this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
920 points (85.5% liked)

Antiwork

8295 readers
75 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rooty@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (5 children)

"Hello, I would like to benefit from society without contributing to it"

[–] cubedsteaks@lemmy.today 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

there are ways to contribute that aren't 40+ hours a week.

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If your position is simply that people need to work less, you're doing a very bad job of relaying that, and thus shooting yourself in both feet.

[–] cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I hate to admit this, but I agree. My qualm isn't with the message that we ought to work less. That's smart. Why shouldn't we live in a society where we can have a fulfilling lifestyle without endless soul crushing work?

My qualm is with the wording. The implication is that one should consent to work, but really work is a fundamental truth. Take away the facade of society and all we have is our struggle to survive the elements and find food, i.e. work.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago

Yes, owners do this.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] frostyfrog@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Nah, like a land lord. The CEO of my company is a very productive person.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[–] explodicle@local106.com 4 points 1 year ago