ARBEIT MACHT FREI?

I like Graeber's writing, it is very thoughtful, even though I feel uneasy about some of his conclusions. 

In the last essay of his volume “Revolutions in Reverse” titled “Against Kamikaze Capitalism” he tackles the issue of work from an anarchist point of view - i.e. something to be avoided.  What is missing from this analysis is that different kinds of work have not been created equal, and that while some kinds of works are indeed drudgery to be avoided, other kinds of work are creative and satisfying pursuits that he elsewhere raves about.  What is furthermore missing is the explicit recognition that work is not some quasi -objective process defined by technical requirements of production, but a socially constructed process of breaking human activity into separate tasks and then organizing these tasks into "bundles" or "lumps" called jobs.  Finally, and most importantly perhaps, what is missing from this essay is acknowledgment that jobs are socially constructed based on the principle of social status inasmuch, if not more than on the principle of technical expediency. 

This unveils what I perceive as a significant weakness of anarchist thinking - it cedes vast stretches of social territory to its enemies and withdraws, or rather is being routed, to idealized if not utopian enclaves in which it feels comfortable.  It does not treat these territories as contested, something worth fighting for, but rather as something worthless and thus to be abandoned to the enemy without a fight.  It does this with the state, and it does this with work. 

Job satisfaction studies consistently show that non-pecuniary attributes of work, such as degree of autonomy, flexible schedule, co-worker respect, friendly atmosphere, amenities and the like are as important in defining what constitutes a “good job” as the wages.  There is no technical reason, why all jobs cannot have these attributes.  In fact, many capitalist firms recognize this and offer sometimes real, more often token, attributes of respect, autonomy, flexibility, collegiality and the like.  A visit to a local IKEA store staffed by "co-workers" is but one example.  Another example is a visit to a supermarket outside the US.  The first thing one notices is that their cashiers sit rather than stand at their counters.  Why cannot they in the US?

What is more, there is no reason why certain undesirable tasks, such as cleaning one’s workspace, have to be “bundled” into menial jobs instead of being spread out across all jobs.  I see no reason why at the end of the day a CEO cannot pick up the waste basket in his office and empty it into a dumpster on his way out, other than that such a “menial work” is somehow “unbecoming” of his status. 

But if the status of job incumbents is what it is in a large part about, then work is a contested territory.  The “status grab” by the managerial types by hogging the most desirable, creative and enjoyable task to themselves while relegating the menial tasks to those of a lesser status, can be effectively contested by a demand for a democratic process in defining jobs, their desirable/menial task composition, and the degree of amenities, such as autonomy, flexibility and the like. 

However, by declaring all productive work as a form of capitalist drudgery that cannot be reformed, rearranged and transformed into a festive and joyous human activity, the anarchists seem to cede this territory and  capitulate to the managerial claim that the organization of work they created is based on objective, technical and meritocratic criteria to which there is no rational alternative.  It fails to recognize that productive work, if democratically reorganized, can entail a significant amount of creativity, fun, joy, and sense of accomplishment.  The same can be said about the state, but that is subject to another discussion.