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.
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.
…but we need to be compensated for those contributions accordingly.
This is the part they object to, thanks to the proliferation of Econ 101 thinking. Market wages are, after all, competitive by definition. For someone that hasn’t gone beyond basic economics, what you’re paid for the work you do is fair compensation.
The anti-work rhetoric is, first of all, incredibly misleading for people who take things at face value. But more important, the underlying theory for why market wages aren’t fair is different for each person you talk to. There is no coherent, rhetorically forceful reasoning for why people should be paid more. And separate messages that arrive at the same conclusion aren’t really effective at scale.
Getting paid better would be nice, but that will just bring the middle class closer to poverty. I’ve been a part of this community for a few years now and I have been fighting for better wages this whole time. But the biggest pain to me is inflation. Things keep costing more and more, but I keep making the same amount of money. Wouldn’t price regulations be a better solution to all of this to all of this? Not trying to start a fight, but looking for a slight skew from the topic.
Wouldn’t price regulations be a better solution to all of this
What would that solve though?
I mean say, a loaf of bread is price regulated at $3/loaf. Do we treat it like the minimum wage and let it sit there for 15 years at $3? What about bread producers? After a few years, they’re certainly not getting paid the market price for their production. Is that justified to ensure that bread remains at $3?
The problems of price controls are demonstrated quite convincingly with rent controls versus just building affordable housing: the former doesn’t increase the housing supply which means, even if rent is affordable, some people remain homeless.
Idk, how are thinking about it?
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
deleted by creator
One main reason for keeping the pressure in the system is that whichever global superpower exploits their population the most effectively has the upper hand in most fronts. If there wasn’t a competition for world dominance then we could all relax a bit more. Til then we are forced into vigilance.
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.
Not sure which came first though - capitalism or human nature. Capitalism creates artificial scarcity but it also capitalizes on human nature, namely those who want to be ‘better’ than others.
In some places, people keep telling their kids ‘go to college so you’ll have a good life and be educated, not like those laborers’. As a consequence, today there might be less skilled electricians, plumbers and the like. And those jobs pay better, and are arguably less boring than, say, working in a bank with a college diploma. Point being, just like a college diploma is a sign of status, so is the iphone and some random brand-name knick-knack or eating caviar.
For society to advance to the stage you’re proposing, we first have to get over our inflated egos and our need to be better than the rest, in whatever random field we manage to, be it food, clothes, tech, cars or diplomas. I’d want a world in which the garbage man has it as good as the university professor. Not sure the university professor would, though? But they both provide valuable services to society at large.
Honestly, there aren’t that many changes we’d need to get there. For example, instead of working one person 60 hours we can work two people 30 hours. If we divorce benefits from full time status, companies won’t have to pay all that much to make the system work.
With universal income, people could opt to work part of the year, or work for a few years and take time off, or however else they want to do it. There would still be an incentive to work, just not to work to death.
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.
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.
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.)
I think that modern work is something done to us, as a form of violence. We’re told to go here, do this, and in return we get just enough to get by. Humans are definitely not lazy, but we do have a problem with slavery.
You think you should not work for a living?
The logical conclusion of
you should have to work (to make money, transactionally, anything not valued by capitalism and rich people doesn’t even count, if you don’t or can’t fit this model it doesnt count) to make a living
is that
if you don’t work (with the previous very large caveats for what counts as ‘work’), you deserve to suffer and die
A lot of people don’t think about the implications of that statement when they make it, but that is the logical end point. My experience is that most people - at least if they aren’t stressed from the existing model - absolutely want to do things, often sharing them for free, without coercion.
But even if not, do you think people should be miserable and die if they can’t or even won’t “work for a living” (for a very particular narrow definition of work that can gain you money under the current system, when stuff created and donated is often more valuable than things payed for due to lack of perverse incentives - e.g. FOSS ^.^).
I’m not even starting on how the current model of labour provides perverse anti-automation incentives. Automation should be liberating, but the way our society values people based on labour (e.g. Protestant Work Ethic) actively forces people (and the non-capitalist class as a whole) to avoid tools or processes that should improve our collective lives :/ - imo this is one of the most fucked up things about capitalism.
Pure capitalism without rules is bad, sure.
Capitalism is also THE most successful system in our history. Without capitalism you’d be dead. Me too. Without capitalism the would wouldn’t be able to sustain more than a few hundred million people. Do not underestimate all the processes we have in place that make it that you have your Hamburger.on your place to eat and survive. Hospitals would cease to function without it.
