this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
1585 points (97.6% liked)

Antiwork

3638 readers
1 users here now

A community for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.

The new place for c/antiwork@lemmy.fmhy.ml

This server is no longer working, and we had to move.

Active stats from all instances

Subscribers: 2.1k

Date Created: June 21, 2023

Library copied from reddit:
The Anti-Work Library 📚
Essential Reads

Start here! These are probably the most talked-about essays on the topic.

c/Antiwork Rules

Tap or click to expand

1. Server Main Rules

The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently. https://lemmy.world/

2. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments

Spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.

Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the mod’s discretion.

3. Post must have Antiwork/ Work Reform explicitly involved

Post must have Antiwork/Work Reform explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about antiwork, work reform, laws, and ext.

4. Educate don’t attack

No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.

If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there won’t be problems.

5. No Advertising

Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service

6. No factually misleading informationContent that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.

7. Headlines

If the title of the post isn’t an original title of the article then the first thing in the body of the post should be an original title written in this format “Original title: {title here}”.

8. Staff Discretion

Staff can take disciplinary action on offenses not listed in the rules when a community member's actions or general conduct creates a negative experience for another player and/or the community.

It is impossible to list every example or variation of the rules. It is also impossible to word everything perfectly. Players are expected to understand the intent of the rules and not attempt to "toe the line" or use loopholes to get around the intent of the rule.


Other Communities

c/workreform@lemmy.world


Server status for big servers http://lemmy-status.org/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] w2qw@aussie.zone -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Shareholders at least the ones beating the market have a different skill set to workers. Replacing them with other workers might have issues with long term success.

I think you'd be better off changing laws that suppress workers wages and laws that unnecessary increase their expenses particularly rent

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Owning things isn't a skill, my dude. This is evident in the fact that almost the entire human race owns something.

[–] w2qw@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Agreed on owning things I was talking about those getting an above market return.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Of what value is that to society? If there's no value and massive downsides, why should we ~~protect~~ reward them?

[–] w2qw@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah the premise of the system is that society is benefiting. In practice I would agree that's not always and maybe majorly not the case. In Australia there was a Henry tax review report that details a lot of changes to improve this situation unfortunately many have not been implemented. I'm sure the situation is similar worldwide.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is kinda my point - I'm not interested in the empty arguments and spin - I'm interested in what's best.

Unfortunately, the Australian government has a habit of commissioning studies rather than taking action (we've risen to power under the status quo - why would we change it?) - The Henry review was probably taken less seriously than the Gonski report.

[–] unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

When the market is shaped by austerity politics, corporate welfare, and wage depression, then "getting an above market return" depends on austerity politics, corporate welfare, and wage depression (which still is not the same as the "skill set" of owning shares).

Your objection sidesteps the broader observations, of how the masses of workers are oppressed by the greed of the very few, who sustain a self-serving narrative.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That skillset would no longer be relevant; their jobs would be made redundant. Companies in this scenario no longer need to seek growth and increasing profit margins. They only need to earn enough to pay their own salaries. And, because the workers are the ones who collectively manage the company, they can democratically make strategic plans for future production, and logistical changes to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of work necessary and improve their working conditions.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In abstract sense, when you make profit, it means that you've made a sufficiently good path to some end for other people. Like in electrical engineering.

The more your "path-shortening" effect, the bigger your profit.

It's a system leading to optimization (in abstract).

they can democratically make strategic plans for future production, and logistical changes to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of work necessary and improve their working conditions

While this isn't.

I'd be happy to see any idea aimed at improving human life conditions, general happiness and so on succeed. Just with leftist conversations it always looks like "the brakes and safety measures are making the car too expensive, let's get rid of them".

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In abstract sense, when you make profit, it means that you’ve made a sufficiently good path to some end for other people.

In an abstract sense, sure. But in reality, profit does not require you to do any good. If it's more expensive to dispose of waste ethically, for example, then waste will be disposed of unethically.

Like in electrical engineering.

Yes, I can't argue that jobs exist that help other people.

The more your “path-shortening” effect, the bigger your profit.

Not necessarily. Insurance is one example.

It’s a system leading to optimization (in abstract).

In the abstract, I agree. But left to play out, monopoly and bureaucracy inevitably emerge.

While this isn’t.

Why not?

I’d be happy to see any idea aimed at improving human life conditions, general happiness and so on succeed.

Okay. Me, too.

Just with leftist conversations it always looks like “the brakes and safety measures are making the car too expensive, let’s get rid of them”.

I really don't mean to be snide, but you have this backwards. Under capitalism, it requires the state to intervene to regulate it in order to, for example, add safety measures to cars. Socialist economies are, as I mentioned, democratic. The people need safety measures, and the people are in control of production, so safety measures will be in place.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But in reality, profit does not require you to do any good.

It requires you to do something, and scale may make production cheaper, for example.

Not necessarily. Insurance is one example.

How so? Insurance is one of the most ingenious things I can think about which market economy allows. Leveraging probabilities to protect each separate participant from some event which would be too expensive without it.

In the abstract, I agree. But left to play out, monopoly and bureaucracy inevitably emerge.

That happens in planned economies just as well and worse.

Why not?

Because with private\public companies there is some criterion by which a company is being optimized, it's profit (in general, though with public companies things already work more complex, which is how Apple\MS\etc look so weird).

With what you describe, first, the response is going to be slow, as it's democratic planning, second, every worker is going to vote in his own perceived interest. At best it's going to be just like public companies, at worst most of such companies are not going to be able to support themselves existing.

I mean, okay, it's going to have an element of optimization too (cause it's still going to be capitalist in essence), just possibly less efficient in general. But may bypass some of the traps for public companies.

Under capitalism, it requires the state to intervene to regulate it in order to, for example, add safety measures to cars.

Only to make them mandatory for everyone. And then see the following.

Socialist economies are, as I mentioned, democratic.

Not necessarily. But they are all bureaucratic.

The people need safety measures, and the people are in control of production, so safety measures will be in place.

What one needs, what one thinks one needs, and what one can choose from are three different stages, and then there's another stage of what one receives in response.

And these are managed by bureaucracies. Point being, with markets you at least don't have to build a bureaucracy for market operations per se.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You think a socialist economy is "not necessarily" democratic..? It is democratic by definition.

[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually every known one IRL is not.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

If it's not democratic, it makes no sense to call it socialist.

[–] MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I agree. As a major shareholder and successful business owner, I’m far better at relaxing on a beach in Bali than the lazy poors are. Our skill sets are not comparable.