Bread Labour - Lecture notes 5 PDF

Preview

Summary

Bread Labour...

Description

BREAD LABOUR INTRODUCTION

Gandhi admired and respected all forms of labour, whether it was physical, mental, or intellectual in nature. According to him, a nation's true wealth is its labour. He did not endorse David Ricardo's or Marx's labour theory of value; instead, he promoted the moral concept of labour dignity and believed that labour has a special position in society. He was more like Saint Paul, who said that if a person does not work, he should not eat, and Saint Augustine, who saw labour as a way to man's perfection. The following excerpt from "Yervada Mandir" demonstrates how the concept of Bread Labor captivated his mind: "When I first read Tolstoy's essays on Bread Labor, the Law that a man must work in order to exist came home to me. But, even before that, after reading Ruskin's "Unto This Last," I began to pay homage to it. T. M. Bondaref, a Russian writer, was the first to emphasise the Divine Law that man must earn his sustenance by working with his hands. Tolstoy publicised it and helped it gain a wider audience. The same idea, in my opinion, is enshrined in the Third Chapter of the Gita, where we are instructed that "he who eats without offering sacrifice eats stolen food" (Gandhi,1932, p. 21). Bread Labor can only be referred to as sacrifice in this context.

WORK AND BREAD LABOUR RUSKIN

John Ruskin, a British writer and thinker, was a firm believer in honest, happy, and sincere work done by hand. He wrote about the importance of manual labour and the necessity of bread labour in 'The Seven Lamps of Architecture,' where he is particularly concerned with the happiness of the carver while working. “For we are not sent into this world to do any thing into which we cannot put our hearts. We have certain work to do for bread, and that is to be done strenuously, other work to

do our delight, and that is to be done heartily: neither is to be done by halves and shifts, but with a will; and what is not worth this effort is not to be done at all” (Ruskin, 1925, p.318). He also claimed that manual labour exalted the soul while mechanical labour degraded it. He expresses his concern for happiness and the delight that a worker should take in his work in his famous essay on 'The Nature of Gothic': “It is not that men are ill fed, but that they have no pleasure in the work by which they make their bread and therefore look to wealth as the only means of pleasure” (Ruskin, 1924, p.194). The first requirement of an honest and simple existence is to work with zeal and delight. Only the sound principle of 'joyful human labour,' as described by Ruskin in 'Unto This Last,' can make life pleasant: “Smooth in field; fair in garden; full of orchard; trim, sweet, and frequent in homestead ringing with voices of vivid existence” (Ruskin, 1934, p.10). Individual serenity and prosperity will result from happy work in the field, in the garden, and at home, as well as situations conducive to national health and riches. He wrote in the same book that what England required at the time was "to show the quantity of joy that can be achieved by a consistent, well administered competence, humble, confessed, and laborious." "For it is quite wonderful how much a man's views of life are cleared by the attainment of the capacity of doing any one thing well with his hands and arms," Ruskin wrote in The Political Economy of Art, “for it is quite wonderful how much a man’s views of life are cleared by the attainment of the capacity of doing any one thing well with his hands and arms” (Ruskin, p.174). Members of Parliament should be taught to plough and form a horseshoe. Ruskin extols the life of a labourer, saying that he is no less valuable than a soldier or an author. The labourer serves his country with a spade, just as a middle-aged man serves it with a sword or pen, and he, too, deserves honourable rewards. In his autobiography, Mahatma Gandhi confessed that he derived three principles from Unto This Last. (1) That the good of the individual is contained in the good of all, (2) that a lawyer's work has the same value as a barber's in the sense that everyone has the same right to earn a living from their work, and (3) that a life of labour, i.e. the life of the tiller of the soil and the life of the handicraftsman, is a life worth living. He went on to say, "The first of these I knew, the second I had barely realised." I had never considered the third option. Unto This Last made it crystal evident to me that the second and third books were bundled together in the first. I got up with the sun, eager to put these beliefs into action (Gandhi, 1927, p.275).