So let’s call capitalism a necessary evil of you like. I know there are loads of communist types around here that live in the fantasy world where communism can do this and we’ll, it can’t. If you want, just even look at the history of Communism over the entire world. Every single communist government has failed and has caused only pain and suffering on the practical level.
I fully agree with you that you don’t just want to ket people die so that is the solution?
I’d say a limited capitalist system where we place hard limits on what companies can do, hard limits on sizes and incomes and what people can own through -for example- taxes. The more you earn, the more you pay until taxes reach 100%
With that huge income you finance a socialist state where all the basics are free. Free healthcare , free education, etc. Food and housing is paid with Universal income so that everyone can at least afford a basic nice level of living. Anyone who wants extra can work extra in the capitalist system and earn extra if they want, but not need.
That just my 2 cents, but you’ll still need capitalism. Take that away and you’ll destroy the world and kill millions.
Why the FUCK do you think you’re entitled to get the free labor of bakeries working hard to make bread, farmers farming to create food, and people building technology to make your life easier?
No, you don’t have to work. Go live in the forest and farm your own food. Maybe then when a lion attacks you you’ll realize the value of modern civilization.
That’s true, but the whole point of technology and modern civilization was to make us lazy and somehow people are working even more? Except for like 5 people.
Most people in the west can work less, if they are willing to sacrifice comfort, material goods etc.
“Hello, I would like to benefit from society without contributing to it”
Yes, owners do this.
It is very unfortunate that posts like the OP portray the anti work movement in that way, but anti work does not mean that. I think this other commenter summarized it better: https://lemm.ee/comment/3155176
there are ways to contribute that aren’t 40+ hours a week.
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
Yeah no, that’s actually literally illegal. You might be able to get away with stealth camping, but you can’t just set up a homestead in a fucking forest or something. That shit would be knocked down, you’d be fined, and then you’d be jailed when you fail to pay the fine.
Yes they are, moron.
Taxes are hardly optional, and they WILL punish you for seeking independence.
“Yet you partecipate in society. Curious! I am very intelligent.”
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.
The original anti work community on Reddit was more about the abolition of work, before being co-opted by work reformists. It wasn’t about just “pushing back”, but about abolishing the modern concept of wage labor under capitalism.
Money doesn’t need to exist, so your complaint about them just wanting things for free is ludicrous and strikes me as capitalist apologia.
I recommend reading The Abolition of Work to better understand the concept. At the very least, it would allow you to form actually compelling arguments against the idea so that you don’t have to continue showing your ignorance.
Human nature, regardless of political systems, dictates that one and their family must provide trade-worthy value to receive trade-worthy value. There are plenty of exceptions to that thanks to charity (at any scale) and social policies that allow for some to provide little trade-worthy value and still receive essential benefits (for example, those with disabilities). But if there were an option to provide no trade-worthy value and receive completely satisfying goods, accommodations, and freedoms in return, then productive people would naturally feel foolish for spending time working any more than they like to. There is some point where there wouldn’t be enough people to maintain the benefits for the non-workers. Although people would offer to work as good will, labor and supply shortages would be far more frequent or constant. So should we allow the option, but only a limited amount so that the threshold of value-produced to value-consumed is never met? It’s unlikely that there would be good relations between the class of people in society that would be gifted with that option and those that aren’t.
Does “human nature” “dictate” that nuclear families are a central organizational structure within society, or are there plenty of exceptions, in the sense of societies following systems and cultures very different from the one under which you live?
Is this a community of a bunch of children? What is this?
Good luck finding a sucker to subsidize you and your lazy ass.
I think the alternative is living out in the wild, fending for yourself. As much as I hate the inequality and mediocrity of modern life, it’s something of a step up from living like that. I love watching Primitive Technology, but I probably couldn’t handle that life. Imagine spending hours collecting fire wood, spending hours/days turning it into charcoal and building a clay oven just to fire up some shit you picked up from the river in hopes of getting a few globules of iron, to make like a small shank or a spear tip or something (after maybe weeks of effort). Oh, and you’re having to get your own food and maybe bathe yourself every so often. Super interesting to watch, but holy shit is that alot of work for so little (compared to what we’re used to seeing). Life is work.
It’s not, actually. The majority of human history is neither humans fending for themselves, nor submitting to wage slavery. Humans are collaborative, social beings. Even the nuclear family is an aberration on our otherwise multi generational and communal shared history.
Who’s going to take care of you?
Are we owed anything simply by being born?
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.
In actual civilization, yes, we are.
Basic accommodations are a human right according to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Jesus had a few things to say about feeding the hungry, but Paul didn’t fully agree.
