What do you think?
Rate this book
İktisadi Aklın Eleştirisi
Kapitalistler, “duvar”ın yıkılışının ardından kendileri için daha uygun bir “vahşet” ortamının oluşmasının sevinciyle “solun öldüğünü” ilan ettiler. Oysa ölen, kapitalizmin platformundan çıkamadığı için gayri insani bir niteliğe bürünen reel-sosyalizmdi...”Duvar”ın yıkılmasından önce de reel-sosyalizme karşı çıkan Gorz, bu kitabında, kapitalizmin ve reel-sosyalizmin benzerliklerini göstererek asıl onların öldüğünü söyler. Ve onları aşan, alternatif bir sosyalizmin asıl şimdi mümkün olduğunu gösterir. Sanayi toplumlarının iki yüzyıllık ütopyası olan kapitalizmin ve reel-sosyalizmin çöktüğünü, bu krizin, modernliğin değil, modernliğin üzerinde yükseldiği önermelerin; aklın değil, akılcılaştırmaların krizi olduğunu söyleyerek yeni bir sosyalist ütopya imkânlarını tartışır. Öncelikle “her şeyin sayılabilir ve satılabilir olduğu”, “daha fazlanın daha değerli olduğu” iktisadi akılsallığı reddeder. İktisadi aklın kutsallaştırdığı “çalışma”yı sert bir biçimde eleştirirken üretim, tüketim, verimlilik kavramlarını da sorgular. Ona göre “çalışma” modernliğin evladı olan kapitalizm tarafından dinsel ve akıldışı gerekçelerle ibadete dönüştürülmüştür. Kapitalizmin “çalışma ideolojisi”ni ödünç alan reel-sosyalizm ise püriten etiğin yerine “sosyalist vatan” ve “parti” etiğini geçirerek “çalışma”nın özüne ve hiyerarşisine dokunmamış, böylece, insanın köleleştirilmesine ve yabancılaştırılmasına katkıda bulunmuştur. Gorz ise alternatif bir sosyalizmin esas olarak “boş zaman toplumu” olması gerektiğini savunur.Mutluluğun, tüketime ve çalışmaya değil, duygusal ve kültürel alışverişin yoğunluğuna bağlı olduğunu; “boş zaman”ın yaratıcılığa, birlikte yaşama becerisinin geliştirilmesine, sanata, oyuna ve aşka imkân verdiğini anlatır. Ve hangi toplumsal örgütlenme altında olursa olsun “çalışmak için mi yaşıyoruz, yaşamak için mi çalışıyoruz” sorusuna verilecek cevaba dikkat çeker. Bu cevap, aynı zamanda, nasıl bir toplumda yaşamak istediğimizi ve yaşama verdiğimiz anlamın niteliğini de gösterecektir.Kapitalizmin vahşeti karşısında yaşanabilir ve uygulanabilir bir ütopya arayanlara... Her şeyi sayılan, satılan ve tüketilen bir anlayışa indirgeyen “iktisadi aklı” sorgulamadan yeni bir sosyalizmin kurulamayacağına inananlara... Sevginin, şefkatin, dostluğun ve aşkın üretimden daha önemli olduğunu düşünenlere... Ve bir sabah işe gitmeyi, sevgilisine dokunmak için reddedenlere...
296 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
24 people are currently reading
1016 people want to read
About the author
André Gorz
70 books101 followersAndré Gorz , pen name of Gérard Horst, born Gerhard Hirsch, also known by his pen name Michel Bosquet, was an Austrian and French social philosopher. Also a journalist, he co-founded Le Nouvel Observateur weekly in 1964. A supporter of Jean-Paul Sartre's existentialist version of Marxism after World War Two, in the aftermath of the May '68 student riots, he became more concerned with political ecology.
In the 1960s and 1970s, he was a main theorist in the New Left movement. His central theme was wage labour issues such as liberation from work, just distribution of work, social alienation, and Guaranteed basic income
In the 1960s and 1970s, he was a main theorist in the New Left movement. His central theme was wage labour issues such as liberation from work, just distribution of work, social alienation, and Guaranteed basic income
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
December 27, 2020
I'm torn on this book, and my ambiguity towards it can mostly be explained without even referring to the actual contents. Let's get that out of the way first, then.
