From the beginning of civilization until the Industrial Revolution, a man could,

as a rule, produce by hard work little more than was required for the subsistenc
e of himself and his family, although his wife worked at least as hard as he did
, and his children added their labor as soon as they were old enough to do so. T
he small surplus above bare necessaries was not left to those who produced it, b
ut was appropriated by warriors and priests. . . . A system which lasted so long
and ended so recently has naturally left a profound impress upon men s thoughts a
nd opinions. Much that we take for granted about the desirability of work is der
ived from this system, and, being pre-industrial, is not adapted to the modern w
orld. Modern technique has made it possible for leisure, within limits, to be no
t the prerogative of small privileged classes, but a right evenly distributed th
roughout the community. The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the
modern world has no need of slavery.
It is obvious that, in primitive communities, peasants, left to themselves, woul
d not have parted with the slender surplus upon which the warriors and priests s
ubsisted, but would have either produced less or consumed more. At first, sheer
force compelled them to produce and part with the surplus. Gradually, however, i
t was found possible to induce many of them to accept an ethic according to whic
h it was their duty to work hard, although part of their work went to support ot
hers in idleness. By this means the amount of compulsion required was lessened,
and the expenses of government were diminished. To this day, 99 per cent of Brit
ish wage-earners would be genuinely shocked if it were proposed that the King sh
ould not have a larger income than a working man. The conception of duty, speaki
ng historically, has been a means used by the holders of power to induce others
to live for the interests of their masters rather than for their own.
That was a long passage, but I promise it s important, so let s unpack it a bit. Thr
oughout most of the history of civilization, Russell says, people had to work da
mn hard just to secure the basic necessities of life. They might produce a small
surplus (which would then be snatched from them by the upper classes), but for
the most part, they busted their asses to cultivate the land and to produce the
resources necessary for survival.
At first, this labor was simply an imperative for survival, but over time, the r
uling classes conditioned the working classes to see their work as something des
irable an ethical and noble duty. In the West, Judeo-Christian values of industry
and hard work were emphasized/propagated by the ruling classes, conveniently con
vincing the masses that work was inherently good a way to humble oneself before th
e Lord and secure one s place in Heaven.
This is perhaps one of the most elaborate deceptions in history this conditioning
of the masses to want to work tirelessly in order to survive, all the while padd
ing the pockets of a small group of elite. The very conception of duty, as Russell
points out, has served as something of a coercive psychoactive substance which
the wealthy deploy to induce others to live for the interests of their masters ra
ther than for their own.
Finally, note Russell s point that the pre-modern system of labor was around for s
o long that it has of course naturally left a profound impress upon men s thoughts
and opinions. The system might be dead, but the values that it fostered and the i
deas that were used to justify it are still very much alive. So, basically, an e
normous workload for the average person is no longer necessary, but we still bel
ieve that it is, because of cultural momentum.
The Case Study of World War I
Modern technique has made it possible to diminish enormously the amount of labor
required to secure the necessaries of life for everyone. This was made obvious d
uring the war.
Russell goes on to claim that World War I is something of a case study demonstra
ting that the amount of labor necessary to secure life s necessities for the masse

s has dramatically decreased in the modern world.