LEO TOLSTOY'S IMPACT

Gandhi was also influenced by Tolstoy's ideas, which warned humanity of approaching disaster if it ignored the value of bread labour. Tolstoy says that the revelation of the fundamental relevance of Bread Labor by the Russian writer Bondaref is one of the most astonishing discoveries of our times. The concept is that every healthy individual must work hard enough for his sustenance, and his intellectual skills must be employed solely in the service of mankind, not to make a living or amass a favourite. All men would be equal, none would be hungry, and the world would be saved from countless sins if this idea were followed universally. It's likely that this globe rule will never be followed by everyone on the planet. Millions of people are witnessing it without realising it. However, their minds are operating in the opposite manner, providing an incentive to those who comprehend and strive to follow the rule. They enjoy good health, complete peace, and the development of their ability for service by willingly obeying it (Gandhi, Ashram Observances, 1955 edn, pp.60-61). To avoid moral decay and cultural decadence, we must organise our lives and vocations in such a way that we can use our hands and legs. Because man has more than one head, brain effort alone is insufficient. He also has other faculties or limbs that require attention and suitable activity. Tolstoy discusses the system of division of labour, claiming that one portion of society is impoverished while another reaps the benefits of others' labour in the name of science and art. 'Science and art are great things, but they should not be spoiled by connecting depravity to them, which is releasing oneself from the need to sustain one's own and other people's lives via labour,' he remarked.

HANDICRAFT WORK

In South Africa's Phoenix Settlement and Tolstoy Farm, Gandhi lived out the concept of Bread Labor. In the ashrams, physical labour was required at particular times of the day. Various activities were carried out, such as agriculture, dairying, weaving, carpentry, tanning, and so on, which were required of all ashram

members. He incorporated these elements in his Ashram vows after returning to India. By making it the centre of all activity, whether political, social, economic, or educational, he gave it a distinct dignity and place. Work's true aim is to develop man's higher capacities, just as food does for the physical body. Gandhi had a staunch believer that everyone adopting bread labour as a basic value of life would inevitably lead to the development of a classless and casteless society. A millionaire cannot maintain his lavish lifestyle for long and will eventually tyre of laying around in his bed all day and being served his food. He needs to work up a sweat to make himself hungry. 'If everyone, rich or poor, has to exercise in some shape or form, why could it not take the form of productive, i.e. bread labour?' Gandhi said. No one tells the cultivator that he needs to do some breathing exercises or work his muscles (Gandhi, 1932, pp.36- 37). When everyone, without exception, acknowledged the responsibility of bread labour, he felt certain that the divisions of rank would be erased. Everyone, according to Gandhi, must be his own scavenger. Evacuation is as vital as eating, and it is better if everyone disposes of his or her own waste. "If this isn't practicable, each family should take care of its own scavenging; I've long suspected that there's something fundamentally wrong with making scavenging the responsibility of a different social class. We have no record of who was the first to designate this necessary sanitary service the lowest rating. Whoever he was, he didn't do us any favours" (Ibid.). We should recognise that we are all scavengers and begin our bread labour as scavengers. Gandhi endeavoured to correct the social structure, which was heavily divided into separate castes with the associated high low, caste outcaste syndrome, by prescribing the adoption of bread labour by all Varnas and making scavenging a problem of all. "Brahma created his people, entrusting them with the duty of sacrifice, and saying, 'By this do you prosper; let it be the fulfiller of all your aspirations," in his own words. "Whoever eats without making this sacrifice consumes stolen bread," the Gita reads. The Bible says, "Even thy bread by the sweat of thy brow." Sacrifices can take various forms. It's possible that one of them is bread labour. There would be enough food and leisure for everyone if everyone worked only for their bread. There would be no such things as overpopulation, sickness, or sorrow as we witness now. Such toil will be the ultimate kind of self-sacrifice (Harijan, 29.06.1935, p.156). Our wants would be less as a result, and our diet would be simple. Then we should eat to live rather than live to eat. Anyone who doubts the validity of this concept should try sweating for a living; he will gain the greatest

pleasure from the fruits of his labour, improve his health, and learn that many of the things he took were superfluous'. Men will undoubtedly do many more things, either with their bodies or their intellect, but all of this will be done out of love for the greater good. There will be no rich and poor, no high and low, no touchable and untouchable individuals. 'Everyone should see it as a shame to eat a single meal without honest labour,' he continued. If we could overcome our aversion to labour and learn to adjust to unexpected changes in fortune, we would be well on our way to developing fearlessness and, as a result, improving our national character.' He went on to say, "Let me not be misunderstood." I don't dismiss the value of intellectual labour, but no amount of it can compensate for the bodily labour that everyone of us is born to perform for the common good. It may be, and frequently is, enormously superior to physical labour, but it is never and can never be a substitute for it, just as intellectual food, while far superior to the grains we consume, is never and can never be a substitute for them. Indeed, without the earth's products, intellectual endeavours would be impossible' (Young India, 15.10.1925, pp.355-356).

WORK IN THE INDUSTRY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Intellectual labour, Gandhi said, is for the soul and provides its own joy. 'In an ideal state, doctors, attorneys, and others will labour only for the good of society, not for personal gain,' he stated. Obeying the law of bread labour will result in a quiet change in society's structure. Man's victory will come from replacing the struggle for survival with the struggle for mutual service. The law of man will take the place of the law of the animal. Intellectual effort, no matter how excellent, will never compensate for physical labour, just as intellectual nourishment, no matter how superior to the grains we eat, can never be a replacement for them. 'Intellectual activity is crucial and has an undeniable role in the scheme of things,' Gandhi observed. But I am adamant about the importance of physical labour. No one, I believe, should be exempt from that commitment. It will help to raise the level of his intellectual work as well.' When the wealthy engage in some constructive physical labour, they will become aware of the issues and challenges faced by millions of workers.

Gandhi sought to put an end to the passion for white collar occupations and to the loathing for physical labour. He said, ‘Under my system it is labour which is the current coin, not metal’. Therefore he wanted that everyone must do some productive physical labour. Physical labour done out of ignorance or compulsion can also not be termed as Bread Labour. Compulsory obedience to the law of Bread labour breeds poverty, disease and discontent. It is a state of slavery. Willing obedience to it must bring contentment and health’. Writing, reading, and giving speeches are not enough to improve a person's thinking. Gandhi advocated for an eight-hour day of honest and clean work. He opposes free meals because he believes they have ruined the country by encouraging lethargy, idleness, hypocrisy, and even criminality. He describes it as misguided charity, which adds nothing to the country's wealth, whether material or spiritual, and provides the contributor a false sense of merit. He strongly advises creating an organisation where honest effort is required before meals are supplied. He hoped to bring about a cultural revolution by requiring poets, doctors, attorneys, and others to engage in bread-and-butter labour and put their specific gifts to good use in the service of humanity. There would be no diseases in the community since males would be kept fit through physical labour.

Gandhi believed that the struggle between labour and capital could only be resolved if everyone willingly engaged in some productive physical labour. Agriculture, spinning, weaving, carpentry, and other activities related to basic needs, he believed, would grow if everyone engaged in useful physical labour. Bread labour will not only give job for unemployed physical labourers, but it will also address the issue of educated unemployed. When everyone participates in useful physical labour, not only will wants be minimised, but output will also increase. These two factors will minimise scarcity and alleviate overcrowding, sickness, and misery. Villagers in India, Gandhi observed, had an existence that was worse than that of animals. They were so degraded that they were unable to work or live normally. If the Indian people had understood the value of labour, they would never have degraded and exploited their fellow citizens. Gandhi emphasised that everyone have the ability to labour and earn more than their daily bread. For an honest penny, no work is too menial. The only need is that a man be willing to eat with his hands and feet.

