make-work (was Re: pre-Keynesian)

[Lawrence]

From: "Forstater, Mathew" <ForstaterM at umkc.edu>
> Kelley's post (and the posts to which it replies) reinforces my feeling
> that we are all--even critics of the status quo--much more programmed
> than we realize and that social transformation will require 'personal'
> transformation of some types.  take the make-work topic for example.
> even harsh critics of capitalism fall into the trap of idealizing market
> activity and the idea of market acitivity as privileged or 'valuable.'
> what i mean is, we call government jobs 'make-work' without a mention of
> how many market jobs are make-work (or worse!).

I don't think anyone said that government work was automatically make work.
I remember what I said was that Harry Hopkins, in the 1930s, felt that any
work, even stupid make work, was better than simply giving people money.
Work, even stupid make work, is certainly more social than staying at home
and getting a check, for all the reasons Kelly points out.


> i can't see how we can possibly imagine a
> post-capitalist society without addressing how messed up we are from
> years and generations of alienation, etc. one may argue that under a
> socialist society, human beings will be in a world conducive to
> de-alienation, but talk about 'transitions' that will have to be
> made--we have to really confront the difficulties of making those kind
> of adjustnments. imean, could you imagine if 'we' were suddenly in
> charge, starting tomorrow morning. not an easy move.

It's been a long, long time since I read Marx, but I recall his emphasis
being more about giving workers work that did not alienate them, rather than
telling them that they shouldn't work. For me personally, nothing would be
more profoundly alienating than not working.