New Website

Site being moved to:


The migration is still under process…



John Maynard Keynes’s prediction

ImageIn the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshaled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.

Why did Keynes’ promised utopia – still being eagerly awaited in the ‘60s – never materialise? The standard line today is that he didn’t figure in the massive increase in consumerism. Given the choice between less hours and more toys and pleasures, we’ve collectively chosen the latter. This presents a nice morality tale, but even a moment’s reflection shows it can’t really be true. Yes, we have witnessed the creation of an endless variety of new jobs and industries since the ‘20s, but very few have anything to do with the production and distribution of sushi, iPhones, or fancy sneakers.

So what are these new jobs, precisely? A recent report comparing employment in the US between 1910 and 2000 gives us a clear picture (and I note, one pretty much exactly echoed in the UK). Over the course of the last century, the number of workers employed as domestic servants, in industry, and in the farm sector has collapsed dramatically. At the same time, “professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers” tripled, growing “from one-quarter to three-quarters of total employment.” In other words, productive jobs have, just as predicted, been largely automated away (even if you count industrial workers globally, including the toiling masses in India and China, such workers are still not nearly so large a percentage of the world population as they used to be).

But rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the “service” sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations. And these numbers do not even reflect on all those people whose job is to provide administrative, technical, or security support for these industries, or for that matter the whole host of ancillary industries (dog-washers, all-night pizza deliverymen) that only exist because everyone else is spending so much of their time working in all the other ones.

These are what I propose to call “bullshit jobs.”

It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working. And here, precisely, lies the mystery. In capitalism, this is precisely what is not supposed to happen. Sure, in the old inefficient socialist states like the Soviet Union, where employment was considered both a right and a sacred duty, the system made up as many jobs as they had to (this is why in Soviet department stores it took three clerks to sell a piece of meat). But, of course, this is the very sort of problem market competition is supposed to fix. According to economic theory, at least, the last thing a profit-seeking firm is going to do is shell out money to workers they don’t really need to employ. Still, somehow, it happens.

While corporations may engage in ruthless downsizing, the layoffs and speed-ups invariably fall on that class of people who are actually making, moving, fixing and maintaining things; through some strange alchemy no one can quite explain, the number of salaried paper-pushers ultimately seems to expand, and more and more employees find themselves, not unlike Soviet workers actually, working 40 or even 50 hour weeks on paper, but effectively working 15 hours just as Keynes predicted, since the rest of their time is spent organising or attending motivational seminars, updating their facebook profiles or downloading TV box-sets.

The answer clearly isn’t economic: it’s moral and political. The ruling class has figured out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the ‘60s). And, on the other hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing, is extraordinarily convenient for them.

Once, when contemplating the apparently endless growth of administrative responsibilities in British academic departments, I came up with one possible vision of hell. Hell is a collection of individuals who are spending the bulk of their time working on a task they don’t like and are not especially good at. Say they were hired because they were excellent cabinet-makers, and then discover they are expected to spend a great deal of their time frying fish. Neither does the task really need to be done – at least, there’s only a very limited number of fish that need to be fried. Yet somehow, they all become so obsessed with resentment at the thought that some of their co-workers might be spending more time making cabinets, and not doing their fair share of the fish-frying responsibilities, that before long there’s endless piles of useless badly cooked fish piling up all over the workshop and it’s all that anyone really does.

I think this is actually a pretty accurate description of the moral dynamics of our own economy.


Now, I realise any such argument is going to run into immediate objections: “who are you to say what jobs are really ‘necessary’? What’s necessary anyway? You’re an anthropology professor, what’s the ‘need’ for that?” (And indeed a lot of tabloid readers would take the existence of my job as the very definition of wasteful social expenditure.) And on one level, this is obviously true. There can be no objective measure of social value.

I would not presume to tell someone who is convinced they are making a meaningful contribution to the world that, really, they are not. But what about those people who are themselves convinced their jobs are meaningless? Not long ago I got back in touch with a school friend who I hadn’t seen since I was 12. I was amazed to discover that in the interim, he had become first a poet, then the front man in an indie rock band. I’d heard some of his songs on the radio having no idea the singer was someone I actually knew. He was obviously brilliant, innovative, and his work had unquestionably brightened and improved the lives of people all over the world. Yet, after a couple of unsuccessful albums, he’d lost his contract, and plagued with debts and a newborn daughter, ended up, as he put it, “taking the default choice of so many directionless folk: law school.” Now he’s a corporate lawyer working in a prominent New York firm. He was the first to admit that his job was utterly meaningless, contributed nothing to the world, and, in his own estimation, should not really exist.

