Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by HuwytNashi_002 2011 days ago
Something tells me this 'academic' will consider himself above the game of labour when work is abolished. Surely backbreaking work is below somebody who manages to cite a philosopher every other sentence!

He's a thinker. He's too pretty to work.

I'd be willing to bet he's over-educated, has spent large periods of his life on welfare, wears a cravat to the supermarket, and was always told how clever he is.

But he never really got anywhere. Now his bank account is dry, it's 3 days until his next benefits payment, and the 'idiot' who left school at 16 to get his heavy machinery licence as a teenager makes more in an honest work year than this guy has ever had the privilege of declaring in his life.

His counsellor (or mum) is on his back to get a real job, and this is his response.

Ironically, it's never the bricklayer's labourer arguing for the abolition of work. It's types like the author, whose hands have never borne a callous.

2 comments

As an 'academic' who has done plenty of physical labor, I find this argument reductive and offensive. You can disagree with the author without painting this negative picture of them.
How can one be 'over-educated'? Is that a bad thing?
It is if you see any available work as beneath you as a consequence
I think you've missed the point of the article. He is illustrating a society of post-capitalism where the emphasis on work is not to maintain ones' standard of life, but rather to "play" as he puts — a method of unlocking the 'true joy' life has to offer. This concept is not rooted in the need of capital.
I've known many people who have educated themselves into imbecility.