E.P. Thompson
Despite being a relatively dull peace activist, this guy is great. After reading his essay "Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism," I really want to completely read his history of the English working class. In this short piece, he talks about the rise of standardized time and how it related to the imposition of work-discipline and paralleled the rise of industrial capitalism. He demonstrates that there should be no "demarcation between 'work' and 'life,'" and brings up the issue of the "conflict between labour and 'passing the time of the day."(Well, I guess I should say he doesn't make any subjective judgements on these issues, but to me he demonstrates the necessity of abolishing work as an activity separate from and opposed to everyday life and the joys it should entail.) He also notes Henri Lefebvre's distinction between cyclical, or natural, time, and linear time; the former is a part of us to the extent that we are connected to nature, the latter is something we fear the passing of and internalize in order to function according to the demands of the economy. All great points, though I am not quite sure how original they are.
He also specifically attacks the factory system of industrial capitalism. He associates factory work with "monotony, alienation from pleasure in labour, and antagonism of interests [such as competitive economic structures and class conflict]," which isn't too radical a conclusion, and at times it may seem like he sees the problem as being specifically and solely industrial capitalism, as opposed to recognizing inherent downsides of industrial society itself (or in a non-industrial capitalism?) But he actually does recognize the disadvantages of industrial society itself:
So he merely sees the use of time-measurement as a means of labour exploitation as more detrimental than technological conditioning, though both should ideally be rejected. I more or less agree (considering its a lenient and uneducated paraphrase on my part!) I'll take the rising of the sun over the ticking of a clock any day.
He also specifically attacks the factory system of industrial capitalism. He associates factory work with "monotony, alienation from pleasure in labour, and antagonism of interests [such as competitive economic structures and class conflict]," which isn't too radical a conclusion, and at times it may seem like he sees the problem as being specifically and solely industrial capitalism, as opposed to recognizing inherent downsides of industrial society itself (or in a non-industrial capitalism?) But he actually does recognize the disadvantages of industrial society itself:
Above all, the transition is not to "industrialism" but to industrial capitalism. What we are examining here are not only changes in manufacturing technique which demand greater synchronization of labour and a greater exactitude in time routines in any society; but also these changes as they were lived through in the society of nascent industrial capitalism. We are concerned simultaneously with time-sense in its technological conditioning, and with time-measurement as a means of labour exploitation.
So he merely sees the use of time-measurement as a means of labour exploitation as more detrimental than technological conditioning, though both should ideally be rejected. I more or less agree (considering its a lenient and uneducated paraphrase on my part!) I'll take the rising of the sun over the ticking of a clock any day.
7 Comments:
BTW I read this for history class. I am definitely taking the third term of the history sequence with the same teacher next term because we will be reading Luxemburg, the manifesto, and interesting garbage like Mao and third world nationalists. Not that I need to read all this stuff again, but I will get to write papers on it!
By
Sam, at 12:46 AM
That's great, your history class sounds wonderful.
I've been meaning to read Thompson for years now and have not yet gotten around to it, but I hope to soon (and by soon I mean within the next year).
By
Jake R., at 2:26 AM
"...interesting garbage" I like how you put that too. Let me guess: Fanon? Nkrumah? Césaire? Cabral? Ho Chi Minh? Che? Or is it more US-centric, in which case it'd be Malcolm, the Panthers, and Stokely Carmichael?
Why would you be reading that shit for that class if the prof is so cool? Although I guess he could be cool and still assign that sort of shit...still. At least there'll be some Luxemburg action.
Down with industrialism!
By
Jake R., at 2:43 AM
Here's a quote that's somewhat related "It is wrong to define present day society as "industrial civilisation". The "industry" of that definition is, in fact, merely a means.' The truth of modern society is that it is the civilisation of labour. Furthermore, a capitalist society can never be anything but this. And, in the course of its historical development, it can even take on the form of "socialism". So.... not industrial society (that is, the society of capital) but the society of industrial labour, and thus the society of workers' labour. It is capitalist society seen from this point of view that we must find the courage to fight. What are workers doing when they struggle against their employers? Are they not they, above all else, saying "No" to the transformation of labour power into labour? Are they not, more than anything, refusing to receive work from the capitalist?"-Tronti, The Strategy of Refusal
By
Jake R., at 12:23 PM
Yep, I think there are inherent downsides to industrialism and that is a damn good quote. We need not opppose civilization but the "civilization of labor," i.e. industrialism. I like that.
And in response to the question, the "interesting garbage" we will be reading includes Nkrumah and Minh, I believe. Oh, and I'll be taking a class next term called urban farm (with Paul maybe) where we learn to grow food and care for the soil. I am stoked.
By
Sam, at 2:16 PM
If Edward Thompson was "dull" the sun is "freezing" His book, "the Making" is a masterpiece, an astounding achievement, yet eminently readable. I knew Edward and his family, and he was intelligent, articulate, passionate, yet most of all he was always interested to hear what the ordinary person had to say. I would so love to hear his analysis of current events, he would have revealing insights you can bet.
By
Anonymous, at 3:36 PM
Thompson, "Dull"? Is it any wonder why some of us think that contemporary social historians have utterly lost their way?
By
Anonymous, at 8:45 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home