출처: David Graeber (2004). Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Prickly Paradigm Press.
※ 발췌 (excerpts) : pp. 79~ 83~
(2) The Struggle Against Work
The struggle against work has always been central to anarchist organizing. Be this I mean, not the struggle for better work conditions or higher wages, but the struggle to eliminate work, as a relation of domination, entirely. Hence the IWW slogan "against the wage system." This is a long-term goal of course. I the shorter term, what can't be eliminated can at least reduced. Around the turn of the century, the Wobblies and other anarchists played the central role in winning workers the 5-day week and 8-hour day.
In Western Europe social democratic governments are now, for the first time in almost a century, once again reducing the working week. They are only instituting trifling changes (from a 40-hour week to 35), but in the US no one's even discussing that much. Instead they are discussing whether to eliminate time-and-a-half for overtime. This despite the fact that Americans now spend more hours working than any other population in the world, including Japan. So the Wobblies have reappeared, with what was to be the next step in their program, even back in the '20s: the 16-hour week. ("4-day week, 4-hour day.") Again, on the face of it, this seems completely unrealistic, even insane. But has anyone carried out a feasibility study? After all, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that a considerable chunk of the hours worked in America are only actually necessary to compensate for problems created by the fact that Americans work too much. (Consider here such jobs as all-night pizza deliveryman or dog-washer, or those women who run nighttime day care centers for the children of women who have to work nights providing child care for businesswomen ... not to mention the endless hours spent by specialists cleaning up the emotional and physical damages caused by overwork, the injuries, suicides, divorces, murderous rampages, producing the drugs to pacify children ...)
So what jobs are necessary?
Well, for starters, there are lots of jobs whose disappearance, almost everyone would agree, would be a net gain for humanity. Consider here telemarketers, stretch-SUV manufacturers, or for that matter, corporate lawyers. We could also eliminate the entire advertising and PR industries, fire all politicians and their staffs, eliminate anyone remotely connected with an HMO, without even beginning to get near essential social functions. The elimination of advertising would also reduce the production, shipping, and selling of unnecessary products, since those items people actualy do want or need, they will still figure out a way to find out about. The eliminatin of radical inequalities would mean we would no longer require the services of most of the millins currently employed as doormen, private security forces, prison guards, or SWAT teamsㅡno to mention the military. Beyond that, we'd have to do research. Financiers, insurers, and investment bankers are all essentially parasitic beings, but there might be some useful functions in these sectors that could not simply be replaced with software. All in all we might discover that if we identified the work that really did need to be done to maintain a comfortable and ecologically sustainable standard of living, and redistribute the hours, it may turn out that the Wobbly platform is perfectly realistic. Especially if we bear in mind that it's not like anyone would be forced to stop working after four hours if they didnt feel like it. A lot of people do enjoy their jobs, certainly more than they would lounging around doing nothing all day (that's whay in prisons, when they want to punish inmates, the take away their right to work), and if one has eliminated the endless indignities and sadomasochistic games that inevitably follow from top-down organization, one would expect a lot more would. It might even turn out that no one will have to work more than particularly want to.
Admittedly, all of this presumes the total reorganization of work, a kind of "after the revolution" scenario which I've argued is a necessary tool to even begin to think about human possibilities, even if revolution will probably never take such an apocalyptic form. This of course brings up the "who will do the dirty jobs?" questionㅡone which always gets thrown at anarchists or other utopians. Peter Kropotkin long ago point out that the fallacy of the argument. There's no particular reason dirty jobs have to exist. If one divided up the unpleasant tasks equally, that would mean all the world's top scientists and engineers would have to do them too; one could expect the creation of self-cleaning kitchens and coal-mining robots almost imeediately.
All this is something of an aside though because what I really want to do in this final section is focus on:
This might giver the reader a chance to have a glane at what anarchist, and anarchist-inspired, organizing is actually likeㅡsome of the contours of the new world now being built in the shell of the oldㅡand to show what the historical-ethnographic perspective I've been trying to develop here, our non-existent science, might be able to contribute to it.
The first cycle of the new global uprisingㅡwhat the press still insists on referring to, increasingly ridiculously, as "the anti-globalization movement"ㅡbegan with the autonomous municipalities of Chiapas and came to a head with the ^asambleas barreales^ of Buenos Aires, and cities throughout Argentina. There is hardly room here to tell the whole story: beginning with the Zapatistas' rejection of the idea of seizing power and their attempt instead to create a model of democratic self-organization to inspire the rest of Mexico; their initiation of an international network (People's Global ACtion, or PGA) which then put out the calls for the days of action against the WTO (in Seattle), IMF (in Washington, Prague ...) and so on; and finally, the collapse of the Argentine economy, and the overwhelming popular uprising which, again, rejected the very idea that one could find a solution by replacing one set of politicians with another. ( ... ... )