this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2022
-1 points (33.3% liked)
Antiwork
8271 readers
5 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'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.