Against Work-Worship: A Case for the Four-Hour Day

Russell contends that modern society wrongly idolizes work and neglects the value of leisure, even though technology makes short hours sufficient for general comfort. He shows how savings can harmfully fund wars or failed enterprises, and how productivity gains perversely create unemployment instead of shorter workdays. He proposes a four-hour day, education for intelligent leisure, and a cultural shift toward valuing enjoyment and creativity, which would yield healthier, kinder, and more peaceful societies.

Key Points

• The belief that work is inherently virtuous is harmful; leisure, enabled by modern technology, should be widely distributed.
• Spending sustains employment, while saving—especially funding governments for war or failed investments—often misdirects labor and harms society.
• Productivity gains should translate into shorter working hours for all, not unemployment and overwork for some (illustrated by the pins example).
• The work ethic stems from historical exploitation and persists as hypocrisy in the West and as work-worship in Russia; both mistake toil as an end.
• A four-hour workday, paired with education for active leisure, would boost culture, science, well-being, and peace.

Sentiment

Generally positive and nostalgic toward Russell’s thesis and prose, with minor, focused skepticism about his wartime economic argument.

In Agreement

• Russell’s definition of work as either physical labor or directing others remains incisive and relevant, especially its critique of politics and advertising.
• The essay is still an engaging, thought-provoking read nearly a century later.
• Leisure as a positive social value resonates with readers, often evoking nostalgia and humor.
• For those sympathetic to anti-work ideas, Russell’s essay aligns with and can be deepened by more radical critiques like Bob Black’s “The Abolition of Work.”

Opposed

• Russell’s wartime evidence for the feasibility of broad leisure is economically questionable because it appears to ignore imports funded by borrowing; improved well-being may have been sustained by external supply rather than solely by domestic productivity.
• The critique of idle landowners may be less applicable today, as social and economic structures have since changed.