Critique of Economic Reason thinks it's post-Marxist because it combines Marx with Weber and (strangely) Freire, seemingly deepening and broadening terms that Marx only used in an economic dimension. In actuality, Gorz is post-Marxist because like Adorno, Marcuse and others, he likes Capital and the Grundrisse and conveniently drops out all of Marx's (and marxists') other writing, and with that fundamentally erases (if not flat-out denies) the insoluble contradictions of class and capital. The battle for shorter labour hours (which, don't get me wrong, is a critical part of communism at a certain point of the development of the means of production) is framed entirely as a battle to be fought by trade unions within the framework of social democracy and, by eschewing any reference to direct action, organising, militancy or revolution, is perfectly congruent with Laclau & Mouffe's theory of societal change via hegemonical struggle. This may be a consequence of the 1950-80 period, during which the welfare state seemed stable enough to nullify class contradictions.
Having said that, Gorz' ecclectic writings did produce theoretical value that can operate outside the book's framework. I'm thinking here specifically of his research into the composition of the German labour force, ordering the subclasses by occupational stability, degree of necessary schooling and mobility between firms. Another rock-solid chapter is that on women and the role of the family within the labour force; within it, he develops a strong argument for why 'housewife' should not become a state-subsidized occupation (as this would amount to paying women to stay indoors) - the solution would rather be to, again, lower the hours of waged work (without reducing wages) so as to free up family time for both partners. This should go with the caveat that the relevance of this argument hinges on whether or not society is progressing towards socialism or whether we should make temporary accommodations in the knowledge that the need for them must still be abolished. Gorz' delineation of the specific non-economic nature of certain occupations such as doctors, therapists and prostitutes is likewise interesting with regards to the practical implementation of socialist policies.
I'm mostly indifferent towards the first half of the book, where Gorz in an exercise of immanent critique demonstrates why work hour reduction is necessary. Marx already tells you that, and I fail to see how the additional views of a varied bunch of philosophers and thinkers adds to the substance of the arguments, especially seeing as the self-professed phenomenologist Gorz partly relies on thought-structures that in Marxist parlance could only be described as idealist. For instance, his assertion that 'autonomy' (as part of the new and improved autonomy-heteronomy axis complementing Marx' freedom-necessity-axis) in working life can never be achieved if dependent on machinery (due to the fact that machines are governed by their own laws-for-themself and thus 'heteronomously' turn workers into extension of the machine-process) seems to me to be the type of techno-fetishistic confusion Marcuse too falls prey to: as Marx pointed out, the forces of production derive their nature from the social relations within which they function. The hoe (or for that matter the sickle) may 'phenomenologically' appear as a much more neutral non-heteronomous tool than the furnace, but they likewise impose limits and requirements as to what can be achieved with them and what needs to be done to utilize them. Turning away from the hoe without either replacing it with a different tool in a different sector of work or forgoing tools altogether and living in paleolithic conditions are only possible if the worker leaves the social system completely. Furthermore, from a marxist or political-economic point of view they are identical: fixed capital multiplying the productivity of living capital. [EDIT: this was a bad take on my part; the main difference between machinery and tools, of course, is that as means of production the one is owned by the producer while the other must necessarily be in the hands of the capitalist, and it is this distinction which leads to autonomous/heteronomous practices]
All in all, Critique of Economic Reason is okay but bits of it are built on theoretically shaky grounds and must be read as such. I especially have doubts about the continued relevance of this type of ‘post-scarcity’ personal-preference social democratic Marxism due to the terminal prospects of this system in the near-to-midterm future. Glean from it the snippets critically analysing liberal co-optation of socialist efforts but keep his own professed socialism at a distance.
