I mean… probably originally, but that’s not all that it is, nowadays. Some people really do unironically mean the former, in that sub on the social network that shall not be named (though I haven’t checked it for… hrm, almost a year now!:-P).
I do feel like the former or something close to it should be our goal as a society.
Um… you probably meant the latter, as in the second one, right? Eating Doritos while slaves do all the hard work - presuming we aren’t talking about non-sentient robots but actual people - sounds kinda selfish to me:-P.
Edit: to clarify, I’m down with the live like a King 👑 and eat Doritos 🔺 parts, it’s only the pesky slavery 🤕 part that I’m against!
Lol, I did mean the former, but yes, I was imagining automation/etc taking over the role of most jobs.
Best I can do is bad AI art and music to take away the hobbies of a lot of people and to stop paying people who do that for a living.
Oh man, so very many movies would disagree with you there. “I, Robot” and “Terminator” come to mind, and “The Matrix”. But perhaps most important: “Wall-E”, as in those fat fuckers sat down and simply… never stood up again. (yeah, you can tell I am old from my selection:-D)
Don’t get me wrong, Doritos are effing delicious! But also, we need some amount of balance in our lives to help make them worth living. What we gain in comfort there, we lose in autonomy, and that’s not a trade-off I would willingly make, even if I could. I mean, I’m not insane - or Amish - I use technology and I enjoy comfort, but I also value the ability to give something back to society through my work.
What e.g. “made America great” (in the 50-60s) was that people’s work would get them something in return for it - a house, a family, college education for their kids, etc. - as opposed to today where other than rent work only buys the ability to purchase barely some food & weed, and many people have lost all hope of ever owning their own home, or getting healthcare.:-( I get it - that’s beyond fucked up. But what that means is that something was stolen from us (autonomy & freedom), not given (comfort & ease, e.g. look at Google search).
TLDR: When we become reliant upon the machines, that’s when they own us rather than the other way around.
You’d be dismayed by how many people don’t even have that scruple, as long as it’s happening in the third world.
Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism after all.
I mean… current democracies are, and all of them throughout history have devolved into plutocracies, before eventually falling. e.g. the USA is neoliberal, and it is not the only one:-(.
But I don’t know if all “social democracies” inherently imply that. Then again, that term might just be a fantasy one rather than applicable to irl structures, especially in the modern age of the internet and therefore the “disinformation age”. Who could have guessed (cough Reagan cough) that some nations might want to take over other nations, not with overt warfare that could cause mutual nuclear annihilation but by simply buying out a single TV station and being allowed to label it as “news”?
details
But from a personal standpoint, isn’t gradualism the only way to have any hope of any kind of impact at all, without the weight of a corporation or government behind someone? e.g., upon hearing that children without protective gear are being used to gather cacao used to make chocolates and not being paid fairly, do we personally avoid purchasing chocolate forevermore, or upon further learning that children harness cacao without protective gear purely for fun (apparently it’s easy and enjoyable?), and that their only other alternative is actual slave labor like in a mine or some such, continue our purchases and maybe even buy more (getting fair trade wherever available)? Personally I have no fucking clue, but I could see someone ethically going either direction, and that’s something, though on an individual level neither seems like it would do much good. (personally I am leaning in the latter direction, lately, b/c you cannot regulate or improve an industry that does not exist, but I suppose that depends on what else you would purchase instead - bananas? sugarcane or a derivative? what foodstuffs even don’t involve slavery at some point!? but that’s what I mean: you can’t improve something unless you keep it alive, so if you switch to something that doesn’t involve slavery, that’s awesome, but if you cannot, then maybe pick something to improve and work on that until it gets better - which is gradualism, aka vote for Biden now and hope for better later, even if it seems unlikely, b/c you know for sure that Trump will move things in a direction for the worse)
Social democracy maintains that very exploitation. There is little disagreement among liberals when it comes to the exploitation of the third world.
You want food stuffs that don’t involve slavery? End neocolonialism.
Social democracy maintains that very exploitation.
Right, it maintains that exploitation… by keeping the democracies of the Western world functioning. Whereas in contrast, Right-wingers want to end all of that - the democracy, the modern society (of e.g. middle-class), etc. - and replace it with both even higher exploitation abroad, as well as similar levels of it at home as well.