There’s a lot of questions one could ask here, starting with, what does it say about our society that it seems to generate an extremely limited demand for talented poet-musicians, but an apparently infinite demand for specialists in corporate law? (Answer: if 1% of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, what we call “the market” reflects what they think is useful or important, not anybody else.) But even more, it shows that most people in these jobs are ultimately aware of it. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever met a corporate lawyer who didn’t think their job was bullshit. The same goes for almost all the new industries outlined above. There is a whole class of salaried professionals that, should you meet them at parties and admit that you do something that might be considered interesting (an anthropologist, for example), will want to avoid even discussing their line of work entirely. Give them a few drinks, and they will launch into tirades about how pointless and stupid their job really is.

This is a profound psychological violence here. How can one even begin to speak of dignity in labour when one secretly feels one’s job should not exist? How can it not create a sense of deep rage and resentment. Yet it is the peculiar genius of our society that its rulers have figured out a way, as in the case of the fish-fryers, to ensure that rage is directed precisely against those who actually do get to do meaningful work. For instance: in our society, there seems a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it.  Again, an objective measure is hard to find, but one easy way to get a sense is to ask: what would happen were this entire class of people to simply disappear? Say what you like about nurses, garbage collectors, or mechanics, it’s obvious that were they to vanish in a puff of smoke, the results would be immediate and catastrophic. A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble, and even one without science fiction writers or ska musicians would clearly be a lesser place. It’s not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish. (Many suspect it might markedly improve.) Yet apart from a handful of well-touted exceptions (doctors), the rule holds surprisingly well.

Even more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should be. This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it when tabloids whip up resentment against tube workers for paralysing London during contract disputes: the very fact that tube workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people. It’s even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilizing resentment against school teachers, or auto workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or auto industry managers who actually cause the problems) for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits. It’s as if they are being told “but you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and health care?”

If someone had designed a work regime perfectly suited to maintaining the power of finance capital, it’s hard to see how they could have done a better job. Real, productive workers are relentlessly squeezed and exploited. The remainder are divided between a terrorised stratum of the, universally reviled, unemployed and a larger stratum who are basically paid to do nothing, in positions designed to make them identify with the perspectives and sensibilities of the ruling class (managers, administrators, etc) – and particularly its financial avatars – but, at the same time, foster a simmering resentment against anyone whose work has clear and undeniable social value. Clearly, the system was never consciously designed. It emerged from almost a century of trial and error. But it is the only explanation for why, despite our technological capacities, we are not all working 3-4 hour days.




Una scelta di vita molto particolare, imperniata sulla ricerca di valori interiori.

L’ex manager Marco davanti al suo orto «La mia vita è cambiata dieci anni fa: a gennaio del 2001 mi trovavo per lavoro all’Holiday Inn di Manhattan, a giugno dormivo nei fienili in Toscana». Marco, trentasette anni compiuti, ex manager Yamaha ed ora eremita in Abruzzo, ride. Il contrasto delle due immagini lo diverte. 

Per parlare con quest’uomo riflessivo, pacato e accogliente, i cui tratti incorniciati dalla capigliatura rasta ricordano vagamente quelli di Bob Marley, abbiamo dovuto camminare parecchio. Mezz’ora buona di ripida montagna tra Rocca Santa Maria e Valle Castellana, in provincia di Teramo, al confine tra l’Abruzzo selvaggio e le Marche. Dove è possibile incontrare i lupi e, giurano alcuni, anche gli orsi. D’altronde, l’eremita del borgo abbandonato di Valle Pezzata, che fino all’età di ventisette anni era product manager dell’Italaudio, storico distributore nazionale del marchio Yamaha per hi-fi con sede a Legnano, non se l’è scelta facile l’esistenza.
CURRICULUM – Laureato in Economia alla Bocconi con una tesi dal titolo eloquente («Metodologie di valutazione ambientale e sviluppo sostenibile», relatore il professor Pierluigi Sacco, volto noto alla Rai come divulgatore, ora ordinario alla Iulm di Milano), Marco già allora tentava di dare un’interpretazione diversa della realtà che lo circondava. «Volevo confutare – ci spiega – le tesi di coloro che, finanziati dalle multinazionali, cercano di far passare per scienza le convinzioni politiche».