Critique of Economic Reason thinks it's post-Marxist because it combines Marx with Weber and (strangely) Freire, seemingly deepening and broadening terms that Marx only used in an economic dimension. In actuality, Gorz is post-Marxist because like Adorno, Marcuse and others, he likes Capital and the Grundrisse and conveniently drops out all of Marx's (and marxists') other writing, and with that fundamentally erases (if not flat-out denies) the insoluble contradictions of class and capital. The battle for shorter labour hours (which, don't get me wrong, is a critical part of communism at a certain point of the development of the means of production) is framed entirely as a battle to be fought by trade unions within the framework of social democracy and, by eschewing any reference to direct action, organising, militancy or revolution, is perfectly congruent with Laclau & Mouffe's theory of societal change via hegemonical struggle. This may be a consequence of the 1950-80 period, during which the welfare state seemed stable enough to nullify class contradictions.
Having said that, Gorz' ecclectic writings did produce theoretical value that can operate outside the book's framework. I'm thinking here specifically of his research into the composition of the German labour force, ordering the subclasses by occupational stability, degree of necessary schooling and mobility between firms. Another rock-solid chapter is that on women and the role of the family within the labour force; within it, he develops a strong argument for why 'housewife' should not become a state-subsidized occupation (as this would amount to paying women to stay indoors) - the solution would rather be to, again, lower the hours of waged work (without reducing wages) so as to free up family time for both partners. This should go with the caveat that the relevance of this argument hinges on whether or not society is progressing towards socialism or whether we should make temporary accommodations in the knowledge that the need for them must still be abolished. Gorz' delineation of the specific non-economic nature of certain occupations such as doctors, therapists and prostitutes is likewise interesting with regards to the practical implementation of socialist policies.
I'm mostly indifferent towards the first half of the book, where Gorz in an exercise of immanent critique demonstrates why work hour reduction is necessary. Marx already tells you that, and I fail to see how the additional views of a varied bunch of philosophers and thinkers adds to the substance of the arguments, especially seeing as the self-professed phenomenologist Gorz partly relies on thought-structures that in Marxist parlance could only be described as idealist. For instance, his assertion that 'autonomy' (as part of the new and improved autonomy-heteronomy axis complementing Marx' freedom-necessity-axis) in working life can never be achieved if dependent on machinery (due to the fact that machines are governed by their own laws-for-themself and thus 'heteronomously' turn workers into extension of the machine-process) seems to me to be the type of techno-fetishistic confusion Marcuse too falls prey to: as Marx pointed out, the forces of production derive their nature from the social relations within which they function. The hoe (or for that matter the sickle) may 'phenomenologically' appear as a much more neutral non-heteronomous tool than the furnace, but they likewise impose limits and requirements as to what can be achieved with them and what needs to be done to utilize them. Turning away from the hoe without either replacing it with a different tool in a different sector of work or forgoing tools altogether and living in paleolithic conditions are only possible if the worker leaves the social system completely. Furthermore, from a marxist or political-economic point of view they are identical: fixed capital multiplying the productivity of living capital. [EDIT: this was a bad take on my part; the main difference between machinery and tools, of course, is that as means of production the one is owned by the producer while the other must necessarily be in the hands of the capitalist, and it is this distinction which leads to autonomous/heteronomous practices]
All in all, Critique of Economic Reason is okay but bits of it are built on theoretically shaky grounds and must be read as such. I especially have doubts about the continued relevance of this type of ‘post-scarcity’ personal-preference social democratic Marxism due to the terminal prospects of this system in the near-to-midterm future. Glean from it the snippets critically analysing liberal co-optation of socialist efforts but keep his own professed socialism at a distance.
July 27, 2015
The basic argument of the book is this: work less, live your life more.
But you can't simply do that. Life has become work-centric due to the demands of the economic rationality. This type of rationality emerged alongside the birth of large-scale capitalism during the Industrial Revolution. It is a rationality which demands that profit seeking is its ultimate goal at whatever means possible. As a result, workers are regarded as instruments to achieve that goal. As instruments, they are disposable. They can be adjusted to the demands of the economy by making them work harder at less cost.
Gorz argues for the liberation of workers from work. He does not mean that everyone should be jobless. Instead, every employed person should work less in order to give opportunities for more people to work. Also, workers should have autonomy over their working schedule. For example, a technician might choose to do all his work 2 days per week instead of working the usual 5 days. Therefore, for the remaining 3 days, other technicians can take his job. More job opportunities, less working time.
