Thursday, August 20, 2020

Bill Mitchell — Tracing the roots of progressive views on the duty to work – Part 3

This is the third part in my historical excursion tracing where progressive forces adopted the idea that it was fair and reasonable for individuals who sought income support from the state to contribute to the collective well-being through work if they could. As I noted in Part 1, the series could have easily been sub-titled: How the middle-class Left abandoned the class fundamentals, became obsessed with individualism, and steadily descended into political obscurity, so much so, that the parties they now dominate, are largely unelectable! Somewhere along the way in history, elements of the Left have departed from the collective vision that bound social classes with different interests and education levels into a ‘working class’ force. In this Part, we disabuse readers of the notion that the ‘duty to work’ concept was somehow an artifact of authoritarian regimes like the USSR. In fact, we find well articulated statements in official documents in most Western democracies.


The earlier parts in this series are:

1. Tracing the roots of progressive views on the duty to work – Part 1 (August 4, 2020).

2. Tracing the roots of progressive views on the duty to work – Part 2 (August 11, 2020).
Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Tracing the roots of progressive views on the duty to work – Part 3
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

7 comments:

Andrew Anderson said...

Where's MMT's requirement that the idle rich work as the JG slaves do?

Or that everyone, like the rich, get to choose what, when and how they work?

Oooops!

Also, increasing automation makes the MMT's obsession with wage slavery increasingly ridiculous as well as unjust.

Peter Pan said...

Progressives and conservatives recognize the Paris Hilton Exemption.

Calgacus said...

AA:
MMT has no obsession with wage slavery - except to make it less onerous, less slavery and more co-operatively playing nice with others. But too many people have idiotic fantasies that (a) there is seriously increasing automation these days (the pace of technological change was rather faster from 1850-1950 than now) (b) that it would magically change anything and (c) stupidest of all that scams like Basic Income, Citizen's Dividends etc would do anything but seriously increase the burden of wage slavery, play right into the hands of the banks and billionaires - which is why they support these scams. Duh. O Great AA -When will you consider the victims of your not-ready-for-Prime-Time schemes? Or even see why there would be millions and billions? Or even answer one question rather than behave like an autistic - and hypocritical - dictator?

But if people had bothered to read Bill Mitchell's pieces they would have learnt that he does support somewhat, formal obligations of the idle rich to work. Bill Mitchell does not recognize the Paris Hilton Exemption. Y'know, doing the assigned reading helps promote good discussions in class, and keeps one from saying dmub things.

I think it is a foolish idea the way he seems to support it - it should be in the background as a meta-principle - shifting the burden of work to other shoulders should be made difficult-to-impossible but the necessity for such things is IMHO a measure of failure of a social structure.

Peter Pan said...

That exemption is key to enjoying the good life in case we win the lottery, have a big inheritance, or otherwise attain financial independence.

The 'obligation to work' is a rationalization that fails upon examination.
I don't have to write a multipart essay to reach that conclusion.

As for Bill, he doesn't know how to be a critic of the existing social structure. His life's work assumes that this structure will remain in place. And it will - until the whole package goes bust.

Matt Franko said...

“ idiotic fantasies that (a) there is seriously increasing automation these days (the pace of technological change was rather faster from 1850-1950 than now)”

Yup...

Andrew Anderson said...

The 'obligation to work' is a rationalization that fails upon examination. Peter Pan

There's no doubt that work is good.

But what the MMT Gang is promoting is continued and INCREASING wage slavery as the means of production (e.g. automation) are unjustly* concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

*Largely by means of a government-privileged usury cartel whose privileges the MMT School would increase.

Peter Pan said...

We have been conditioned to believe work is good. Not work in general, but a subset of work called "paid employment".

In the good old days, work was a matter of survival. If you are an animal living in the wilderness, it still is.