Talk:Refusal of work

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anarchism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles   Anarchism WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · history · talk · purge Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help? Did you know 19 Nov 2024 – Anarchism without adjectives (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion 15 Nov 2024 – Fagoppositionens Sammenslutning (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion 05 Nov 2024 – 1931 Barcelona rent strike (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Launchballer (t · c); see discussion 25 Oct 2024 – Voltairine de Cleyre (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Grnrchst (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 22 Nov 2024 – Los Justicieros (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Grnrchst (t · c); start discussion Peer reviews 26 Oct 2024 – Lucy Parsons (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Mujinga (t · c); see discussion Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (514) Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupations (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Mid-importance). Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Isn't this just another name for a general strike such as those seen in Eastern Europe? General Strikes seem to have played a significant role is toppling Eastern european governments in recent decades Robert Brockway 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think it is too. I think this page should be deleted.

• No, this is more concerned with an idealogical mindset, rather than a physical action, such as a strike

Actually think Anti-work should be the merge target, but less work with this one as target :) Lycurgus (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support anti-work being merged with refusal of work, but I suspect that it would be better for this article to be merged into anti-work than vice-versa. "Refusal of work" is in fact a potentially misleading name for this article: I thought it was going to be about "refusal of work" in the temporary sense of industrial action. I'm no adherent of the "anti-work ethic" — in fact, I'm a bit of a workaholic :) — so I'm not going to buy into Lycurgus' objection that it would be less work if this were the target article. In any case, I volunteer to conduct the merger should consensus be achieved to do so (and I most definitely am willing to use "anti-work" as the target article). — Life in General ^Talk/_Stalk 17:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to previous comment: I'd also suggest some administrative action on this: this article's edit history should be merged with anti-work and this page itself should redirect to strike action. — Life in General ^Talk/_Stalk 17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this article doesn´t deal with "strike action". It seems to me only someone who hasn´t read this article can suggest that. It says it deals with "behaviour that refuses to adapt to regular employment" and not just a mere passing moment of protest towards an employer (what would be strike action). If the merge is to be done I support "anti-work" to be merged INSIDE this article.--Eduen (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point; but my point is exactly that anyone who hasn't already read this article is liable to be confused by its title. Someone searching for "Refusal of work" is most likely searching for an article on strike action; on the other hand, "Anti-work" as a title speaks for itself. — Life in General ^Talk/_Stalk 15:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A link at the beginning of this article to the strike action could be put if the user wants to read about strikes. Refusal of Work is a term that has been around for some time from autonomist, libertarian marxist and anarchist viewpoints.--Eduen (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's reasonable. I've put in the link so long. And if "Refusal of Work" has been used in this sense before, that would probably be the best solution to this issue. — Life in General ^Talk/_Stalk 03:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though just about all the contents of the old anti-work article has already been moved here, I've taken the liberty of completing the merger and redirecting anti-work to this article. — Life in General ^Talk/_Stalk 03:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I invite users who want to improve this article to use this space for supporting their proposed changes. In recent editions in this article there has been changes without outside source support and some of this which have important complex implications who actually need a prior debate here to go.

One that really called my attention is one that said "Although anti-thetical to orthodox strains of Marxism with their emphasis on worker control,". On the wikipedia article on "orthodox marxism" one cannot see how the marxism described there advocates "workers control". In fact the opposite is true since the work and practice of people like George Plekhanov, Karl Kautsky cannot really be said to advocate worker´s control and Lenin actually proceded to implement a system of state bureaucratic managerial admistration in soviet enterprises. Worker control actually is associated to marxist tendencies opposed to othodox marxism (see libertarian marxism). But anyway even if were to accept that affirmation one cannot really see its relation to establishing the main content of this article. An introduction to a wikipedia article must be thought for non-experts on the subject and the discussion on "worker control" clearly doens´t belong there if it belongs at all to the discussion on "refusal of work".--Eduen (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The German article doesn't cover the mainly philosophical and sociological contents of the English article at all. The scope of the German article "Arbeitsverweigerung" contains exclusively legal consequences of work refusal for employees. It's an article of the "Law" kind. Both articles are so different I would recommend deleting the interlink or changing it to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kritik_der_Arbeit (i.e. "criticism of work ethics"). --82.83.53.77 (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone shed any light on how "anti-work" agendas and the availability of state welfare payments corrolate? On the face of it, in the absence of such payments, it would seem those adverse to working need to either beg, steal or sponge off relatives, but things may be a little more complicated... 62.196.17.197 (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Refusal of work. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630014918/http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/161500532/ to http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/161500532/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716205548/http://schalkenbach.org/library/george.henry/sp15.html to http://schalkenbach.org/library/george.henry/sp15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608004618/http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/generalconference/marburg/papers/21/8/Beauzamy.pdf to http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/generalconference/marburg/papers/21/8/Beauzamy.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=03%2F06%2F30%2F7962856
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527033525/http://libcom.org/library/abolition-labour-marxs-teachings-uri-zilbersheid to http://www.libcom.org/library/abolition-labour-marxs-teachings-uri-zilbersheid
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130163601/http://cultronix.eserver.org/martz/ to http://cultronix.eserver.org/martz/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has removed universal basic income from the see also section, saying it has nothing to do with refusal of work. I disagree. Basic income had long been included amongst the links in the see also section. I simply changed the redirect now the page is called universal basic income instead of basic income, but the page is the same. No other editors ever brought up any problem with including this link until this one editor now. The concept of a basic income is one of the view ways a person can maintain a living while refusing work. It is an unconditional payment that does not require a person to work in order to earn a wage to live off of. With the exception of some welfare programs the vast majority of legal ways to earn an income involve work in some form. Therefore, this is clearly related as a legitimate way to earn a living while being able to refuse work. It is also mentioned in the works of work critics like André Gorz. Some critics of UBI also use the argument that its implementation will cause people to refuse work (although studies of UBI trials have not supported this claim). This is another way in which these pages are related. The thoughts and views of other editors would be much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know a book was written about Bukowski scorning work. I think it was called "Against the American Dream" or somesuch. I don't think I'm the person to do it, but it seems he'd be a natural addition to the Literature section of this page. Buk wasn't just a lazy layabout. He was assiduous as a writer and did a Post Office gig for years. He just thought it was a big crock. Had some perceptive things to say about people whose identify and self-worth were bound with their job. He even wrote a book about his numerous dead end jobs called "Factotum." Wonder if someone can work him into this. I'm not that person for many reasons. But it's an idea. 37.170.92.180 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]