An interesting concept is that Gorz argues for the divorce of quantity of work to the amount of wage a worker receives. For him, a worker should receive his monthly salary regardless of how long he works - as long as he attends to his responsibilities. Technological growth had already increased the margin of profit. Thus, instead of having the profit concentrated in the hands of the elite few, it should be more evenly distributed among the workforce for the quality of their work, instead of the quantity of time they put into it.
Only after men had been liberated from a work-centric life that he could be able to live a more fulfilling life. He could spend his days learning new skills, travelling, spend time with his loved ones. In other words, making his life more meaningful.
Nonetheless, it is still difficult because economic rationality still dominates our conception of life. We are taught that money is everything, and that profit-making is a virtue. Then we work long hours. We have so little time for ourselves. The limited time we have are spent on cheap thrills and instant entertainment (provided by the ever-flourishing Cultural Industry) that diminish any chance of personal growth.
As a budding teacher, I am wondering whether the act of studying (in societies dominated by economic rationality) should be considered as work as well, and whether students should be given autonomy over their studies. In this aspect, Gorz had said for the importance of inculcating self-learning upon their students without an in-depth elaboration upon the matter. Perhaps this a field for further discussion in other works. A field for revolutionary educationists to ponder upon.
But you can't simply do that. Life has become work-centric due to the demands of the economic rationality. This type of rationality emerged alongside the birth of large-scale capitalism during the Industrial Revolution. It is a rationality which demands that profit seeking is its ultimate goal at whatever means possible. As a result, workers are regarded as instruments to achieve that goal. As instruments, they are disposable. They can be adjusted to the demands of the economy by making them work harder at less cost.
Gorz argues for the liberation of workers from work. He does not mean that everyone should be jobless. Instead, every employed person should work less in order to give opportunities for more people to work. Also, workers should have autonomy over their working schedule. For example, a technician might choose to do all his work 2 days per week instead of working the usual 5 days. Therefore, for the remaining 3 days, other technicians can take his job. More job opportunities, less working time.
An interesting concept is that Gorz argues for the divorce of quantity of work to the amount of wage a worker receives. For him, a worker should receive his monthly salary regardless of how long he works - as long as he attends to his responsibilities. Technological growth had already increased the margin of profit. Thus, instead of having the profit concentrated in the hands of the elite few, it should be more evenly distributed among the workforce for the quality of their work, instead of the quantity of time they put into it.
Only after men had been liberated from a work-centric life that he could be able to live a more fulfilling life. He could spend his days learning new skills, travelling, spend time with his loved ones. In other words, making his life more meaningful.
Nonetheless, it is still difficult because economic rationality still dominates our conception of life. We are taught that money is everything, and that profit-making is a virtue. Then we work long hours. We have so little time for ourselves. The limited time we have are spent on cheap thrills and instant entertainment (provided by the ever-flourishing Cultural Industry) that diminish any chance of personal growth.
As a budding teacher, I am wondering whether the act of studying (in societies dominated by economic rationality) should be considered as work as well, and whether students should be given autonomy over their studies. In this aspect, Gorz had said for the importance of inculcating self-learning upon their students without an in-depth elaboration upon the matter. Perhaps this a field for further discussion in other works. A field for revolutionary educationists to ponder upon.
April 20, 2024
J’ai appris tellement de choses sur l’évolution de ce qu’on appelle « travail », de l’Antiquité à nos jours. Notre rapport à lui, pourquoi et comment le capitalisme l’a transformé, aliéné. Mais aussi sur la naissance de l’utopie marxiste, les raisons de son échec, et donc la nécessité d’une nouvelle utopie.
Gorz met des mots sur la crise du travail que nous traversons et dont je fais l’expérience en parlant à plein d’ami.es de mon âge, qui soulèvent notamment l’importance du temps libre, même face à une rémunération élevée.
La révolution technique permettant une économie de force de travail doit permettre une réduction planifiée du temps de travail pour qu’on travaille tous.tes, et mieux.
Gorz met des mots sur la crise du travail que nous traversons et dont je fais l’expérience en parlant à plein d’ami.es de mon âge, qui soulèvent notamment l’importance du temps libre, même face à une rémunération élevée.
