this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
903 points (85.5% liked)

Antiwork

8292 readers
3 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 82 points 1 year ago (14 children)

It is unfortunate that this anti-work rhetoric often comes off as outrageous, when in reality it isn't. I don't know if the people doing it are intentionally trying to be controversial, or if they just are not good at communicating.

When we complain about work, this doesn't mean that we are asking for a world where we lounge all day at home, and expect that food, shelter and entertainment are magically delivered to us without any regard to how it happens. No, anti-work is not about a blind sense of entitlement. But that is how a lot of these posts come off as, even if their authors don't intend it.

Anti-work is a recognition that the working class works way too damn much; so much more than we need to to have a functioning society with everyone living happily and having their needs met. There's so much inefficiency in capitalism, with aims to drive more capital to the wealthy, and working around other stupidities of capitalism (check out the book "Bullshit jobs" for examples). The ruling class holds hostage the world's resources, and requires you to give them a large portion of your life to get even the minimum needed to sustain your living. Now that is outrageous.

[–] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I think a lot of people have trouble understanding the difference between "I don't want to contribute anything to society" and "I don't want to spend half my waking life laboring for peanuts so that my boss can get rich".

Obviously, we should contribute according to our means, but we need to be compensated for those contributions accordingly.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Good lord this community is cringe most of the time.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (6 children)

"Hello, I would like to benefit from society without contributing to it"

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

there are ways to contribute that aren't 40+ hours a week.

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If your position is simply that people need to work less, you're doing a very bad job of relaying that, and thus shooting yourself in both feet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HellAwaits@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And I'm not seeing a single comment in here that is saying otherwise.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

Yes, owners do this.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] whelk@lemm.ee 35 points 1 year ago

When I say I'm tired of working for a living I don't mean that I don't want to work, I meant that I don't want to work for other people doing something I don't care about so someone I don't care about can better achieve something I don't care about just so they pay me money for it. I'm happy to work when that goes directly goes toward my own well-being and that of my family and local community. I just get so tired of doing work that I have no personal investment in beyond "it makes me money so I can then give that money to other people."

So I play Rimworld and dream of what it would be like to have a role in a small community where everyone does their part for the direct benefit of the community and it isn't all just about money.

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Pretty sure in the old days, when there were fewer people, you could just fuck off into the forest and build yourself a cottage. If your feudal lord found out you’d be in trouble, but they didn’t have satellites or whatnot to track you down.

We have this weird unwritten assumption that the cost of technological advancement (esp medical) was our own domestication. That we sacrificed freedom and privacy for health and safety. I wonder if that’s really the case, or if it’s some bullshit post hoc justification

[–] RupeThereItIs@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You'd still have to work for your living in said scenario.

Nobody is gonna bring you chicken tendies three times a day in your hidden cottage.

Uncontacted hunter gathered tribes work, it's right there in the description. Not 40 hours a week, sure, but you can live a much simpler lifestyle in the wilderness on a similar work ethic.

Labor is an intrinsic requirement of human life.

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Working for your own reasons is fundamentally different than laboring and having part of what you produce taken from you by an employer

[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (9 children)

You can work for your own reasons right now. But you don't have the right to just grab any piece of land and confiscate it for your own use. There are too many of us for that.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Neato@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

You could try. But there's 2 problems with that. Firstly surviving on your own is extremely difficult. Subsistence farming is hell and without a community often ends in death after a single drought or bad crop.

And secondly the medieval era didn't have that much empty, unclaimed land that could support either farming or hunting. There were farming communities everywhere there was open space. And old forests in Europe are pretty much entirely man controlled by this point. Poaching was a serious crime because of population control and logging was also controlled.

What I'm saying is, no man is an island and very few could survive as one. There's a reason we developed society.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's a good point, perhaps we were freer before. Then again, 90% of the European population were basically slaves during the dark and middle ages, and I also enjoy not dying from dysentery.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cylusthevirus@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

I don't think I'm entitled to someone else's labor, no. I would like fair compensation for mine is all.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

It made sense when working meant providing for families, and even in the industrial revolution where it meant making mass goods for large amounts of people to enjoy.

