this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2022
-1 points (33.3% liked)
Antiwork
8271 readers
2 users here now
-
We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.
-
We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.
Partnerships:
- Matrix/Element chatroom
- Discord (channel: #antiwork)
- IRC: #antiwork on IRCNow.org (i.e., connect to ircs://irc.ircnow.org and
/join #antiwork) - Your facebook group link here
- Your x link here
- lemmy.ca/c/antiwork
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I do think work reform is a much better description as well.
I vote for work reform name change.
Anytime I mentioned antiwork to someone, the first thought they had was lazy people not wanting to work and I would have to explain the movement. After explaining everything and making good points, they would just stare at me and then ask 'why is it called antwork'?
The work reform name explains itself. And who wouldn't want to improve and reform their workplace. Its instantly much more relateable.
Antiwork as a concept only makes sense in the context of being against the way work is structured under capitalism. The fundamental idea behind work is that certain things need to be done in order for people to live whether people like doing these things or not. We need to produce food, build housing, provide sanitation, healthcare, and all the other things that make a society function. Focusing on labor organization such as forming unions, starting cooperatives, and other ways for workers to take control seems as a more productive way to move forward.
You didn't address my point. I completely agree with the concept of bullshit jobs, and working towards minimizing required work. However, the concept of work doesn't go away in any foreseeable future. The real issue is with who decides on the purpose of work and nature of work.
Under capitalism, the means of production are largely owned by a small group of capitalists and the purpose of work is to create further wealth for these people. Any social benefit from work is strictly incidental, and much of this work can even be actively harmful to society. Corporate lobbyists are an example of a job that creates negative social value that would be considered a bullshit job. Furthermore, workplaces are run as dictatorships where the owners get to unilaterally decide how the work is done, and what rights the employees have.
I think that the purpose of work should be to create social value first and foremost. Any required work should be directed towards making life better for everyone. The only way we can achieve that is through public ownership. We need to move away from the capitalist model and move towards socialism where ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the general public. And of course, it should be the workers who make all the decisions regarding how they work.
Simply focusing on antiwork misses the bigger picture and fails to provide emancipation for the people who make our society run.
I'd argue it's very much relevant to theory behind the whole concept. I've read Geaeber, and I'm not jumping to any conclusions here as far as I can tell. Nowhere does Graeber argue that work as a concept would disappear in the foreseeable future. I don't see Russell arguing anything of the sort either. Since you're clearly caught up on the theory, why don't you address the point I made for everyone's benefit.
To sum up, you provided links to read and now you're saying you don't agree with the theory you linked. Amazing stuff. You still haven't explained how any of the writings contradict my points. The ones I've read certainly don't.
Surely since you've read and understood this anarchist theory you're promoting, you'd be able to explain it to others in simple terms. As Albert Einstein famously said, if you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself. I'll leave it as is. :)
So, you sent me a link and now that you realized I've read the things you linked to, you're distancing yourself from it. Amazing stuff.
I read both Graeber and Russell, neither of them say anything remotely close to eliminating work entirely. You're evidently unable to explain how that would work either, and just keep deflecting when asked. Don't make me laugh. ;)
You wouldn't be just explaining it to me, you'd be explaining it to everyone on this public forum. This is an idea that you're promoting and you are evidently unable to explain the basics of this idea.
At least I'm able to articulate my points and ask people to read books if they're interested in more details. You are unable to articulate what this theory of yours is, which is quite telling.
You're claiming I don't understand what Graeber and Russell write, but again fail to articulate what it is that you claim I'm not understanding. The term for what you're doing here is sophistry.