La révolution technique permettant une économie de force de travail doit permettre une réduction planifiée du temps de travail pour qu’on travaille tous.tes, et mieux.
February 25, 2019
Illuminante e strepitoso. Un saggio imprescindibile per chi come me ama la sociologia del lavoro.
August 12, 2025
This is a good read, but I would instead steer potential readers towards Gorz's "Reclaiming Work," which develops the ideas first explored in this book to their natural conclusion and takes into account how the economy evolved in the era following this book's publication.
What truly stands out in this book is Gorz's analysis of the evolution of economic rationality over the ages, and how that logic meets its limits in today's era.
What truly stands out in this book is Gorz's analysis of the evolution of economic rationality over the ages, and how that logic meets its limits in today's era.
November 17, 2022
An interesting idea, but Gorz does little to make me believe it could ever be a reality. I'll get this out of the way first: I think Capitalism is fucked up and horrendous and destructive to people AND the planet (at least for human habitation) and the sooner we are able to get out from under its jaws of death the better off everyone will be. But, I don't see this happening, to be honest. Humans cannot get out of their own way, and have decided they can use the tools that got everyone into this abyss to get them out of it. Humans know they are destroying other humans and their ecosystem but refuse to slow down and do a reset. I guess I can only read so much about the Neoliberal Capitalist economic system and how everyone doing theory seems to know how nasty it is, but none of these theorists can provide a workable alternative that takes into account how humans act, as individuals, in groups, and oftentimes against rationality and reason, thereby making even the most sensible alternatives moot. Gorz does himself no favors with his writing style, which goes from overly academic to overly foundation-less and iffy. Anyone reading this type of book knows Marx, his concepts, his weaknesses, his detractors, and Gorz just spends too much time rehashing all that here. His work less/live more fails to acknowledge the current social, political, and economic realities most people suffer under daily. And while many of those people may agree with his idea, the ones who need convincing are the super-minority who control just about every lever of power in the machinery of life. Good luck doing that. We need a full revolution, politically AND economically AND socially but that is almost impossible due to the extreme precarity of most people's lives.
March 31, 2018
Written in 1988 this is a book which prefigures the direction of the modern economy. Gorz's book is a manifesto for the future outlining how the changes in productivity can be captured to reduce the hours that we all work. As technology and automation advance work no longer offers either fulfilment or indeed full time work for us all. Rather we should take the opportunity to create a society in which we all have the opportunity to get involved in activity which has social value but which cannot form part of a commodity exchange.
As part of this, Gorz predicts recent changes such as the "gig" economy and the proliferation of zero-hours contracts. As such this book feels surprisingly current bearing in mind it is 30 years old. Gorz's programme is to tackle this by sharing work and skills more equitably, and prevent the creation of an aristocracy of labour dividing society between those who have work and those who don't.
Unsurprisingly therefore he is heavily referenced in books such as Paul Mason's "Postcapitalism". Gorz pursues a similar line of reasoning to that worked through by Srnicek and Williams in "Inventing the Future".
In fact, we can see that the three way division between those with full time work, those in precarious jobs, and those unemployed is exactly how the structure of the economy is developing. What Gorz offers is a proposal to take control of these changes for the benefit of us all rather than allowing them to be captured by a few.
As part of this, Gorz predicts recent changes such as the "gig" economy and the proliferation of zero-hours contracts. As such this book feels surprisingly current bearing in mind it is 30 years old. Gorz's programme is to tackle this by sharing work and skills more equitably, and prevent the creation of an aristocracy of labour dividing society between those who have work and those who don't.
Unsurprisingly therefore he is heavily referenced in books such as Paul Mason's "Postcapitalism". Gorz pursues a similar line of reasoning to that worked through by Srnicek and Williams in "Inventing the Future".
In fact, we can see that the three way division between those with full time work, those in precarious jobs, and those unemployed is exactly how the structure of the economy is developing. What Gorz offers is a proposal to take control of these changes for the benefit of us all rather than allowing them to be captured by a few.