But what happens when we get the ability to produce more than we need with only a relatively small amount of humans to do it? If we have the resources where we can easily give everyone on the planet a cell phone, why not do it?

We are already there with some goods: for example, we currently produce enough food to feed 1.5x the world’s population. We may very well reach a point in the next 20-30 years where we can produce everything market wants with 50% or perhaps even 25% of adult humans actually working. Our solution so far is creating artificial scarcity, but that’s only going to patch the system for so long.

Already we’re eschewing traditional factory jobs for service industry jobs like meal delivery. But we’re not far off from autonomous delivery vehicles automating that away, too. With the rise of AI, we can expect a lot more jobs to be augmented or superseded by automation over time.

Capitalism rests on the premises that we can always produce more and that people’s value is tied to their labor. But in a post-scarcity, heavily automated world, these premises break down, and suddenly this system doesn’t really work anymore.

Short of a communist revolution, I think we are going to need to start trialing measures that divorce benefits from labor. Most of the world already has healthcare coverage separated from labor (USA is the glaring exception,) and the next step would likely be universal basic income.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] mayo@lemmy.today 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

How I see this problem is that we aren't given to tools to help us decide how we want to live our lives. Work sucks and is a waste of time. Contributing to society is valuable and something I want to do.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

During the 2020 epidemic and lockdown bunches of people were furloughed and we all got to acquaint ourselves with extended cabin fever. Many of us picked up new hobbies and some of those could ne monetized and were better than the (often toxic, underpaid) dayjobs.

It was a conspicuous phenomenon now called the great resignation. Our capitalst masters compain how no one wants to work, but it's evident to the rest of us that it's the toxic underpaid conditions we don't like, and we'd be glad to work if conditions were better.

I suspect laziness isn't a real character flaw or deadly sin so much as the desire to not suffer as we work. (There is avolition, a symptom of mental illnes such as major depression, and this is what drives people to couch-potaro for weeks or months at a time.)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Destraight@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (10 children)

I mean there's a lot of wilderness and open space in the US. No one is stopping you from going out there and starting from scratch. Go ahead and do it

[–] li10@feddit.uk 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, if that’s an option then I respect people who do that, but if you want the comforts of modern society then you need to contribute.

Imo anti work is about pushing back on the ridiculous expectations of companies, and ensuring that employees receive some of the benefits of automation to ease the load on them.

This tweet strikes me as the “but I want everything for freeee!!!” person who makes anti work look bad. Like that idiot Reddit mod who went on Fox News or whatever news station it was.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Yeah I don’t mind working honestly, but I’d love to be able to live as well. Everything revolves around work, and there’s this constant race for improvement and efficiency. There won’t ever be a enough, and that makes me sick.

At some point I’d like to live too. If we’ve gotten so fucking efficient why can’t we cut down the amount of hours of work needed?

No instead we build machines that can perform creative endeavours so all the writers, artists, and the like are freed up to do menial labour instead.

I don’t argue the benefits of society but I still hate it. It’s like an abusive relationship, codependent and toxic. Ugh.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] explodicle@local106.com 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No there isn't; it's all claimed by various people or national parks or something.

The idea that one can go out to the woods and build a new society unhindered is pure fantasy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)

There's the tiny problem of me not being American though.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] HellAwaits@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (7 children)

So I'm not against wanting a better work/life balance. I'm all for unions, teleworks, paid family leave, etc., but you should have to work. This idea that people should not want to work is stupid and makes this community the laughing stock of the internet.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The end of work is not the end of labor. The goal of ending work is better described as destroying work as it exists now, with the exploitation and coercion required to make people work.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ivanafterall@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Actually, that one's on me guys, sorry. I just said we were all okay with it and honestly thought you'd all be fine with it...? Anyway, my bad.

[–] trippingonthewire@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Honestly, I have more of an anarchist mindset. You shouldn't have to work, at least not a job. I'd rather build my own house and grow my own food. Everything I do directly benefits me and my family, not the rich. But I need money to buy the land....

