Do you know what real work consists of?

Do you know what real work consists of?

  • No
  • Yes
  • I think so but let’s think some more on it.
0 voters

I had a discussion with Orbie in the thread about David Graber, Occupy and the 99% and Fake Employments.

Orbie said this ‘evil’ statement

Please fill in the opinion survey and then explain your answer.
(I made it so you can change your vote later on, because it is a complicated question. (I filled in the last option myself to be perfeclty honest.))

Oh I know this one. The transfer of energy over a distance. :happy-partydance:

It’s not an evil statement, it’s simply indicative of someone who has never actually had to work for a living.

EDIT: Wait, before i go there, i want to make sure i understand the statement correctly - it is meant to imply that the so-called 1% know what real work consists of?


Ok then either the statement indicates a lack of understanding of what working for a living actually entails, or else it does not include working for a living as a necessary part of “real work”.

But maybe you don’t understand what work is even though you make a living out of pretending you do (or whatever).

Think about it more deeply man, you are so superficial, of course Orbie has a point, dont’ you think he has a point? think about it. How do they get rich if they dont have super-skills in working, I mean actually existentially working? Of course it is no work if you do it only to get paid, for obvious.


Retracted ,

The top wealthy of the world are the embodiment of parasitism.

The entire world is their host.

So as not to give the impression that i did not give this matter careful consideration, the fact is , two thought processes are going on simulteniously with the idea and the practice of ‘work’

The ‘rich’ consist of more then one societal plane, the
two most important are the profiteers, simple and
clear-cut; and, the other, are the top tier executives who appear to run the show.

The idea that the top tier execs have, of control,
wealth, and what have you, is based on the concept
that planning and execution are more ‘mind-work’ rather then ‘physical work’. The idea that work=work, is relegated by this group to THEIR
knowledge of their employees, that bottom tier
simply is doing a job, not necessarily aware of their function of how they relate to the unitary working of the whole producing entity, corporation, etc.

The working man, on the other hand, prides,more at
least tries to give meaning to their preformance,
hence distrusts and hence usually dislikes the control the upper management has on him.

Small farming WAS an exception, where you were
your own boss, producer and treasurer all in one, and
sold directly at the maket.

Finally the two differential ideas stem on one having
been arrived deductively, by management in terms of
goals and capacities, whereas the inductive, try as you will working man’s program consists of sharing those very things and the social process of getting
alpng with each other, becomes more and more of
an item, in terms of how the whole group can produce. How well people, workers can get along, is becoming a working man’s social predicament, and it
is through doing that they can find out how to
achieve some kind of stability in this respect.

The usurer, the vested interest, and persons of old, or inherited money , banks and other types of profit seeking establishments are quite different, yet do overlap with the afore mentioned. Here the power shifts toward Capital, and not production. This
concept, Capital , has been vastly researched and tried, Marx, Engels at the forefront, and Capital, for some reason, has seamed to win out here. How does
this figure? Why are the abuses of Capital extend
into the realms of value, production, ethics, and the subsequent corruption and outright theft directly or by ursury? This is another considertation;, and the
wrongness of it cannot be denied. To mix/confuse freedom with the power grab which oft goes on, to reduce and change the aesthetic and the content of cherished valus, is equally preturbing. But people are

NAME OF RELIGION, JUSTIFY their claims over
others, and what else is new.

But to simply ask, a general question of ‘what some
one knows of what real work consists of’? is to pose a
loaded, opiniated question, unanswarable, directed at no special individual, class, institution whatever. That is not justified. Few of us really, except the
maximally actualized, can claim that they truly know,
what THEIR WORK consists of.

The problem with the upper upper 1% is, that they
oft devise ways for work to become just another job
to do, and not for the worker to know. This is another form of power grab, irrespective of the profit motive.

i don’t know what this statement is supposed to mean - maybe you can reword it? i make a living doing work and receiving compensation for it in various forms. This is what i mean by working for a living. If you want to say that work is not about making a living that’s fine, but then you are using a fairly unconventional definition of the term and should have clarified that when you asked the initial question.

The rich (that is, rich of the top 1%) are anomalous exceptions to the rule. Some of them may work, a few of them may even have gotten rich while working, but it had little or nothing to do with their “skills”. It was luck and good fortune, opportunity, entitlements, inheritance, gaming the system, etc. Being super wealthy is not the result of an existential condition, whereas working for a living - ACTUALLY working in order to survive - IS an existential condition. Literally hundreds of millions of people in the country work compared with a relatively minuscule number that are super-wealthy. There are approximately 350 people who are billionaires in the US. To claim that only this relatively tiny number of super rich people actually know what real work consists of is completely unfounded and absurd, unless you are, as i said, playing fast and loose philosophical games with the semantics of the term “real work”.

How can you say this while in the same breath claiming that only those with the greatest financial fortunes understand what real work is? i don’t understand . . .

If your idea of a "hard worker’ is a man who sits in a manor all day, every now and then going to business meetings for an hour to strike deals with Arabs, screw their workers out of fair wages and put money in Swiss bank accounts so they don’t have to pay taxes, then yes, they are harder workers than lumberjacks or men who stack crates at retail every day.

I have a tough time understanding, what ‘understanding work’ is, and what ‘real’ work is. Anybody who works, should in that way, understand it, right? (As opposed to not understanding it. What is it not to understand or know what real work is?-the unemployed, the super rich, the gambler, ((although that is also some kind of work)). There is a problem with obfuscating semantics here, and forgive i popped in with that one, could not resist the illogic of it.

Work is providing a tangible good and using it to do trade.

Business CEO’s provide tangible goods by screwing up the planet, outsourcing work so they can pay unfair wages, charge extorted prices, and not pay any taxes.

Is writing these lines, thinking about it, hoping, a composer writing a musical piece is work, a piece of poem is a work of art, sittng i an office and doing business is work, lifting heavy boxes is work, i know, because i did them all. It is very difficult to classify which work is easier/harder, they are different.
Even trying to get along with co-workers takes work.

Real work (as I defined it) is providing a tangible good and using it to do trade.

In ancient times poetry had a value to the aristocrats. Nowadays the poetry that has value is to the peasants, in the form of rap music.

Business CEO’s provide real tangible goods, at the expense of raping the planet and everyone else.

I’ll go along with all of the above, Trixie, however, as You would or could by now imagine my train of thought on it, i feel that certain kinds of work, are very much like certain ideal forms of works of art, of handicraft, of lifestyle, -not old fashioned, really, but having substance which avoids and even reduces the confusion of different modern sense of work, by holding to them in another sense.

You’re totally right. These words - “work”, “real”, “understand” - can mean any seemingly numberless quantity of things. i was interpreting your statement, initially quoted in the OP, as referring to a conventional notion of work, whereby one does the work in order to survive in one sense or another - financially, physically, spiritually, or whatever - usually by doing something which one is paid or rewarded for doing in some way. But as i’ve said, i do accept that your intended definition could be radically different from that.

i believe it was Bill Clinton who responded to a question posed to him in a court of law with “It depends what your defintion of ‘is’ is”, or something to that effect.