September 16, 2017
Ce livre est magnifique. Qu'on ait des bases académiques ou non, il est très facile de saisir le message global: travailler moins pour vivre plus et vivre mieux. Cette lecture m'avait été recommandée après un débat sur le travail et la société actuelle, et que cet auteur reflétait mes idées et pensées. Je suis tout à fait d'accord et sur la même longueur d'onde que l'ensemble des arguments que j'ai pu y trouver. Ce qui n'arrive jamais!
November 3, 2024
Harika bir inceleme ve eleştiri, rezalet öneriler.
March 4, 2017
The first portion of the book covers the history of "economic reasoning" and it meshes perfectly with where we are currently at. This book was written in the late eighties and Gorz correctly took measure of horizons of that day, and in the book he describes exactly what has happened in the ensuing 30 years.
The second portion of the book describes, as a way out of our current crisis, a utopia of decreasing work hours. His solution logically follows his rather prescient understanding of economic history, and a case can be made that our average working hours have been decreasing, but his utopia is based on ever-rising productivity, and since it has actually been mostly falling since the earlyish nineties, his ideal is not as convincing.
But still a shorter work week is a decent, workable and probably achievable goal. Despite being incorrect about productivity gains I couldn't recommend this book more.
The second portion of the book describes, as a way out of our current crisis, a utopia of decreasing work hours. His solution logically follows his rather prescient understanding of economic history, and a case can be made that our average working hours have been decreasing, but his utopia is based on ever-rising productivity, and since it has actually been mostly falling since the earlyish nineties, his ideal is not as convincing.
But still a shorter work week is a decent, workable and probably achievable goal. Despite being incorrect about productivity gains I couldn't recommend this book more.
August 7, 2025
Öncelikle şu tespit doğru: Ekonomik rasyonalitenin, her şeyi metriklere, verimliliğe ve faydaya indirgediği dünyada yaşıyoruz. Ama bu dünyanın içinde yaşıyor olmamız, onu salt ideolojiyle değiştirebileceğimiz anlamına gelmiyor. Gorz, teknik aklın eleştirisini yaparken teknik araçlarla ne kadar iç içe olduğumuzu ve bu araçların artık kültürel-dilsel örüntülerimize sızdığını göz ardı ediyor. İnsan, sırf “başka bir dünya mümkün” dedi diye eski dünya içinden kolayca sıyrılamıyor.
Bir diğer mesele de şu: Gorz’un ekonomi karşıtı tutumu, zaman zaman ekonomik gerçeklikleri görmezden geliyor. Örneğin işin anlamını, sadece "varoluşsal bir kendini gerçekleştirme alanı" gibi sunmak romantik olabilir. Oysa pek çok insan için iş, hayatta kalmanın yegâne yolu. Emek sömürüsü kadar emek güvencesizliği de ciddi bir problem ve bu meseleleri çözmek için sadece kavramsal eleştiriler değil, somut politikalar gerekir. Gorz’un önerdiği alternatifler—örneğin temel gelir gibi çözümler—yer yer havada kalıyor çünkü sistemin dönüşümünü mümkün kılacak politik araçlara dair somut bir çerçeve sunmuyor.
Bir diğer mesele de şu: Gorz’un ekonomi karşıtı tutumu, zaman zaman ekonomik gerçeklikleri görmezden geliyor. Örneğin işin anlamını, sadece "varoluşsal bir kendini gerçekleştirme alanı" gibi sunmak romantik olabilir. Oysa pek çok insan için iş, hayatta kalmanın yegâne yolu. Emek sömürüsü kadar emek güvencesizliği de ciddi bir problem ve bu meseleleri çözmek için sadece kavramsal eleştiriler değil, somut politikalar gerekir. Gorz’un önerdiği alternatifler—örneğin temel gelir gibi çözümler—yer yer havada kalıyor çünkü sistemin dönüşümünü mümkün kılacak politik araçlara dair somut bir çerçeve sunmuyor.
August 13, 2016
I have no memory of the content of this and no idea why I read it. it seems up my alley politically but strange that I would read a book called the critique of economic reason. it must not have been as dry as it sounds.
September 8, 2016
Best analysis of the situation of workers in regards to the predominate Economic Reason, as well as an amazing Critique of the Economics of Capitalism.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews