Can someone tell me how this is actually a fucking conversation that has reached the mainstream

  • Diogenes_Barrel [love/loves]
    ·
    2 years ago

    been reading this term and going :jesse-wtf:

    :same-picture: "quiet quitting" is just wildcat slowdowns. if that, maybe something as simple as minimum-wage-minimum-effort. why does 'the discourse' need a fucking neologism for a millennia old tradition of the working class?

    getting a big mallet labelled 'there's nothing new under the sun' and beating columnists to death with it

    • zifnab25 [he/him, any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      “quiet quitting” is just wildcat slowdowns.

      Is it even that much? Or is it simply the consequence of an aging, burned out populace with fewer and fewer people contributing to the material benefit of society? Is it that nobody wants to work, or are we underpaying service/retail/manufacturing/shipping such that the preponderance of people have moved over to the FIRE sector to facilitate speculation?

      It would be nice if we had some subliminal labor action going on. But I think a lot of this really is just The Invisible Hand ushering everyone over to where the money's actually at. I know more than a few people who quit otherwise-lucrative STEM careers to becoming real estate agents and they're rolling in it now. I know a few people who made their nut when their companies went public and retired in their 30s, thanks to the magic of the financial sector. By comparison, the folks who went the trade school route still aren't outpacing inflation, despite demand for plumbers and electricians and class A truckers being at an all-time high.

      why does ‘the discourse’ need a fucking neologism for a millennia old tradition of the working class?

      Because its easier to blame The Help for an economic downturn than to acknowledge that there's no fucking money in Helping and everyone knows it.

    • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      “Wildcat slowdowns” would be an organized action by a collective of workers. This is just bourgeois idealism and getting the workers to quit voluntarily and create a reserve army of labor because unemployment was too low (or to act in such a way they can easily be fired). Quitting without any organized mass action is the opposite of a working class action, it’s voluntarily assisting the bourgeois class interests instead of your own and replacing working class mass organizing with individual purity seeking.

      Just doing less work at your job is fine, but don’t pretend it’s revolutionary activity unless it’s organized and coordinated as a tactic. If you get fired for “time theft”, they don’t have to pay you severance or unemployment. If you quit, they don’t have to pay you severance or unemployment.

      This is why union organizers always tell those unionizers to keep working and do a good job at their work while they are organizing, because the corporation is looking for any excuse to fire you and you need to be unimpeachable.

      So instead of being lazy and then getting fired, which is an ideal situation for bourgeoise that want to cool down the labor market without having to do lay-offs - instead do your job competently and organize your coworkers to fight for better wages

      • Diogenes_Barrel [love/loves]
        ·
        2 years ago

        its just my impression of what it is by its use in a few articles i skimmed. the columnist class makes it out like its some kid of 'movement', but a) it probably isn't and b) they're not encouraging it, they're condemning it.

        well, and worse than that they're inserting it into every possible subject to fan engagement & 'discourse'. starting to get quite :stop-posting-amogus: even though i only bothered to investigate the term today lol

        • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          It isn’t a real “movement” but they are trying to make it one, a fad anyway.

          They are “condemning it” like they “condemned” anti-work, because the columnist class knows they are reviled by working class people and they know that some can be tricked with reverse psychology if they create a narrative that “oh no don’t get fired on purpose, the bourgeois would really hate that if you did that”. It’s currently just an intriguing peculiarity to columnists right now because it isn’t a legitimately threatening mass labor movement.

          Once a legitimately threatening mass labor movement happens you will see what it really looks like when the media hates something, and it won’t be trying to will it into existence - it will be ignoring it, slandering it & spinning it into an evil Russian/Chinese fifth column

          • Diogenes_Barrel [love/loves]
            ·
            2 years ago

            this is a very minor disagreement i shouldn't have used 'wildcat' so you didn't get the impression i thought quiet quitting was a form of activism. i was trying to inflect the less organized nature of wildcat than unadjectived slowdown, which also implies a level of organization . maybe 'disorganized' or 'individual' would've been better. point was that we have existing labor vocabulary for things being trotted out as new, pathologized and propagandized

            • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              Eh, I think it’s an active effort to muddy the water for what the population considers labor activism, in an attempt to pre-empt labor activism they know might be coming and steer it down a harmless route. I don’t think this type of individualist “activism” should be encouraged at all, and any workers participating in this type of strategy should change tactics to the tried and true proven methods of militant labor organization.

            • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Individualist “anti-work” attitudes and disorganized quitting actually is bad. It’s idealist and leads nowhere.

                • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  I know, and that’s based and good. That’s militant labor organization right there, and what I am saying is the actual path forward.

                  I’m criticizing anyone who thinks “anti-work” or “quiet quitting” movements have any value whatsoever. These are oppositional to militant organizing. You can’t organize and strike if you just quit alone.

                  Communists are not opposed to “work”. We instead support the interests of workers, which includes continued employment.

                  • charly4994 [she/her, comrade/them]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    Oh of course. I sorta have some nostalgia for the /r/antiwork subreddit because when I saw it like in 2016 because it was more ideologically leftist and a super niche subreddit which sorta helped me in my radicalization but back when that mod went and did that interview I remember going to the subreddit once again to find people upset that their "movement" had been destroyed when it was a place a bunch of people went to complain about their shitty work conditions and other people would try to get them to buy into crypto to "stop working."

                    I wanted to become a nurse because I wanted to put good into the world, in reality I"m just lining the pockets of the executive suites while they exploit my desire to try to help people and overwork me. In a just society I would have a safe patient load and be able to provide the highest quality care possible because it's not about profits but instead about just improving health and helping people.

                    • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
                      ·
                      edit-2
                      2 years ago

                      The issue with the anti-work subreddit was two-fold. First, it claimed to be a movement and a solution. If it just claimed to be a place to shitpost and gripe about work, that sort of thing than it wouldn’t really be an issue just another lefty online space. The problem was the advice they were given was things like “quit your job” which is terrible advice for most working people, and they convinced the more naive among their ranks that they were participating in a political mass movement or labor organizing (while they were doing no such thing, you can’t organize if you quit alone).

                      Second, even though it was ideologically leftist it was very utopian and idealist and individualist in its outlook, which allowed the cryptobros and petty bourgeois an in (don’t like being a wagie in your cagie? Have you heard about passive income or owning a business and being your own boss?). Its branding is terrible, makes it seem infantile. “Anti-work” is only a viable position in a post-scarcity world with relative equality. We live in a capitalist imperialist world with sharp inequality, and work still needs to get done to keep society functioning. When 1st world workers shirk their work, either things will start to break down for society as a whole or 3rd word workers will have to pick up the slack. It starts to seem like their ultimate aim is merely the redistribution of wealth and labor within the imperialist core, social imperialism. Otherwise their position is incoherent and impossibly utopian given our current world.

                      Radlibs just want a shortcut to the hard work of labor organizing. There are no short cuts. There are no tricks to create utopia the capitalists don’t want you to know. We should not be “anti-work” we should be pro-worker, and that distinction is important. Full employment is a worker demand.

    • invalidusernamelol [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Because gig companies are actually needing to support themselves of labor surplus of their workers now.