i don't understand what the picture symbolizes. Please somebody explain it.

First of all, this pair of comics represents the philosophy of the anti-work movement. But they are also a gentle criticism that the Left has traditionally seen itself as responsible for organizing the revolt of the working class. Then when the working class gets organized enough to revolt on its own, the Left spends its time coopting that energy into manageable institutions. In other words, the Left often functions like the AFL-CIO of the working class. Instead of helping folks revolt, it diverts their energy into bureaucratic, reformist institutions.

It's also a reminder that working 40 hours a week for Leftist boesse instead of capitalist bosses isn't much of change. The goal should be to work less, not work towards a shift of managers.

I've been confused for a while about the goals of the "anti-work" movement. Are people defining "work" as "doing something unnecessary and unpleasant for a wage, in order to get money to pay your way in a capitalist society" or do people refer to the more general category of "activity that may or may not be pleasant but serves some useful societal function"? This is an important distinction, because while we all know there are a whole lot of things people do for money that do not need to get done in a perfect world, but there are also a large number of things (like growing food, processing recyclables, making clothes and tools, etc.) that look very much like what most of us would call "work" and may not be fun to do, but are going to need to be done for people to go on living. In fact, for people to live in a more sustainable way, many of these activities are going to require more, not less, "work". (For example, raising food in a sustainable society demands a lot more labor than we are used to with mechanized agriculture.) Even taking part in a protest campaign demands an awful lot of what most people would consider "work".

Can anyone clear this up for me? It seems like I'm not the only one who's confused here, because I know a number of people who seem to take the anti-work philosophy to mean "don't do anything unpleasant", which to me at least doesn't seem very helpful when it comes to the addressing the tasks in front of us. Help?

I'm gladto see that "hard worker" understands the distinction that the anti-work philosophy talks about. When I say that I'm anti-work, I'm agreeing to your definition: "doing something unnecessary and unpleasant for a wage, in order to get money to pay your way in a capitalist society."

The anti-work tendency strives (or slacks) for a world where wage slavery disappears and the wirk that we do revolves around human needs and planetary sustainability. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that if this ever happens, all of us would have incredible amounts of free time and very little time would need to be spent on wirk chores (growing food, fixing the house, etc.)

The anti-work tendnecy also celbrates the idea of slacking. loafing, being lazy within the capitalist sytsem. If the workers truly control the means of production, then if we take a month-long coffee break, very little production is going to get accomplished. The general strike is a good start, but we need to encourage people to work less, become less productive, and sabotage their workplace.

This definition is over 120 years old, but it still works for me:

"work consists of anything a body is obliged to do, and play consists of anything a body is not obliged to do"

I might have the quote slightly wrong, but not the sense of it. It's from Tom Sawyer.

Check it out, classic Stalin era art style! The citizen is ever the tall, square jawed, hard bodied gentlemen, and the enemy a fat, physically ailing oaf.

Was the resemblance to soviet revolutionary socialist propaganda works intentional, or a byproduct of the message?