There was a huge gap between affluent and poor people, as well as a huge confrontation between labour and capital. This imbalance and antagonism might simply be resolved if everyone worked hard enough to earn his living. The disparities of position would be eradicated if everyone worked for their food, Gandhi remarked. It was especially needed in India, where caste divisions were becoming more pronounced and the number of poor and unemployed people was rising. Bread labour was also necessary for individuals who lived a life of nonviolence and truth, as these ideals rule out any possibility of exploitation, idleness, or private property ownership. Gandhi believes that if each person works to the best of his ability – and that effort is useful or serviceable - the country's economic problems will be solved.

MOTIVATION FOR WORK

The ethical, moral, and spiritual values are a fundamental source of inspiration for employment. Gandhi coined the term "bread labour" to describe it. Bread labour combines two fundamental principles: I the expenditure of energy through physical labour, and (ii) the moral and ethical ideals associated with such energy use. Work allows a person to express themselves. This type of activity involves both subjective and objective aspects. The production of values is the objective dimension. The subjective part entails the process of a person's spiritual development. To put it another way, effort is required for spiritual development. This spirituality is the most significant source of inspiration for labour. This job, on the other hand, must be sought out in order to foster spiritual growth. 'Stranger defined work' isn't an option. 'Friend or self-defined work,' it must be. Gandhi's concept of bread labour gives an alternate source of motivation and output. Caring, love, and service are the motivating forces at work resulting from bread labour. The person who does bread labour raises questions about the nature of employment and production, emphasising the importance of both aims and means. The one does not imply the other. The criteria of service, care, and love must be met in the development of values generated via bread labour. Similarly,

work performed through bread labour must be driven by compassion, love, and service.

COMPONENTS OF LABOUR

J. D. Sethi distinguishes four types of labour: I the bare minimum of physical labour, (ii) the instrument of self-actualization, (iii) the way of service, and (iv) the means of subsistence. All three elements are thoroughly incorporated into the concept of bread labour. Component four is accepted in part by the concept of bread labour, with the obvious stipulation that the labour involved in earning a living does not imply abandoning the principles of morality and service. This is in stark contrast to the nature of manufacturing in today's "modern" industrial system. The worker who works in this "modern" system has no control in how the work is completed. Many times, they have no understanding what they are making; workers in chemical facilities, for example, have no notion what substances they are manufacturing. It's not that our society's workers are unconcerned about what they create or would like to produce. However, they lack the ability to adequately articulate their preferences. They are dissatisfied with both the nature of their work and the end product. This work's alienation stems from its lack of moral and service requirements, possibly as a result of its spiritual harm. Despite the alienation and "joyless economy," today's common wisdom holds that the current industrial system is the best, ensuring the production of all desired qualities. The existence theorem justifies what is produced, stating that if it exists, it must be desired and desirable. Without a doubt, there is a whole ethical and moral superstructure behind this. Given the reality of production, any alternative, particularly one based on bread labour, is instantly suspicious. It's been labelled as utopian, idealistic, and unworkable, among other things. Such categorization, criticism, and scepticism raise a slew of concerns. Is it even feasible to produce under an alternative system in which the primary motivation for employment is compassion, love, and service? What kind of values would such an option

generate? Is such an option compatible with the current state of production? These problems concern the feasibility, character, and comparability of production using the bread labour principle.

SUBSISTENCE WORKS AND SHADOW WORKS

It should go without saying that bread labour will undoubtedly create some values. It follows from the principle that people enjoy working. People obtain satisfaction, utility, and happiness from their employment through bread labour. In this scenario, the job is its own reward. As a result, such labour will be done solely to lift the spirits of those who are working. Such work has been done in all communities throughout history. People in our own society do a lot of work on their own time. However, there is a distinction to be made between shadow labour and subsistence work when it comes to voluntary or unpaid labour. The true distinction between shadow work, which complements wage labour, and subsistence work, which competes with and opposes both, is often overlooked. Bread labour is the definition of subsistence work. The key idea here is that the society/individual must incorporate parts of a different value system, such as caring, loving, and serving others. When a group opts for a subsistence lifestyle, a different perspective on work prevails. The goal is to reverse progress, t...