• captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 months ago

    The anti work movement is really 2 things. You’ve got the “I want to work as little as I can” group who no matter the circumstances would do just that. Shove 10 people in a house that work part time with a big garden types. And you’ve got the “my hours and pay need to reflect increases in efficiency and decreases in amount of work I need to do”. Both unify in hating work. And both are useful to the cultural milieu, the former more like the hippies who dropped out of society and the latter like the people who demanded the 40 hour work week

    • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Ok but that means most sane people arent antiwork but just want work reforms if im right. And it confuses like minded people(like me).

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        You aren’t entirely wrong but also the difference winds up in perspective. Work reform seeks to change work, usually through cooperation. You can compare it to a liberal union like the teamsters. Antiwork seeks to remove work’s status as the main focus of a significant chunk of our lives. It can be more easily compared to a radical union like the IWW. Both can probably settle on a compromise that they’re both comfortable with, but how they relate to folks like bosses and those who drop out is going to be different.

        And I wouldn’t call those who minimize their labor insane but rather differently prioritized. Many are doing productive things with their time but not of the monetized or monetizable variety, just personal projects. Or they want to live like they’re retired. Or whatever. I can’t judge that urge because while it’s not how I want to live personally I do see something admirable and increasingly necessary in a lifestyle that trades ability to consume for time