@Jayachandran You have misunderstood the message of the Mr Mondialisation. Work is defined by him in the same tone as Marx, work as production factor. In this meaning, when I prepare food for myself or help my neighbour in the garden I do not work. Animals do not work even if they search for food, stock food for the winter, build a nestle etc. It's very important to keep in mind this difference. Work as productive work, this the core notion of this question. The idea is that we work (productively ie for others) in order to exist. A great deal of the rest of the time we consume (products made by others). Is this the meaning of being alive?

He observes the paradox: Work to live and live to work. It is mostly a criticism of our way to live in the West.

Work in its originality is an expression of our energy, the possibilities, the creativity etc. Without work, be it manual or mental, how one can express oneself? Here, the work is defined beyond products and services to cover arts and culture. Hence,it is measureless and it coincides with the level of self and mutual satisfaction. But in an economy, where the medium of money, the primary determinant of value, is used to measure the work in relation to time and productivity. As a result, it is conceived as a means to life, not as an instrument to live.

@Jayachandran You have misunderstood the message of the Mr Mondialisation. Work is defined by him in the same tone as Marx, work as production factor. In this meaning, when I prepare food for myself or help my neighbour in the garden I do not work. Animals do not work even if they search for food, stock food for the winter, build a nestle etc. It's very important to keep in mind this difference. Work as productive work, this the core notion of this question. The idea is that we work (productively ie for others) in order to exist. A great deal of the rest of the time we consume (products made by others). Is this the meaning of being alive?

He observes the paradox: Work to live and live to work. It is mostly a criticism of our way to live in the West.

In short work is life whether it is productive or destructive.

Prof. Emanuela's question is greater than economic dimension. For it puts another one: if we can think of man not only as an economical player, if there is another dimension we have just forgotten nowadays. Economy is an end in itself? If it is not, what is its purpose?

I think that the comparison with other animals on this planet is useful. In the beginning, when we just ate roots and fruits and lived in caves, the only difference was that we used tools to pick, extract, cut and so on. The humans could not live alone, they had to hunt in group (exactly like the wolves). After a while we have picked some animals from the nature, examples: the sheep, the cow, the hen and tamed them.

Now-a-days when the wolves visit the sheep owner and bring back these tamed animals to the nature's usual cycle by having a copious 'dinner' :)-, the sheep owner cries from the bottom of his heart after his wasted 'work'.

Who is right, the wolf who continues to see the 'sheep' as a part of nature or the sheep owner who sees it as an incorporation of long hours of work?

PS: Titles are great but I prefer to be called on my name:)-

In the nature's world, the situation of the wolf and of the man are just the same: anyone that catches first and can keep its food may have it (and "its" is applied to the man, in this case, for we are taking them as competitors for the space in the world). If we think of man only in an economic dimension, the right of survival is the same of any other animal species. All beings in nature fight for survival, but only man asks "why must I survive". More: only man asks if "living" is just "surviving".

@John: I always enjoy reading your comments. However I still believe that the human life has surpassed the pursuit of just surviving and has added some other goals to it. It all started maybe with the idea of trading goods and then with the introduction of money as means of exchange.

Another thing, we know that animals do not work, do not play and so on, they only live in the present moment. The human being is the only one who can experience anxiety in relation to the notion of time. Something like "I have wasted my whole day today in doing absolutely nothing", in reality doing nothing is an oxymoron. I can not point my finger on a special reason or present a complete argumentation, but intuitively we can say that the human being is a specific type of 'nature'. I don't accept the idea of human being as the rational one and so on, I will better say that the human being has some extra needs that animals do not have. Survival as a purpose in itself does not satisfy the human being.

The comments made above are related to the video attached in French. I have just repeated most of the ideas in English in order to provoke a debate.

In my thinking work is more than 'work'. Why? Because most of the people I know do not see work like only means to get an income, a salary, but they see it as an expression of their own individuality, Therefore we need a job that allows us to express ourselves. It's not just about paying for your food and shelter and stuff, but we are pursuing something more. I see work as a method of communication and self-realization.

In the same time, I see that most of us can not fully attain this noble goal of self-realization through work, now meaning paid work. So I return to my initial question, can paid work give sense to our lives? Or maybe, what we have now is just a temporary form of organization of the 'human bee hive' placing paid work on the pedestal of high moral values? We see paid work as the antonymous to slavery, but maybe we are heading for a new form of work in the future.

I love the idea of Sisyphus, I do like mythology and poetry and philosophy, though I see them not like an expression of the truth, but rather as different ways to approach the truth. I try not to talk about myself, meaning my life now, in order to be able to give a more objective view on a certain issue. I think about everyone else, whom I've met and what I observe daily.

The phrase "We see paid work as the antonym to slavery, but maybe we are heading for a new form of work in the future." was meant to express a historic perspective on the evolution of the work relation. First we lived in a complete and very stringent dependence to the nature, exactly like the animals in the forest. The only priority was to survive as an individual and as a species. Then we started to work for the tribe, family, group of families etc. The family has been extended to a nation and some nations have started wars, took prisoners and transformed them into slaves. This is the first type of exploitation. It was as known not easy to eliminate this temptation to exploit other human beings as cheap means of production. The slavery has been abolished very late in the modern history. The next phase was the paid work, but at first was not paid under fair terms and conditions. Then the unions started to flourish and demand that the labour must be paid in a fair way. Stronger the trade unions have become, the higher the price of the labour has started to be and some part of the work had to be outsourced to other countries, where exploitation at lower costs was still possible. Another part of the work has been replaced by the machines. It is clear that today there is not enough work for all the people and no serious solutions to this problem. This is the reality for most of Western countries today.

