As I noted previously (in my entry A War Of Slogans, etc.), from the fact that bona fide socialism mandates full employment of its able-bodied citizens, it does not follow that bona fide capitalism should deny such an opportunity to its own, although there is a well-founded public perception to this effect. It was actually one of the points of contention among the main theorists of classical capitalism, starting with Ricardo’s defense of 100% employment and extending to J. M. Keynes, whose sharp opposition on this question to the rest of the pro-capitalist crowd of his time is well known. While it may be easier to dismiss Ricardo as outdated, it would be much more difficult to dismiss Keynes, and the best weapon of today’s proponents of structuralunder-employment is to downplay Keynes’s opinion, counting on public ignorance in this matter.
In this entry we are focusing on the ethics of intentional under-employment, as a government policy, versus the ethics of mandatory employment of all able-bodied citizens, or, in a milder version, of those who are not independently sufficient in their means of subsistence.
It seems obvious that within the framework of capitalism, Keynes notably included, nobody must be forced to work if they are of independent means, and not some kind of parasites living off social benefits provided by the State, or by private charities. Given the ethics of official, government-authorized unemployment, the social obligation to work loses its edge, and, arguably, mutes the public indignation toward the non-working citizens; and the phrase “he who does not work, does not eat” therefore sounds too brutal and downright inhuman to the Western ear, as though some horrible savage had invented it. So, where does it come from?
The phrase in its title form was first used by Lenin in his work The State and the Revolution, but its origin is Biblical. This is how it is formulated in II Thessalonians 3:10: “…if any would not work, neither should he eat.” For the record, and as a curiosity, Captain John Smith, of the Pocahontas fame, introduced a version of it in the American colony of Virginia in 1607-1609, as the policy of his Jamestown settlement.
This is, obviously, a socialist principle that used to be known to each Soviet citizen since elementary school. Having proclaimed full employment as the citizen’s right, society made the arrow double-headed, namely, it should also become the citizen’s duty to work for the society, anyone able-bodied living off an inherited fortune (such a thing was technically possible even in the Soviet Union!), or off his own self-made savings, was to be declared a parasite and as such not to be tolerated at all. Theoretically, of course, salaries paid for the work done by anyone from top to bottom of the society were not supposed to be of the sort that allowed one to make any kind of fortune whatsoever, but under the existing then conditions of extreme subsidies on food, rent, and all sorts of social services, sons and daughters of the better-paid servants of the Soviet State never had to depend on a salary for their subsistence. Still, everybody was obligated to work, as a matter of state principle.
Continuing this discussion now within the framework of my Hobbes-the-Socialist Miniseries (see Hobbes in my Magnificent Shadows section), the following passage in Hobbes, is another practically word-for-word reiteration of the Biblical, early American, and also Soviet “workfare” principle, which ought to suggest to a sharp mind that such continuity across the centuries does not testify to the Soviet experiment as being a total freak-of-nature aberration, and that its practice may well survive the fall of the old socialist empires, while envisaging the rise of new ones in the future…
(From Leviathan, Chapter 30.) "But for such who have strong bodies the case is otherwise: they are to be forced to work (!), and to avoid the excuse of not finding employment, there ought to be such laws, (which means that unemployment must be legally abolished) as may encourage all manner of arts; as navigation, agriculture, fishing, and all manner of manufacture that requires labor."
This passage is particularly interesting in the context of my general discussion of the faith and practices of the capitalist society, as the socialist principle boils down exactly to making all able-bodied people work by providing full employment, something which the capitalist system has objected to, on principle, despite the well-reasoned pro-employment wisdom of John Maynard Keynes. (And that gem above, dropping from the mighty pen of Mr. Hobbes--heartwarming!)
Which leaves us with the final observation of this entry. “He who does not work, does not eat”? This surely does not mean that anyone in any society should be allowed to starve to death or deprived of the elementary means of subsistence. This phrase is essentially saying “no” to social parasitism as a way of life. Therefore, there is nothing unethical about this phrase whether it comes from Lenin, from Hobbes, or from the Bible. It is far more unethical to deny able-bodied persons who want to work, their Bible-sanctioned right to work.
