Yeah, but that interview on Fox News really killed the movement pretty hard lol
Why? An interview with any right wing idiot doesn’t dent their movement
Because they lost all credibility that day
No, a jackass appeared on fox.
You gotta stop doing the propaganda for them, dude.
Yes I agree with that but what matters is how the people saw it. That jackass became the face of the movement, and with that face the movement could only die
Actually given the mass of ‘how to push back against bad bosses’ ‘workers rights explained’ ‘go fuck yourself employers’ et al across the net i’d say otherwise.
Genz is notoriously not putting up with bullshit.
Because their movement is idiots.
So they lost an argument to Fox and fox are the idiots. Do you realize how stupid you sound?
Behave
It’s hard. I must reply to far left and far right views. Both are the problem.
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
Maybe I missed the boat on why we do it this way, but I think one of the first things we need to do is decouple jobs from insurance. Not much sucks as bad as losing a job then simultaneously losing insurance (oh but cobra! No cobra is stupidly expensive for someone out of a job)
Wages would need to go up to cover what was lost, not to mention reaching a living wage, the pay still needs to cover cost of insurance. Also in that vein, our tax brackets need to rise, our current ones are outdated compared to inflation.
This soapbox goes on a ways, but that’s probably enough for now.
Fuck Cobra, and, also, hard agree. Healthcare should just…exist. Accessibly.
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.
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)
Kings fucking love doritos
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.
- 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.
It’s weird how the name doesn’t break down to what it really means.
If only there was a word that meant forced labour that injured the worker.
Anti-work is everyone living like a king and eating Doritos and nobody doing hard work.
I would argue: Anti-work is everyone having the choice if living like a king and eating Doritos and nobody doing hard work, if they don’t want to.
Some people enjoy and get great satisfaction from hard work. Most people are inclined to do some form of work (including creative) rather than be completely idle. They should be allowed to do so, if they wish.
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.
Leftists really suck at marketing. Between that, antifa, and defunding the police, they really don’t seem to know how to put a name to an idea that can’t be misconstrued by an opponent with the maturity of a 5 year old (which, as luck would have it, is most opposition). I’d even argue BLM should be on that list.
Edit to add: global warming.
We’re really good at marketing exclusively to other leftists.
Yes, the problem is you create a bubble and look stupid when you talk about anything outside of your bubble.
The real problem is that big media (and therefore the prevailing narratives) are all controlled by the authoritarian corporate establishment.
I believe it stems from Liberalism. Class consciousness is on the rise, but newly-class aware liberals aren’t yet aquainted with Leftist theory. These ideas are popular among liberals that are becoming more familiar with leftism but are disconnected from the centuries of leftist progress.
Black lives matter is the least hyperbolic statement of that movement imaginable. That there was pushback even on that framing speaks more to the vile ess of its opponents than to a failure of marketing.
You might want to put it on your list but it’s the opposite problem to your other examples if anything.
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.
OK, that’s what you’re against, but what are you for?
Mutual aid, free association, common ownership of the means of production, coalescing into a society where people contribute out of genuine gratitude to be part of it
That is totally legal right now. Have at it.
You’re not actually responding to my point, you’re just reacting
Honest smiles. I’m sure exceptions are sure to exist, but for the majority. When I’ve even been adjacent to them, they’re pretty awesome. I don’t care if it’s a wedding between two wonderful ladies or my dad getting a Russian WW2 M1891. There’s that grin, half not believing, half awe, and half pure childish glee that really can’t be beat. I stand for everyone getting that at some time.
It’s gonna suck most of the time, and some people are gonna need a hand to get there, but damn, it’s worth it.
Very cool.
Very cool.
And you can convince a few dozen Ph.Ds to give your kid a university education in exchange for honest smiles considering they have mouths to feed?
You asked what I’m for, not whether it was practical. Lol
For whatever it’s worth, I’m on the same boat as you with the 1.5 smiles per smile: truly fantastic.
Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
It is not illegal. My wife works for an employee owned company.
If you truly believe that systemic critique is based merely on what is legally permissable and not based on systemic pressures and forces, then you need to do some reading.
I know people who work for employee owned companies right now and they are making a metric shit ton of money.
What most of the Tankies on Lemmy seem to want is to recreate the Soviets where the Government makes the decisions. That has never been anything but the easiest way to set up a dictatorship.
No, what socialists actually want is for this paradigm of worker ownership to be writ large across society.
And the reason for that is - it is no measure of comfort to be told “mice are well within their rights to enter the lion’s den”.
I can’t speak for everyone here but I’m fine with everyone making a shit ton of money at co-ops. Personally I couldn’t find one for my profession in my city. ☹️
If everyone here, as they claim, is not against work, then why call it anti work? Why not call it anti labour exploitation?
For all the claims made in this post, I see a hundred saying that wage labor is the same as slavery, so this is a bit hard to believe
When I dig my garden I am doing work. That obviously entails no wage labour let alone labour exploitation. Why is it hard to belive people might be against wage labour in its present form but not against fulfilling, self directed labour?
Because getting food from your own garden is cute but absurdly unsustainable for 8 billion people in this world?
Like it or not, factories and large companies are the reason that 8 billion people can love on this planet. Granted, said companies can be quite abusive and a lot of rules are still in place allowing this abuse, but we’re getting better at it, ymmv per country. Either way, abuse is not as bad today as it was 100 years ago or even 50 years ago. If automation and AI continue their current course, we’ll all be working 2-3 day weeks soon as well.
Either way, I get the point, I’m just saying don’t swing too far in the other direction either.
Just an example, take caring for my kids or decorating my house or even working out if you don’t like that one. What do you mean by “the other direction”?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. You listed child care, and hobbies. What havr those to do with work?
The other direction being this antiwork thing which is highly unrealistic and in reality just a bunch of lazy guys complain about having to actually do work, like everyone else, thinking that somehow magically the world would be so much better if everyone dat on their fat ass
OK so you’re just here to strawman and insult. Thanks for outing yourself.
As someone who is legitimately anti-work I have a real problem with people who just want to change things. We’re not getting FALGSC with “work reform” because then there’s no reason to fully automate it.
FALGSC isn’t going to happen overnight, and work reform is a realistic interim solution.
Arguing for lower hours and more pay to match the massive increases in productivity we’ve seen over the last 100 years is totally feasible. And a step in the right direction long term.
FALGSC is currently not feasible, and at this rate automation is only making the rich richer
So much this, even if we saw automation replace millions of jobs tomorrow, it would take years for any meaningful shift to support those out of work. On the other hand, even some conservatives are interested in 32 hour work weeks. Baby steps are the most we can realistically hope for.
We’re pretty far from being able to automate everything
Which is why it’s a goal not a demand.
And we’ll stay that way as long as we think people should have jobs
“Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism” for those that want to save the time searching.
What even…?
I just learned the term, but it sounds like the society from Star Trek but everyone is Sulu.
There’s !workreform@lemmy.world
Why the hell haven’t you guys shifted the movement name over to work reform after what happened on tv? It’s not helping
Personally I am in favour of the former definition, just substitute “othet people” with “automation”
20