An analogy is a person who stinks, due - in part - to the fact that they refuse to wear deodorant or wash. If we kill said person, they won’t stink less - in contrast, they will stink quite a bit moar! - and they still will refuse to put on deodorant and to wash themselves (and in fact, perhaps they could have been persuaded to do such before, but now they are flat incapable of either no matter what amount of either carrot or stick are used).
That said, when I mentioned “keeping the democracies of the Western world functioning”, I don’t mean to imply that democracy is the only way to survive. Rather, I meant that the two things are not mutually exclusive - we need some kind of government, and then the principles that (meta-? hehe) govern said government will dictate what radiates outwards from it.
To pick one notable example, an “Emperorship” (oh right, “for a day”… r-r-RIIIIIIIGHT) where one man (person? no, who are we kidding) ruling the masses might do it? But that seems extremely doubtful, especially given the propensity of Trump to just grab whatever he wants that is within reach - even if that thing is someone’s genitals.:-( (of either gender, one to pet and the other to crush ruthlessly, like Chris Christie’s hopes & dreams)
There is little disagreement among liberals when it comes to the exploitation of the third world.
Um… I think you are perhaps not listening to the right set of liberals? Probably there is a more specific (narrow) meaning to what you said like modern philosophers or some such, perhaps adding constraints like what might be viable in the modern world, in the sense of traversing a pathway from here to the desired end-goal, and if so then I probably could not educate you further than you already know. But not all liberal-minded common folk agree that exploitation is either good or even that it is not horribly bad, I can tell you that much! John Oliver is one such exemplar - I know, he’s no “philosopher”, but at some point shouldn’t the opinion of the masses weigh in, especially if the way to get to there from here would be by voting?!
You want food stuffs that don’t involve slavery? End neocolonialism.
Absolutely, we should! Except right now, Boomers are still in charge, so how about we play Russian roulette with the very existence of our nation instead? And then, even if we survive, we’ll leave Mitch McConnell and Mike Johnson in charge of our budgets from basically here on out, while also paying lip mere service to liberalism (which doesn’t mean that liberalism, in theory, does not espouse certain values, only that like Magats follow “Christianity” and “Patriotism”, we’d rather merely say that we do but we really do not).
That said, when I mentioned “keeping the democracies of the Western world functioning”
Most of those “democracies” are dictatorships of capital who depend on the exploitation of the third world to maintain a standard of living at home, the essence of social democracy. Maintaining them isn’t a good thing.
I think you are perhaps not listening to the right set of liberals
I think you are not looking at the history of their actions or reading between the lines. The sales of weapons to western-backed dictatorships for the purpose of putting down restive populations in the event they try to rise up don’t stop when a democrat is in charge.
Work as capitalism defines it is alienating. I am very much against unfulfilling drudgery.
Most of us are, including me. Chase your bliss - I truly hope you find it:-).
But please, don’t make other people into your bitch.
Your choice is one thing, but why force others to do your work for you? Read the OP again in case you missed it: in addition to living like a king and eating Doritos, it also says “while other people do all the hard work” - the keyword there is people, as in human beings, not robots.
If, as you claim, you are “very much against unfulfilling drudgery”, then why would you support having others do that work for you?
And maybe that’s not what you meant, so it’s all good and we are in agreement. But it kinda sounded like the opposite, and you were against work only when you might have to do it, and thus by implication perhaps for work so long as it is others who end up doing it? So I just wanted to make sure that I did not leave that unsaid.
You do you, that’s great, so long as you allow the same of others. That’s all I’m saying.
Listen, I’m from the rural south. We do basically everything ourselves. If a toilet needs repaired, we fix it. If the road needs to be graveled in in the potholes, we fix it.
Nobody is asking to do no work. They’re just tired of doing work at the behest of the capitalist class. The problem is that work is both an adjective and a noun. Nobody likes the noun.
The OP graphic literally already distinguished between these two classes. The second one is the “work” you mentioned - we all seem to agree on that part - while the first one is the “sit on your fat, lazy ass while forcing others to do all the work for you”. I hoped that most people here would agree that outright blatant slavery is wrong, but based on a lot of comments here, unfortunately I see that that assumption on my part was wrong. Mea culpa. !antiwork!antiwork@lemmy.ml is oddly pro-slavery I now understand.
