific company or individual could entirely be the result of political lobbying, social scheming, or luck and have nothing to do with increased consumer satisfaction.

Given that useless people are still capable of capturing profits from an industry by starting their own business, it would be highly unethical for the incumbents (those who own the means of production in the saturated markets) to try to stop the 'useless people' from trying to compete (since that would deny them access to the same fair playing field which the incumbents themselves had benefited from in the past). Yet at the same time, it may be more efficient overall if, instead of trying to compete in a saturated market, 'useless people' would accept the reality that they are in fact useless and instead of trying to compete, they would get paid to be idle.

But if useless people get paid to be idle, then how will useful people who still need to work feel about that? Also, even for people who have useful skills, there may be more people who have those skills than there are positions to fill. How then do we choose which people should have a job and which should not? Does it make sense to select them based on skill if the skill level of the employee does not affect consumer satisfaction?

It seems like this would create an incentive for useless idle people to pretend to be or have been useful; they can't just accumulate enough money to go idle without having a backstory to go with it. Yet at the same time it is in the interest of incumbents (owners of the means of production) for these people to go idle instead of competing with them. To appease those who are still working, every member of the idle class needs an excuse (e.g. they sold their company to Google for a few million $). The economy then becomes centered around manufacturing backstories for new members of the idle class... Until the point where everything is automated and everyone can be idle.

I think the biggest problem with this story is that if we remove the market selection mechanism? What kind of alternative selection mechanism should be used instead?

Because efficiency can lead to leisure or layoffs, what will the future bring?

Capitalism suffers if half of workers are unemployed. Because it is actually in the market's best interest, we will develop social - political structures that enable improved efficiency and high employment (because more workers employed means more commerce and a bigger economy)

Why a partisan article is being discussed here?

Really.

This is material affiliated to the Labour Party in the U.K. which is associated to the International Socialist.

Why is it a subject here?

Bertrand Russell may or may not have been right, but he was definitely an elite who felt he knew what was best for the masses, even if he didn't take his own advice.

This is the guy that dedicated portions of his life to proving mathematics was derived from logic, who is arguing it's okay if people just wanna idle around.

I get upset when I read essays like this that don't mention the role that the government plays in creating drudgery and destroying leisure. A good way to highlight this is to point out that in the US, the government at all levels spends about $20K/person/year. If that money was just redistributed to individuals, we would actually be living in the leisure-filled world predicted in the early part of the century. Instead the money is mostly just frittered away.