{"id":47287,"date":"2023-05-05T14:02:22","date_gmt":"2023-05-05T12:02:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/?p=47287"},"modified":"2023-05-05T14:02:25","modified_gmt":"2023-05-05T12:02:25","slug":"your-work-is-not-a-commodity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/your-work-is-not-a-commodity\/","title":{"rendered":"Your Work is Not a Commodity"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

These days, most of us don\u2019t have a vocation but a job. This isn\u2019t because we change our work so frequently (basically every\u00a03-5 years<\/a>\u00a0for the average American), but because we work for money. Your work is not a commodity. It\u2019s your reason for being here.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

The word \u2039vocation\u203a comes from the Latin\u00a0vocare, which means \u2039to call\u203a. To have a vocation then, really means to have a\u00a0calling. So it doesn\u2019t matter if our work changes – our calling isn\u2019t necessarily related to just one task, it can be a thread weaving through many – what matters is the way we\u00a0listen\u00a0to our calling. This calling has to do with our destiny; it brings us in touch with how we\u2019re meant to serve. Rudolf Steiner described this calling as one\u2019s karma. For most of us, it\u2019s always hard to hear this calling, but it seems to become almost impossible when we work for money – when money becomes our main objective. When this happens, money replaces our interest in the work itself. We no longer pay such keen attention to whether a given task is\u00a0our\u00a0work. We let money speak, and fall deaf to what stirs and calls within us.<\/span>1<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dignity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Not only does working for money sow confusion into our life\u2019s path, it also degrades our dignity. It puts us on a\u00a0leash<\/a>\u00a0and makes another the master of our fate. It can be hard to see this today – largely because its sharp sting has been softened by the labor movement\u2019s achievements – but even though our conditions are better, the underlying power dynamic is the same. Here\u2019s how the early 20th century labor activist Arturo Giovannitti described this dynamic:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The man that owns the tool wherewith another man works, the man that owns the house where this man lives, the man that owns the factory where this man wants to go to work – that man owns and controls the bread that that man eats and therefore owns and controls his mind, his body, his heart and his soul.<\/span>2<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

When we buy and sell labor, we treat an essential part of the human being as a commodity: the employer buys, and therefore\u00a0owns\u00a0the employee\u2019s labor. Though it\u2019s considered \u2039normal\u203a, when we pay attention to this we can feel how it violates our sense of dignity. For example, have you ever seen day laborers waiting for someone to hire them? It\u2019s fundamentally different than the street vendor hawking their wares. One is selling a commodity they\u2019ve made; the other is forced to sell themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rudolf Steiner draws our attention to the fundamental dynamic that\u2019s present:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Today we have as a remnant [of slavery] just that which disturbs the working-man so much, namely that his power to work is sold; in this way something belonging to him is organized from outside. This must go;\u00a0it is only possible to organize socially what does not integrally belong to the human being, such as his position or the function to which he is appointed, in short, something which is not an inner part of the individual.<\/span>3<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So we can see that when we buy and sell labor, human beings are inextricably caught up in the process. It simply can\u2019t be done with the same sort of detachment with which we buy and sell goods. It\u2019s always personal: wherever our work goes we must go also.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Truth<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Before turning to the question of how to address this issue, let\u2019s look at one other aspect – the truth of what\u2019s actually taking place. Human labor shouldn\u2019t be bought and sold as a commodity because it\u2019s\u00a0not\u00a0a commodity. This is where our ideas have failed us. As economic thinkers, we\u2019ve allowed\u00a0everything\u00a0to be bought and sold without concern for its true nature. But this simply ignores the underlying reality. When we buy labor with money, we\u2019re trading work for goods (which is all that the money represents). But work and goods aren\u2019t the same thing – they\u2019re apples and oranges. They can\u2019t actually be exchanged for one another because there\u2019s no shared standard of value. Goods are the\u00a0result\u00a0of work, not the work itself. The distinction is clear: goods are the\u00a0product, work is the\u00a0producing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Steiner calls such an exchange a \u00abliving lie\u00bb <\/span>4<\/sup><\/a><\/span> – we treat something as a living reality that has no reality to it. The truth is that every economic exchange\u00a0is\u00a0actually an exchange of goods for goods, we\u2019ve just obscured it. When two people trade goods – say, bread for soap – they trade the results of their labor. Even when someone buys the soap for money, the money is still just a stand-in for their own goods. But imagine the soapmaker didn\u2019t produce the soap on her own, she made it with her family. When she goes home and pays her family members, she\u2019s not paying them a wage for their labor, she\u2019s splitting up the collective earnings from the goods they collectively produced.<\/span>5<\/sup><\/a><\/span> And that\u2019s what actually takes place in every company, all the time. Here\u2019s Steiner again:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Within capitalist economics\u2026 work has become a commodity which the employer buys from the employee. An exchange is made: money (representing goods) for work. But such an exchange is actually impossible \u2014 it only\u00a0appears\u00a0to take place. In reality, the employer receives goods from the employee which can only be produced through the worker\u2019s time and effort. The production of goods comes about through the collaboration of the employer and employee. The worker receives one part of the equivalent value of these goods, the employer the other\u2026 In a healthy social organism it must be clear that work itself cannot be paid for \u2014 work cannot receive an economic value as if it were a product. Only the product itself, the result of the work, can be assigned an economic value in relation to other products. <\/span>6<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Image: Banksy, \u2039Agency Job (The Gleaners)\u203a, 2009<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Health<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

