I write this after reading A New Piece of New Stateseman’s New Website In the so-called economic inactivity crisis, a phrase that has become a favorite of politicians and columns. Even Keir Starmmer cares for his backbenchers, hosts No.10 before his government begins with an unexplained role in the country’s sale cuts. Reason is familiar enough: Britain doesn’t work. The phrase is deployed across the political spectrum, from the Tory Backbencher to work out the frontbenchers, often with a very heavy air. This is a problem, let’s tell us, which should be fixed. And yet, even a cursory wear of numbers suggests no real work crisis. The number of inactive economic people, those who do not work or active find it, remain strong in decades. The changed is the way it is mentioned.
Economic inactivity is presented as an aberration, an unnatural state requiring correction. The argument is not a simple fiscal, even if Treasury concerns are never far from the face, but morally. If a person is not at work, they must be ridiculous, trained, exchange, or, it fails, cut. The idea that work is a basic part of what it means to be a good citizen has a long history. Tudors distinguished between “bad poor,” to support, and “strong beggars,” to be punished. Victorians build Genehouses for those who need to remind that survival has a condition of working. Ang sistema sa benepisyo karon dili kaayo tin-aw sa pagpugos niini, apan ang lohika wala mausab: ang estado nag-ilis sa usa ka linya tali sa takus ug masakiton, ang masakiton, truny.
It has previously been considered that technology will set us free from this requirement. In 1930, John Maynard Keynes was predicted that the week of work week, now, lowed for 15 hours. The great economic challenge of the 21st century, he proposed, not the struggle for employment, but the problem is how to occupy many hours of entertainment. He lowered the ability to capitalize to absorb technology profits. Instead of reducing work, automation is worse. Productivity has been resurrected, but benefits have not been shared. Working Week does not differ. However, work has become more intimidated, more important, and, for most, meaningless.
The pandemic normalizes the idea that home is an extension of work. This is not the old job from home debate; something deeper happens. The job did not retreat, but extended, creeping at night and weekends, which were entertaining in a temporary stop before the next task. One might expect, with the advance of technology, that work can be easier, that the hardness of our lives will disappear. However, the opposite occurred. The boundary between labor and life changes, and even though we are still told that work is a very important moral.
There is something more revealing about the way economic activism is framed. It is rarely recognized as most of the so-called “unemployed” populations “involved in other work, creative work, as a creative work, a creation work, a caregiver that supports an elderly relative, an artist who makes an elderly relative, an artist who makes an old relative, an artist who makes an elderly relative, an artist who makes an old relative Work outside of the market – no one can count “productivity.” Why, at exactly, an office job or painting?
I saw one New blog post on Vero About the Arcana Reissue to change, Leopoldiati 1981 study of domestic labor, and it interests how his argument is used. Fortatiati, part of the household work, forced that capitalism not only exploits the workmanship workers, care for workers who should be exploited daily. Home, he argues, is not blind to capitalism but its integral, a secret factory that makes and maintained labor power.
This is an argument that cut off the official account of work. The recovery of economic inactivity thinks that joining wages are the only meaningful form of work, which those who do not officially employed are worthless. But as Fortatiatiati, capitalism always depends on unpaid work. The fact that it does not appear in GDP numbers cannot do this less true. The same logic is available in welfare debates today: If Stillmer talks about going to people, despite millions of these participation.
Oh, and if I say technologies releases an AI Chatbot that changes me or an algorithmic analysis tool checking how much I look at the bluesky. I mean tech to save me. The machines that reduce the hours spent on the cops, systems that distribute the benefits of the workers’ workers instead of concentrating on capital hands. However, the technology provided to us, productivity trackers, monbaling at work, digital sorting, designed to intensify work, not to lose it. It is Fortatiti who is understood: capitalism does not only take advantage of work, it organizes social life to ensure that work does not stop.
The framed as a work crisis is, indeed, a crisis in capitalism capability to obtain the value. More than one million people spend half their rental hire rental. Work, for many, not giving strength, but just expands the prutid. And even if people use, if they claim the benefits designed to sleep, they are treated as parasites, as threats to financial discipline. The state will always submit to the capital, but never work.
If technology is to release us, progress rewards should be distributed. The work ethics administered life for centuries cannot be converted. There is no reason, more ideology, that the value of man should be measured in productivity. We’re not working too much. We can appreciate care like capital. We can in a world where art, learning, and rest are not treated as indulgences, but as basic aspects of life. The question is not when Britain works. This is why we are still expected.
https://anticapitalistmusings.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/IMG_2012.jpeg
2025-03-14 19:17:00