Dopo la laurea, conseguita a pieni voti, lavora un anno e mezzo per il marchio giapponese. Le dimissioni arrivano improvvise ed inaspettate, soprattutto per i genitori. «Non ero in armonia con le mie inclinazioni – dice – e sapevo che quella del manager non era la mia strada. L’avevo scelta come banco di prova e come estensione del corso di studi. Ma era un’esperienza totalizzante. Al di là delle otto ore di ufficio, il lavoro assorbiva completamente la mia vita. Era difficile staccare la spina quando tornavo a casa. Invece io volevo stabilire un contatto più profondo e più armonico con l’ambiente circostante». «Una scelta coraggiosa – la definisce oggi Marco Puchetti, fino al 2003 direttore commerciale all’Italaudio -, tanto più se si considera che Marco era un ottimo manager e aveva iniziato il proprio percorso professionale in una realtà aziendale notevole».

FAMIGLIA – Marco è cresciuto a Busto Arsizio, nel Varesotto, cullato e protetto da una famiglia benestante che tutto si aspettava tranne che il figlio rifiutasse il consumismo e le comodità e abbracciasse un’esistenza fatta di cose elementari. «La presero – ricorda – come una scelta che non poteva stare in piedi, un gesto di temporanea follia. Contavano sul fatto che, finiti i soldi della liquidazione, sarei tornato». E invece accade il contrario. «Mi sono accorto presto – prosegue – che la mia vita era sommersa dai bisogni secondari indotti dal sistema in cui vivevo. Ero pieno di cose che non mi servivano e di cui pian piano mi dovevo liberare. In questo modo è stato più facile rendermi autonomo rispetto ai bisogni primari legati alla sopravvivenza, al cibo, ai vestiti e ad un riparo sopra la testa, e indirizzare quelli secondari nella direzione in cui volevo, senza che fossero condizionati dal marketing, dalla politica o da qualche scuola spirituale». L’ex manager trascorre circa otto anni nell’ecovillaggio della Valle degli Elfi, sull’Appennino tosco-emiliano. Due anni fa, in pieno inverno, si sposta in Abruzzo per dar vita ad un’altra comunità.
IN DUE – All’inizio, a Valle Pezzata, erano in quindici, ora sono in due. Con Marco c’è Artur, un polacco di 41 anni che dopo aver girato mezza Europa ha deciso di fermarsi qui. Abitano distanti l’uno dall’altro ma conducono vite simili. Ogni tanto fanno capolino in paese, a Rocca Santa Maria, dove hanno un buon rapporto con la comunità locale, o girano per borghi suonando alle feste e alle sagre. Poi tornano nel loro Eden, rinunciando alla corrente elettrica per seguire i ritmi del sole. D’inverno dormono molto, d’estate meno.
«Il mio corpo – spiega Marco – si sveglia quando non ha più la necessità di riposare. È la montagna che detta i tempi». E l’alimentazione? «Si basa sul selvatico, cioè su quello che ci offre spontaneamente la terra. Coltiviamo l’orto, seguendo i consigli degli anziani contadini, e l’acqua la prendiamo dal torrente. Pensa, noi qui non produciamo quasi rifiuti… altro che Napoli!». E mentre il mondo vive con il fiato sospeso per l’incubo default, Marco offre la sua versione della Storia: «Se ognuno eliminasse il superfluo e attraverso l’introspezione cominciasse a soddisfare i bisogni primari, capirebbe più facilmente cosa lo può appagare…».


Articolo di: Nicola Catenaro


Chris McCandless’s appeal


Chris McCandless, some week before starving to death and yet still smiling.

“I think you really should make a radical change in your lifestyle and begin to boldly do things which you may previously never have thought of doing or been to hesitant to attempt. So many people live within unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation because they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservatism, all of which may appear to give one piece [peace?]of mind, but in reality nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future.”

–  Christopher McCandless, from his letter to Ron A. Franz.