More Leisure and Less Work
Some weeks ago, I was talking to a friend about writing a piece on idleness. He drew my attention to an essay Lord Bertrand Russell wrote, “In Praise of Idleness,” in Harper’s Magazine in 1932. He uses idleness and laziness as synonymous terms, while in fact his focus is on work and leisure. I beg to differ. Laziness and idleness are not the same phenomena. Laziness is indolence, an undesirable state of avoiding exertion. Idleness is a desirable state of leisure or not working. Before I proceed, I should say something about Lord Russell. He was a great philosopher, scientist, essayist, and public speaker. But above all, he was a brave warrior for peace and harmony. He spent six months in jail in 1918 for his “subversive” anti-war views during the First World War. And then in the fall of 1961, at the age of 89, he spent a week in jail for his campaign against the spread of nuclear arms. In the 1960s, he also led a crusade against the alleged American war crimes in Vietnam. Returning to his essay, Bertrand Russell had this to say about work and leisure.
“I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by the belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work….Much that we take for granted about the desirability of work is derived from this system and, being pre-industrial, is not adapted to the modern world. Modern technic has made it possible for leisure, within limits, to be not the prerogative of small privileged classes, but a right evenly distributed throughout the community. The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need for slavery…. Leisure is essential to civilization, and in the former times leisure for the few was rendered possible only by the labours of the many. But their labours were valuable, not because work is good, but because leisure is good. And with modern technic it would be possible to distribute leisure justly without injury to civilization…. Modern technic has made it possible to diminish enormously the amount of labor necessary to produce the necessaries of life for every one….If you ask him (the worker) what he thinks the best part of his life, he is not likely to say, ‘I enjoy work because it makes me feel that I am fulfilling man’s noblest task, and because I like to think how much man can transform the planet. It is true that my body demands periods of rest, which I have to fill in as best I may, but I am never happy as when the morning comes and I can return to the toil from which my contentment springs.’ I have never heard working men12 say this sort of thing. They consider work, as it should be considered, as a necessary means to a livelihood, and it is from their leisure hours that they derive whatever happiness they may enjoy.”
Lord Russell does not think that work is virtuous: it is a legacy of the pre-industrial age when a small crust of the society enjoyed complete leisure and the rest of the population (peasants, serfs, slaves, servants) worked for this rich minority. The leisure class, including priests and courtiers, ingrained in the minds of the majority that work was virtuous. (I remember that the motto of my college back in Pakistan was “Work is Worship.”) The creed was that if you do not work you do not eat! Some of course did not work but lived in luxury. There is nothing intrinsically good about work. It depends on its purpose and that purpose must be the well-being of the populace.
The Industrial Revolution in England established a new social and economic order based on the factory system for profit. So long as there was surplus labor, forced off the land, long hours of arduous work, by men, women, and children, in the factory gave them just enough to survive and reproduce. The owners appropriated the surplus as profit. There was little time left to workers for leisure. (“The idea that the poor should leisure has always been shocking to the rich.”) They could not afford it because of the subsistence wage and the long hours of work. This state lasted for almost one hundred years (1760–1850). The captains of industry were motivated by nothing but profit, which depended on market competition, technology, and the wage paid to labor. To make profit, output had to be sold, and the sale depended on the level of consumption in the society. The consumption in turn depended on the purchasing power of the wage paid to workers. Since consumption was the major source for capital and profit, ways had to be found to nudge the public to consume more. Once the average wage level started to rise it was channeled mostly to consumption.
The profit system — captains of industry and finance — invented two powerful tools to boost consumer spending: advertisement and credit — mortgage your future to keep consuming. One’s living standard is defined by how much of goods and services one consumes. The profit economy is based on a double-competition, one among producers and the other among consumers. The purpose of work is to earn enough for one’s well-being. But in the profit system, well-being is defined by the level of consumption of goods and services. Another key point is that, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, both production and consumption have been dependent on energy derived from fossil fuels (coal, gas, and oil). As the circuit of production and consumption grew with time, its effects on natural resources and the environment grew exponentially. The planet is now facing an existential threat because of the human contribution to the predicament in the last 150 years. This threat cannot be mitigated without altering the way we live. But that is where the problem lies — choose leisure (idleness) over work.
Lord Russell redefined human well-being by laying emphasis on idleness or leisure. We know that consumption is only a small part of one’s well-being. A large part consists of leisure: time away from work on activities that define civilization, i.e., socializing, volunteering, sports, entertainment, meditation, creative arts (painting, crafting, writing), observing nature (science), and travelling. The stress of work and consumption has corrosive effects on the well-being of living organisms and the planet’s ecosystem. Moreover, the inequalities of wealth and income — they are an integral part of the profit system — work against the general well-being of communities. The question is: why can’t people afford more leisure and work less? We have the technical know-how to reduce the work effort, say to four days a week and no more than six hours a day. The ideology of consumerism is one obstacle: how to wean the public away from it? Related to it is the political power of the corporate system of finance and production.
Public policy can play a vital role in changing people’s preferences, reducing the time and energy spent on work and increasing the time spent in leisure activities, thus enhancing well-being and civilization. Public (civic) education has a role, but that is not enough. Governments possess more effective tools to influence public choice. On the side of resources, they can use a mix of taxes and subsidies: a high marginal tax rate on personal income; a high tax on corporate profits; tax on consumption (or value-added tax); tax on property; and tax on inherited wealth. Added to these taxes should be a tax on carbon and subsidy for green energy. This tax regime should yield no less than 45 per cent of GDP in revenue. Government spending should focus on a guaranteed minimum income; free child-care and pre-school education; free education from the primary-school level to the post-secondary level; universal health care; paid leave for up to two years to parents for childbirth; a minimum living wage and a decent pension for seniors; and affordable housing. Reduce spending on the armed forces, weapons, and the military infrastructure. Increase spending on reforestation, green energy, and decarbonization. Most of the public expenditure is investment in the well-being of society.
Governments should also use laws and regulations to promote transparency and competition in all industries and services; restrain environmental pollution; and encourage leisure activities. The average work schedule should be four days in a week and no more than six hours in a day. Well, some might say that it cannot be done. Certainly not instantly, but over time, say in 10 years, it can. It is doable if the civil society and political parties can join hands to mobilize the public to build a just society, of which the well-being is defined by the amount and quality of leisure and not by the duration and intensity of work. The welfare state should be rejuvenated by empowering people through devolution of power to the local communities. In addition, the civil society and political parties should demand a proportional system for electing members of the law-making assemblies. The electoral system should allow many groups and parties to compete for their platform or manifesto.
