The Mad World of Work

"In short, it has become an article of the creed of modern morality that all labour is good in itself - a convenient belief to those who live on the labour of others. But as to those on whom they live, I recommend them not to take it on trust, but to look into the matter a little deeper."
William Morris, Useful Work versus Useless Toil (1884)

Work eh? Can’t live with it, can’t live without it. Every product or service we use is created by work, by people deliberately changing one thing into another, transforming the world around them. But that isn’t the definition of work we normally hear about. Usually an activity isn’t called work unless someone else stands to make money off it, which means that looking after your children isn’t normally called work, but looking after another person’s children normally is, and government policy is currently aimed at getting single parents ‘into work’, as if they don’t have enough! It also means that if you create a piece of art for the enjoyment of yourself and others then that isn’t work, but when stockbrokers place bets on the success or failure of businesses it definitely is!

Now, as a recession unfolds, politicians are telling us there’s ‘not enough work’, and people around the world are being sacked in their hundreds of thousands, even though things clearly need more transforming than ever. We’re also seeing taxpayers’ money being given to those at the top of the pile, in the name of keeping the economy afloat. Something doesn’t add up.

Clearly, we need to examine what work means in 2008, and that’s what Nerve 13 does.

Nerve 14 will look at issues around the environment and food. Please get in touch if you would like to contribute something, or have any ideas. Contact us by emailing mail(at)catalystmedia.org.uk, or phone (0151) 709 9948 during office hours.

We’ve worked hard on this edition of Nerve, so we hope you enjoy it.

Printer friendly page

Sorry Comments Closed

Comment left by Paul Littler on 27th January, 2009 at 00:50
Could the election of America's first black President be linked to the 2012 prophesies?
There appear to be two opinions about how the near future of the world is going to turn out.
The prevalent concensus appears to be that there will be no change, because, as the Buddhists' say; man is beyond redemption because of his inherent greed. Basically, we're all prone to feather our own nest and rarely do anything for others unless it benefits ourselves in some way.
One modern explanation for this is called 'The First Dynamic' or; our desire/predisposition to place our own personal survival above all else. The majority of people on Earth, tend look after themselves and their immediate family, and couldn't really care less about anyone else. The more distant that 'other' is from them, (e.g. people starving in sub-saharan Africa) the less concerned they tend to be. We all feel genuine compassion for those among us who are seen to be suffering, and a lot of people contribute to the collection box for disasters, etc, but few really pull their finger out and make more than a token gesture to do anything about it.
Generally, those people who run marathons and so on, are doing it more for themselves than they are for the charity they are representing. They do it to feel good about themselves, and to become popular and respected among their friends/social group. How many people contribute toward the alleviation of suffering without broadcasting the fact?
Is Armageddon coming, or, are human beings just such lazy bastards that they never do anything about anything, until the crisis comes and they have no other choice?
It is said, that a number of prophets have predicted 2012 to be the date when the world may suffer some catastrophic event ... The Mayans, Nostrodamus, etc... Personally, I don't believe it. I do believe that the world is heading towards a major transition though. It seems odd that there are so many predictions out there about what might occur over the next few years... I think the spread of information around the world has had an enormous impact on those at the other end of the tube, (e.g. Bhutan) and I believe that more than 50% of the world's population, now want to see a radical change in the way corporations and governments conduct their business. They want both to act in an ethical manner.
If you study international politics, you may conclude that major changes are beginning to occur across the world. There are major riots across China. Massive riots recently broke out in Greece. Grassroots cooperative movements are flourishing in Argentina, and Chavez is still in place in Venezuela, etc.
The U.S.A. has just elected its first black President, and there appears to be two distinctly different views about what this might lead to...
The first is: It's impossible for a real 'Man of the People' to be elected in the USA, because the corporations control who gets to become President, because the corporations are the ones who donate all the money to the nominee's election campaign, and if they don't like their policies, and if the person is not in their pocket, i.e., if the nominee is for the people, instead of the interests of the less than 1% minority who control the corporations in the USA, then, they will not have a snowball in hell's chance of getting anywhere, because they will not have enough money to mount an effective election campaign. For example ~ Ralph Nader. I believe that this has been the case ever since the days of the 7th President, Andrew Jackson. However, I've recently read that things may be about to change.
Barrack Obama is said to have raised his campaign funds via contributions made over the internet (and Citibank, etc). The last two U.S. elections were won by George and his mates (the Neo-Cons) via assistance from his brother, and others, and a significant number of votes from the white (Right Wing) church of America. Recent news reports have suggested that this inspired representatives of the black church in the U.S. to promote their own man in the same manner, because they had concluded that the time was right for them to push for a black man in the White House.
Obviously, Obama is surrounded by the old guard, (and has chosen to include some in his cabinet) and he will be limited in what he can achieve, but maybe a change really is due. If he's allowed the chance to to lay the necessary foundations, (over the next two years) he could begin to make some radical shifts in US policy, in both internal and external matters...
Also; if the warnings about global warming are right, and if China's economy continues to grow, at its current rate, allowing China to dominate the world economy, then, the USA will have no other choice than to adapt to changing circumstances...
If Obama begins to make some radical shifts in U.S. Foreign Policy, and introduces real Corporate Regulation, might this lead to another JFK incident ?
That is likely, because the majority of corporate CEOs are not ready to concede power to the people, and due to their business structure being that of a 'corporation' and not in any way moral, i.e. their only responsibility being to maximise their profit margin, and their willingness to do almost anything to make sure that this state of affairs continues, indefinitely, herein may be found the potential for what the man in the Bible called Armageddon! (otherwise known as, worldwide chaos)
If the new black President becomes unpopular among the elites, and suffers an "accident" similar to the one which befell Diana, then that could be the trigger which causes the whole ballgame to begin to roll.
I think it would not only be the black people of the United States of America who would rise-up, they may also be joined by major players across the world who might conclude that the U.S. will never change for the better, so they may join in on the burnin and the looting... and if that's the case, where might it all end?
There is another possibility, and that is that the corporocrats get real, and see the light, and decide to 'go with the flow...' This is, of course, a slim possibility, although some managers in some key positions inside some multinational corporations are beginning to realise that their current stucture is unsustainable (ref, the Corporation. Achbar, Abbott & Bakan. 2005) and they have no other real choice, than to accept the fact that their days are numbered, unless they are willing to accept regulation by the people ~ for the people. Let's all hope that turns out to be the case, because the alternative is not very appealing to anyone at all, apart from that new breed of 'disaster capitalist,' of course... (ref: Naomi Klein. Shock Doctrine.)

Comments are closed on this article