This brings us to the question: How should we treat labor so it becomes healthy? How should we treat labor so it\u2019s true to its own nature, doesn\u2019t degrade our dignity, and empowers us to follow our calling? We can look at this question both at the level of society and the level of the individual. At both levels the ideal is the same –\u00a0to separate work from income\u00a0– but we can approach it in different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Starting with the individual: We can do everything in our power to hear our calling. On the one hand, this means\u00a0attuning ourselves to beauty, because the beauty we can see is the beauty we\u2019ve been given to serve. But it also means trying to see the beauty in\u00a0all\u00a0tasks, however low we might find them. Can we come to see everything in the world as worthy of our devoted service? Can we learn to fall in love with the world?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, we need to stop working for money. This doesn\u2019t mean we shouldn\u2019t receive support, it means we shouldn\u2019t make our labor\u00a0contingent\u00a0on support. Before taking up any task we can ask: Would I do this even if I didn\u2019t get money for it? If not, can we find some other task we feel called to do entirely, regardless of what it pays? Yes, this might very well mean living off less – that life won\u2019t be as comfortable. \u00abSocial progress depends on the recognition of this sentence, that people should not want the results of their work in the form of personal pay\u2026 People must not want to have anything for themselves as a result of their work. A person owes work to society. People must limit their existence simply and purely to what society bestows on them.\u00bb <\/span>7<\/sup><\/a><\/span> But even if life becomes outwardly less comfortable, when you find work you believe in, then life becomes inwardly suffused with greater meaning and joy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And it\u2019s worth noting that Steiner himself worked in this way, at least from what can be found in some biographical sketches.<\/span>8<\/sup><\/a><\/span> For instance, when he took up a teaching post at the Workers\u2019 Training School in Berlin, he never asked what he\u2019d be paid and started the work before they ever told him. When his classes then became hugely popular, and the school wanted to compensate him for all the extra tuition he was bringing in, he refused to have his income tied to his work and said they should share the additional funds between all teachers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subscribe<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Of course, many people are so hard up that they have no choice, they simply have to work for money. They have to feed their family, and so they have to work jobs they don\u2019t feel connected to. So let\u2019s look at this issue at the societal level. How can we separate work and income\u00a0systemically\u00a0so that everyone can live a dignified life? It can be hard to imagine this at a larger scale, but there are a number of examples where it\u2019s already happening. For instance, the\u00a0Camphill Movement<\/a>\u00a0– which has over 100 communities around the world and primarily takes care of people with special needs – has worked with this ideal for the last 80 years, supporting members of the community according to their needs and not according to the work they perform. But the most commonplace example is the military. Historically, soldiers haven\u2019t been paid a wage for their work, instead they labor on behalf of the whole and receive a livelihood that\u2019s adequate to their needs. Steiner himself pointed to this: \u00abIt immediately produces unhealthiness in the social life when the human being is so placed into society that he is paid for his labor according to whether he does much or little. The human being must derive his means of existence from a society quite differently constituted. The soldier receives his maintenance, then he has to work; but he is not paid directly for his work, but because as a human being he holds a certain position. That is the point. That is the most essential social principle, that the produce of labor should be completely separated from the provision of maintenance.