In Sweden because we are rich, we send people to school just to make them feel better, empower them, give them a second chance and lower the bad statistics. Therefore the real unemployment can not be read from the statistics. The scary figures are huge and there is no clear indication that we are going to have more work in the near future. There are people who have never had an usual secure life, being in between jobs, unemployed, forced to go back to school, unemployed, and so on, until being old enough to get a state pension. This is their life, hunting for a job never getting one. A very large category here work for the state and municipalities, the bureaucracy also, I can't say that this is so much better, taking into consideration now, the idea of self-realization. Give me a job like that and all my neurons will die of boredom at once!

What is the evolution here? Let's recapitulate: first slave, then low paid worker, then paid worker, then unemployed worker/in between jobs...of course I am not talking about the people who had luck here in this life. I am talking about an usual worker 9 to 5, no college education and I wonder how the future will look like for them, becaus...

I perfectly agree with you, in principle, dear John, even if I can clearly read the libertarian aplomb and I realize that your view is not totally apolitical:)- This is also a choice. In my case, I find it easier, honestly, to remain apolitical. I have several sympathies and lots of libertarian friends and therefore I am very well informed on the issue of taxation as theft. Now, in between the parentheses, I would ask you a question (meaning not directly related to the topic here): Do you think that left libertarians can be considered as being genuine libertarians or do you rather consider that left libertarianism is an utopia?

Taxation is pernicious, in the meaning that it has a natural tendency to be enhanced. More taxes of different types is the natural trend and it is difficult to give up on taxation, since all the 'unlucky' people will have to be supported by voluntary contributions. But if it is true that no taxation will imply that everyone who wants to work would be able to have a decently paid job and nevertheless be able to find his/her ideal, this type of society would be the 'heaven on the Earth'. I admit that this issue is too complex to be approached in only some phrases, but it is worth to think about it.

Do we have any social-democrats who would like to explain why taxation is good and has a positive input to the society? More than just creating more bureaucratic institutions and employing more people to work in the municipal/state/federal administration? The great problem is that the private sector becomes very much entangled with the public sector. The state and municipalities become the biggest customer of everyone and in relation to buyer power in the hands of public authorities, the private sellers have to learn to survive. The corruption and other undesired 'progenies' will result from this marriage between the public and private. However, in my view, the markets can not be solution to everything.

I am neither an adept of unchained market power nor one of the state ever extending tentacles ....I am searching for a new solution for the complex contemporary societies.

It is obvious that we see the problem from different angles due to different life experience and maybe also choice of profession. From my perspective, as lawyer, all taxation is expropriation, but the state has the right to tax, i.e. the state has the right to expropriate every one falling under its jurisdiction as long as it follows some elementary rules; these rules make the tax lawyers' bible. I would say that taxation is a form of expropriation , which is licit as long as it follows the principle of representation, rule of law and respects the fundamental principles of taxation.

I don't know US tax law, but I can European taxation enough, in order to be aware that excessive taxation (as legal term) is very difficult to argue and very seldom can lead to a successful result in Court. Most of the time the tax is not 'excessive enough', and therefore the measure belongs to the state discretion to tax.

Thereafter depending on the political position, people see a tax with different eyes. From an ecologist perspective, green taxes are perfectly legitimate, while a state minimalist or a libertarian would say that taxes are just meant to support the public order, maybe also public health and other essential public policies/services, and no more other 'non-sense' purposes.

Of course, you are right concerning the fact that more tax money and more bureaucracy imply less individual freedom and more stupidity in general (i.e. reduced intellectual performances). Free people have to use their brain more, freedom can not afford lack of personal responsibility. I perfectly agree with you.

The only difference is maybe that I don't believe that the minimalist state is possible, state power has only been extended during the past 50 years. Power in general has this tendency to increase as intensity and to take over more and more of the private space. I have no problem with power, as long as it is legitimate and under the control of autonomous courts. Access to information is the first and essential right of a citizen today; an informed citizen will be able to question the unnecessary delegation of authority.

In general the delegation of power from the individual towards the state is based on the lack of trust and fear. People who can show confidence in each other, act responsibly even if there is no law or no authority who supervise their behaviour, this type of people would not need the big state. A big state will cost in this case too much and will not bring a bigger benefit.

The state is big in Sweden, just because Swedish people need to be sure that there is an authority dealing with all the things they want to have access to, no matter the individual income. It's a democratic choice. Another example is Norway, where the nation wealth comes mainly from the oil exploitation and then it makes sense to benefit in common from the financial results related to the oil production. It is very difficult to find one solution for all countries in this issue....

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html

@John, you can still be proud, the top four, are all American universities:)-

Hmm. The existence of beings (human, insects, plant, etc.) implies work or the interchange of mass/energy/information between beings and the environment automatically. However, with humans, the idea of work is often problematic because of cultural and societal pressures and because of personal desires/goals. Of course, work has value and purpose. We, humans, may like not our work (the need to earn a living or working for others, etc.) But that is beside the point because we do not exist for our selfish desires/goals... C'est la vie :-) ou c'est dommage! :-(

Relevant Reference Link:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DavidCole_PrimeWork123/posts/iiVU5CeogSA