At that time all the men in the armed forces, and all the men and women engaged i
n the production of munitions, all the men and women engaged in spying, war prop
aganda, or Government offices connected with the war, were withdrawn from produc
tive occupations. In spite of this, the general level of well-being among unskil
led wage-earners on the side of the Allies was higher than before or since.
So Russell is like, Wait, wait, wait . . . just look at what happened during WWI.
Vast segments of people were occupied by war-related work and were doing nothin
g in service of producing the actual necessities of life. And yet, the average d
ud(ette) on the Allies team was actually better off than any time before or since
. Doesn t this, like, prove that we now live in a world in which a relatively minu
scule portion of mankind s collective time/energy can supply the necessities for a
ll of mankind?
Why, yes, Bertrand, that would seem to be the case. But what happened post-WWI?
. . . the old chaos was restored, those whose work was demanded were made to work
long hours, and the rest were left to starve as unemployed. Why? Because work i
s a duty, and a man should not receive wages in proportion to what he has produc
ed, but in proportion to his virtue as exemplified by his industry.
Russell explains that after the war, the majority of people went back to working
eight hours each day, and (as is always the case) a sizable percentage of peopl
e unable to find work were left unemployed, forgotten, starving. Russell propose
s that the post-WWI workday could reasonably have been reduced to four hours, an
d that this would have allowed everyone to work, while still supplying the neces
sities of life for all and greatly reducing the collective amount of time/energy
expended.
Why would this work? Because, as the war demonstrated, technological progress ha
d made it possible for the same amount of resources to be produced with far less
human effort. But, unfortunately, the system did/does not pay people in proport
ion to what is ultimately produced, but in proportion to [their] virtue as exempl
ified by [their] industry. That long-entrenched tyrant called Duty dictated that
people ought to continue to work long hours for low wages, and only a handful of
intellectuals grasped that exponentially greater efficiency via machine-automat
ion ought to benefit the common man accordingly. Russell offers an anecdote to i
llustrate how ludicrous the system was/is, given the potential of machines to re
place labor:
Let us take an illustration. Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of
people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the wo
rld needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which
the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap th
at hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybo
dy concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours inste
ad of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world
this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are to
o many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned i
n making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure
as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still ov
erworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause mi
sery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything mo
re insane be imagined?
As machines continued to replace human labor during the Industrial Revolution, m
ankind halved the work-week, increased minimum wages accordingly, and devised in
novative means of wealth re-distribution to ensure that the people of the world
would benefit collectively from the advancements of a new technological age.
hahaha jk bro.

Of course that s not what happened. At least not for the most part. When one adjus
ts for inflation, the minimum wage in the US actually peaked in 1968 and has bar
ely doubled in ~80 years, despite the fact that machines have made us exponentia
lly more productive.
Have we really become that much more productive, though? Good question. Consider
this: in 1880, 49% of the Americans were farmers. Today, 2% of Americans are fa
rmers. Other examples could be listed, but I think this one is sufficient to dem
onstrate just how much manpower has been replaced by machines. And yet, the dayto-day life of the average Westerner doesn t really reflect these changes.
Instead of saying, Wow, hey, these machines are doing a lot of the work for us no
w. No one should have to work as much!, we said, We need to create more jobs! Inste
ad of re-distributing the outrageous sums of wealth being amassed in ever-more e
fficient, machine-supplemented industries, we allowed a tiny segment of mega-wea
lthy people to become way wealthier.
And thus was the genesis of our present-day situation, in which the wealthiest 1
% of the global community will soon control over half of the world s wealth and in
which the average person works a job that is utterly disconnected from the basi
c realities of life. Huge portions of humanity spend their days balancing someon
e else s checkbook, or trying to sell people shit that they don t need, or trying to
come up with more effective ways to manipulate people into valuing their brand, o
r moving boxes around on a digital screen to make the display more aesthetically
pleasing, or talking on the phone with people who are dissatisfied with a produ
ct that they didn t need in the first place, etc. etc. etc. I realize that today s s
ituation differs dramatically from those of previous eras and that therefore som
e of these sorts of jobs are necessary, but it seems that to some extent we ve sim
ply conjured up countless superfluous societal roles in an effort to allow every
one to do his duty.
We constantly invent jobs and industries in an effort to reduce unemployment ins
tead of recognizing that we long ago reached a point after which far fewer peopl
e actually need to work, and for far fewer hours each week. And now, in the 21st
century, we are moving into an era in which artificial intelligence will replac
e even more human labor, physical as well as intellectual. Unemployment will inc
rease, and we will be forced to try to manufacture new, frivolous jobs for the ave
rage human, a practice which is presumably untenable in the long-term. The alter
native, of course, is to finally recognize the beautiful possibility of a shorte
r work-week, much higher wages, and something like a Universal Basic Income. For
decades, such initiatives have, despite much resistance, been gaining traction
and mainstream approval, though in most places their implementation remains to b
e seen.
The Benefits of Leisure Time
A man who has worked long hours all his life will become bored if he becomes sudd
enly idle. But without a considerable amount of leisure a man is cut off from ma
ny of the best things. There is no longer any reason why the bulk of the populat
ion should suffer this deprivation; only a foolish asceticism, usually vicarious
, makes us continue to insist on work in excessive quantities now that the need
no longer exists.
What would people do with significantly more leisure time? I think Russell is co
rrect in suggesting that someone who has worked long hours all his life would li
kely be restless or discontented if suddenly he/she no longer needed to work. Th
is is why so many people continue to work post-retirement force of habit. However
, Russell contends that a considerable amount of leisure is necessary to enjoy ma
ny of the best things in life.