[–] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In general, I agree with you and I understand what you mean. But building your own house and growing your own food - don't underestimate that. It is an amazing idea (and feeling) to work for your own direct benefit. But it is an awful lot of work. My uncle in law lives like that in Ukraine. They have a small house in the middle of a nowhere village. The only money they get is from biking (!) with some of their crops to the next town to sell them. That's a nice life but they have to work hard work from dawn to late evening every single day. No sick days. No weekends. No evenings off. No running water. No warm showers. No plumbing. You poop outside, in the cold, in a little wooden house with a bucket. They kind of chose to live like this (his other siblings moved away, he didn't want to give up their parents' land) but it is a hard life that tears on you. It breaks your bones, literally. As much as we all hate working for corporate here - for obvious reasons that demand all the support we got - be cautious of over-romantisizing this kind of self-sufficient lifestyle in the countryside.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago

For the literal sense, yes, I do remember consenting work for livelihood. Now, that work actually is being made into servitude, I don't remember. Livable work is really scarce, servitude and selling-out isn't.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I mean I guess you can go all Fountainhead and just live in the woods. Of course, you'll probably die if you don't do any work, but you definitely have a choice.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

It's the way of the world. To eat, to live, work must be done. The most fair is way to divide up the work which must be done is by capacity. The fruits of those labors should be distributed first according to need, second according to whomever produced them.

This is not how things are done now, of course. Now, the neediest work hardest, and the fruits of that labor flow to those who have the least need.

[–] ransomwarelettuce@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The premise here is kinda blurred, but I think it does exist and goes something like that:

If you want to live and benefit from a society you must contribute to it

Is it wrong? Is it right? I think the anwser lies somewhere in between.

However one that is not established and I think it should be written down is one that my pops used to say:

Do not live to work, and if you love your job and enjoy it there more than anywhere in the world than you are already living, but even so do it with moderation else it will destroy you or turn something you love back to work.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The main thing that is overlooked is that people who don't work still contribute to society in ways that don't align with capitalism. Not all art needs to be bought and sold. A ton of care is provided for free instead of through a job. A community cleaning up a common space without exchanging money is still contributing to society.

I wouldn't even consider a lot of things that do align with capitalism to be contributing to society. Most advertising for example.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Chriszz@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Who’s going to take care of you?

Are we owed anything simply by being born?

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago (30 children)

Are we owed anything simply by being born?

A major problem with our society is that everything is framed conceptually as debt. A world where you are not born into debt is seen as unjust because your basic needs must be provided by others, and that can supposedly only be a financial transaction.

But from a purely logistical and motivational perspective, it's easy to imagine not threatening people with homelessness and death for not working. Everything is heavily automated. The large majority of people used to be subsistence farmers, now the proportion working in agriculture is less than 2% and we produce way more than is actually needed for human survival. You only need a little bit of labor provided beyond transactional compensation to make it happen. As for why anyone would choose to do so, it would be for all the same reasons people already work other than the threat of death; status, money, luxury, desire for purpose and fulfillment.

The only question is whether it is morally good and acceptable to allocate resources to someone without demanding payment. And it is; just stop thinking of debt as inherently right and required, and recognize that it's better not to force debt on someone just for being born and having basic needs.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] nehal3m@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You are not owed a damn thing, the universe is a cold, uncaring bitch.

That said, we humans are nothing if not an ingenious bunch. We've come up with all sorts of ways to work more efficiently. The amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it

Instead of choosing to work less and live a life of leisure, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, we kept working at the same or an increasing rate to make more money, or rather, those who own(ed) the capital and technology that makes it so did.

It's a bit of a pithy answer in an online comment but I genuinely believe humanity as a whole would be happier with less if it meant we got to live life on our own terms by default. Ever growing consumption way past the point of necessity comes with a host of problems (power and wealth imbalance, climate change, destruction of nature, etc) but by far the biggest one is the sheer waste of our few laps around the sun.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] willeypete23@reddthat.com 10 points 1 year ago

Every square inch of the earth is owned. I cannot fuck off into the woods, build a cabin, grow vegetables, hunt food, etc. I'm forced to be a part of society. Laws say I cannot provide for myself by natural means, there for society is required to provide for me within its system.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›