\u00bb <\/span>9<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, however large such undertakings might be, they are still isolated examples. Is it possible to realize this principle at the highest level, at the level of the whole society? Steiner knew it was, we simply have to recognize how toxic and untrue the current dynamics are and then develop the will to transform them. When we do, we\u2019ll come to see that our work isn\u2019t a commodity. It shouldn\u2019t be bought and sold on the market – in fact, labor shouldn\u2019t be determined within the economy at all.\u00a0Human dignity shouldn\u2019t be subject to economic forces, the economy should be subject to the requirements of human dignity. Therefore, the work a person performs should be determined in conversation with the community \u2014 in the realm of self-governance where everyone is equal. \u00abThe nature and extent of the work which a person carries out in service of the social organism must be determined by his capacities and the requirements of human dignity. This can only occur if work is regulated by the government\u00a0independently\u00a0of economic management.\u00bb <\/span>10<\/sup><\/a><\/span> Before a worker enters the factory or workshop, the government has determined his or her work, and the government has heard the worker\u2019s voice in the matter through democratic principles.<\/span>11<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until this happens, until we separate work and income, work will continue to be drudgery for most people. Just think of everything you\u2019re wearing right now – did any of the people who made your clothing really want to? Probably not, but why not? Is there anything inherently degrading in making clothes for others? Of course not. It\u2019s a beautiful and needed service. It only becomes degrading when we\u2019re forced to do it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only will work be drudgery as long as we don\u2019t separate work and income, it will also be\u00a0uneconomic. When we don\u2019t care about a person\u2019s true calling, then we never develop the gifts they have that could benefit us all. What we need to do is recognize that working out of\u00a0love\u00a0is far more efficient and productive, and then find ways to cultivate such love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps love for our work can arise if we feel we belong to a society with its ideals intact – a society that sees work not as something degrading to the human being (a \u2039necessary evil\u203a), but as something that can lead to our highest ennoblement. Such a society would be based on a true respect for each individual. It would treat work not just as a means to fill our bellies, but as a calling that asks us to fulfill our true spiritual purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

This article was republished from Seth Jordan\u2019s Substack, \u2039The Whole Social\u203a<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Title image<\/strong> Vincent van Gogh (1853 – 1890), The Sower, Arles, August 1888. Credit: Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam<\/a> (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

These days, most of us don\u2019t have a vocation but a job. This isn\u2019t because we change our work so frequently (basically every\u00a03-5 years\u00a0for the average American), but because we work for money. Your work is not a commodity. It\u2019s your reason for being here. The word \u2039vocation\u203a comes from the Latin\u00a0vocare, which means \u2039to call\u203a. To have a vocation then, really means to have a\u00a0calling. So it doesn\u2019t matter if our work changes – our calling isn\u2019t necessarily related […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12467,"featured_media":47288,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9115,8808,8762],"tags":[8814],"class_list":["post-47287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-consciousness","category-economics","category-goetheanum","tag-musings"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12467"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47287\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/47288"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dasgoetheanum.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}