Also, you seem to be arguing for literally all of the sides of this, literally all at once. “We do basically everything ourselves” = “we do the work”… as we… both are saying? Except “Nobody likes the noun”, except I guess when everyone in the South does it, and me too.
Btw, every single nation on Earth has a “south” - from your username, am I to assume that you are from South Africa?
Listen,
Wow, starting the conversation with that right off the bat, huh? :-P
those are a small minority, from my experience over there.
Is anyone even left there at all? (On Reddit I mean, not just the sub:-P)
i think a sizeable chunk of leftists migrated here, so probably a bunch of people using at least both.
Yeah, but that interview on Fox News really killed the movement pretty hard lol
Is that right? To the average person, “Anti-Work” sounds like you’re straight up against working, and unless you want to explain this to every single person individually, Fox News is going to keep having a field day misrepresenting your movement.
Yeah, “Work Reform” is much better. There’s this weird trend of massively exaggerating a talking point, as the echo chamber seems incapable of thinking about any kind of optics or moderation
No work reform implies slightly different, which isn’t the point. Any message must make you question the system.
“Anti-Work” does this better how? I’m genuinely confused
If you’re marketing only to people with critical thinking skills you’ll miss most of the voting population, but you do you.
Honestly that mod torpedoing the whole movement with a dumb interview and forcing the rebrand to work reform was probably one of the best things that could’ve happened.
Once I saw a guy arguing for pure capitalism because otherwise the state would have to force people to work with threats of incarceration or whatever.
It’s like some sort of trolley problem delusion. It is fine shoving desperate people into whatever jobs they can get, but only if the Invisible Hand does it. It’s fine if the threat is homelessness and starvation, but only if the Invisible Hand does it.
Why the hell haven’t you guys shifted the movement name over to work reform after what happened on tv? It’s not helping
Exactly! I have a genetic illness that caused congenital deformities and injuries and disability later in life, starting around my teens thanks to puberty.
From an early age my relationship with work was distorted because I found myself trapped in the gap between two pathways. I was obviously capable of work, with the right treatment and support I had a lot of potential. But I was disabled, and I required expensive supports and medical intervention, and under the public healthcare system there reaches a point of disability and limitations in capacity that you are written off by the system. Shoved in a residential group home, given a pension below the poverty line, and expected not to try. (genuinely, we’re expected not to try, if someone on a disability pension works a job, they can loose their pension, which is many cases is also tied to housing and access to medical services)
I’d flip between the two systems, I’d have a great few months with regular access to treatment, I’d get a job plan from the dole office, I’d sit through work readiness courses, I’d be getting healthier and looking forward to working and being a good little contributor to society. Then I’d hit a waiting list for my medical care, my health would slip, I’d be re-assessed by the welfare department and deemed too disabled to work, my job plan would be shredded and I’d get a pension support plan. Then I’d get to the top of the wait list, resume treatment, and get back to getting to work.
I didn’t start a “real job” until I was 24, it was a call centre gig and I near killed myself trying to do it.
It wasn’t even hard. It was a true 9-5 (no overtime, no bullshit) and you mentally didn’t need to bring any of it home with you. It was easy for me, but my body decided it was too much. My health suffered and it took years to fully recover, with me barely pulling myself together here and there for gig work in between being bounced on and off the disability pension system.
The whole endeavour was far more expensive to tax payers than a system like UBI. Processing my case 70 times because the disability support, and employment support eligibility requirements are so strict and the lines between streams so black and white took a lot of administrative resources.
I’ve been in my current industry for 10 years this November. I work part time, 12-20 hours a week depending on my health. I’m highly successful in my field because I’m working within my body and mind’s means and playing to my strengths. I’m a whole person with a life outside work and I bring that range of experiences to my job, enriching what I bring to my organisation - which is good, because my job is a mutual exchange between me and my employer, it’s not exploitive towards me the worker, which further prevents burn out for me.
But we exist within the capitalist system of funding and our wages are set by the department of health and human services. I make $34,000AUD a year and it’s not enough to survive.
But if I work any harder my body will not survive.