Under-employment as a government-sanctioned state policy may be argued about in terms of its competitive advantages in the survival of the fittest, but its basic humanity, and what it does to the souls, self-esteem and social consciousness of the less fortunate, is very much suspect.
In this entry we are focusing on the ethics of intentional under-employment, as a government policy, versus the ethics of mandatory employment of all able-bodied citizens, or, in a milder version, of those who are not independently sufficient in their means of subsistence.
It seems obvious that within the framework of capitalism, Keynes notably included, nobody must be forced to work if they are of independent means, and not some kind of parasites living off social benefits provided by the State, or by private charities. Given the ethics of official, government-authorized unemployment, the social obligation to work loses its edge, and, arguably, mutes the public indignation toward the non-working citizens; and the phrase “he who does not work, does not eat” therefore sounds too brutal and downright inhuman to the Western ear, as though some horrible savage had invented it. So, where does it come from?
The phrase in its title form was first used by Lenin in his work The State and the Revolution, but its origin is Biblical. This is how it is formulated in II Thessalonians 3:10: “…if any would not work, neither should he eat.” For the record, and as a curiosity, Captain John Smith, of the Pocahontas fame, introduced a version of it in the American colony of Virginia in 1607-1609, as the policy of his Jamestown settlement.
This is, obviously, a socialist principle that used to be known to each Soviet citizen since elementary school. Having proclaimed full employment as the citizen’s right, society made the arrow double-headed, namely, it should also become the citizen’s duty to work for the society, anyone able-bodied living off an inherited fortune (such a thing was technically possible even in the Soviet Union!), or off his own self-made savings, was to be declared a parasite and as such not to be tolerated at all. Theoretically, of course, salaries paid for the work done by anyone from top to bottom of the society were not supposed to be of the sort that allowed one to make any kind of fortune whatsoever, but under the existing then conditions of extreme subsidies on food, rent, and all sorts of social services, sons and daughters of the better-paid servants of the Soviet State never had to depend on a salary for their subsistence. Still, everybody was obligated to work, as a matter of state principle.
Continuing this discussion now within the framework of my Hobbes-the-Socialist Miniseries (see Hobbes in my Magnificent Shadows section), the following passage in Hobbes, is another practically word-for-word reiteration of the Biblical, early American, and also Soviet “workfare” principle, which ought to suggest to a sharp mind that such continuity across the centuries does not testify to the Soviet experiment as being a total freak-of-nature aberration, and that its practice may well survive the fall of the old socialist empires, while envisaging the rise of new ones in the future…
(From Leviathan, Chapter 30.) "But for such who have strong bodies the case is otherwise: they are to be forced to work (!), and to avoid the excuse of not finding employment, there ought to be such laws, (which means that unemployment must be legally abolished) as may encourage all manner of arts; as navigation, agriculture, fishing, and all manner of manufacture that requires labor."
This passage is particularly interesting in the context of my general discussion of the faith and practices of the capitalist society, as the socialist principle boils down exactly to making all able-bodied people work by providing full employment, something which the capitalist system has objected to, on principle, despite the well-reasoned pro-employment wisdom of John Maynard Keynes. (And that gem above, dropping from the mighty pen of Mr. Hobbes--heartwarming!)
Which leaves us with the final observation of this entry. “He who does not work, does not eat”? This surely does not mean that anyone in any society should be allowed to starve to death or deprived of the elementary means of subsistence. This phrase is essentially saying “no” to social parasitism as a way of life. Therefore, there is nothing unethical about this phrase whether it comes from Lenin, from Hobbes, or from the Bible. It is far more unethical to deny able-bodied persons who want to work, their Bible-sanctioned right to work.
Under-employment as a government-sanctioned state policy may be argued about in terms of its competitive advantages in the survival of the fittest, but its basic humanity, and what it does to the souls, self-esteem and social consciousness of the less fortunate, is very much suspect.
No comments:
Post a Comment