I’m asking to do what I can do for my community, while living a safe existence… Not being forced to choose between litteraly breaking my back working for someone else’s greedy profit, or starving in a tent (though realistically, a lot of people are doing both)
- 60 seems optimistic
- Plenty of “antiwork supporters” do believe option 1
- Your stance is valid
They may think they believe it, but the lockdowns of 2020 showed otherwise. Unless you’re one of the “lucky” nonneurotypical people with a disorder that makes it possible to just lay around and do nothing, people go stir crazy. Feeling productive may as well be on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. That’s one of the reasons the great resignation happened. Way too many of us are working bullshit jobs, and we got to face that reality head on, and didn’t like it one bit.
Anti-work is anti-exploitation.
It’s not about people wanting to be lazy yet still have all the niceties, it’s about not being coerced into a lifetime of labor to enrich the ones coercing you. A person’s labor should enrich themselves and those they choose.
So… anti-physical labor work?
Non-physical labour is also often incredibly stressful, stress has similar effect on both mental and physical health of people.
Hm… I can agree with that. Especially if working in a toxic environment. After all, when you’re negatively impacted mentally, it does have the effect of making you physically lethargic.
Not just lethargy really, chronic stress is really bad for your body. Also the symptoms make it more likely for people to not engage in good lifestyle choices like exercise and better food.
Personally I am in favour of the former definition, just substitute “othet people” with “automation”
Compromise: be the king of Doritos but also have ample opportunity for a job that actually pays a living wage; and good insurance to coincide with said title
I take issue with all the comments suggesting that the movement should be rebranding into “work reform”, because reforming is absolutely not the point. Speaking as someone who subscribes to the anti-work movement, my problem is not that much with current laboral laws and, in fact, I’d go as far as saying that all jobs I have had so far have been reasonably respectful with me except for maybe one.
My problem with that is that we consider normal that, in order to deserve leading a meaningful life, we must be working for someone richer or for the economy. Our life must be dedicated to constantly providing products and services so that we deserve to enjoy what little is left of it. In more concrete terms, I don’t like that we must get into wage labor in order to have access to fundamental goods such as food, water, housing, amenities or even free time. I believe all human beings living in a society capable of providing these are entitled to them, I also believe that our current society is perfectly capable of that, and that the only reason why the working class only gets conditional access or no access at all to fundamental goods are bullshit “number go up” reasons. I don’t buy for a second that homeless people deserve their status because “they didn’t work hard enough”. Wage labor being such a central axis of our current way of life is what I’m strongly opposed to.
Furthermore, I regard the power balance between employer and worker to be fundamentally broken, and no reform can do away with that. When you sign a contract and accept the terms of a job, are you really accepting them or just avoiding the alternative, the threat of homelessness? For a lot of people who can’t find jobs easily, not signing might mean starving or losing their home. How is that not coercion? Sure, if you don’t accept the terms of your current job, you can just look for another (even though this is not a reasonable posibility for a lot of people), but any job will offer as little pay with as many working hours as possible because, due to the lack of meaningful consent, all employers can get away with that. And we accept it as normal and reasonable.
I also don’t believe that abolishing wage labor will make people spend their whole lives not adding anything to society. If given enough free time, people will get bored of not doing anything and engage in work that they actually enjoy, of their own actual volition. I know I get involved into a lot of things given long enough vacations or subsidized unemployement. Now imagine if we just could get organized to find out what tasks need to be done, and each picked the tasks that they geniunely want to do, without being coerced. Without rich assholes and investors getting involved and often forcing us to work long hours on tasks that won’t add anything to the world, but they make money.
“Reforming” laboral laws is absolutely not enough for this. Sure, I’d appreciate a reduction in my working hours, an increase in my salary, more vacations, etc but even if those goals were met, I’d still be out there protesting for the reasons I’ve just stated. Work, as we understand it today, is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed without it being abolished first.
You may not agree with me, mind you, and have a more moderate position stating that work must not be abolished as it can be meaningfully reformed. But then you are subscribing to a different ideology altogether. Which is legitimate and can be argued for, but it does not match the ideology of the anti-work movement. Sure, under late capitalism, some short term goals may match, but the long term goals are entirely different. My point being, “work reform” would be a terrible rebranding for the movement because it stands for a different ideology entirely.
You guys got some Doritos?
20
Anti-work is everyone living like a king and eating Doritos and nobody doing hard work.
