We’ve all seen the way work grinds people down. We’ve watched how capitalism can contort itself to absorb resistance. Lately, I’ve seen a new form of disengagement take hold — one that’s branded as rebellion, but feels more like resignation. Viral trends like “quiet quitting” and “acting your wage” have been framed as radical responses to workplace exploitation — a way to push back against employers who demand more while paying less. I get the appeal. But is this really resistance, or just another way capitalism tricks us into thinking we hold power?
At its core, capitalism is a system that relies on the extraction of surplus value. Employers pay workers less than the value their labor generates, pocketing the difference as profit. In this context, “acting your wage” — matching effort to pay — must feel like a clever way to resist exploitation. I’ve heard it from my own colleagues and friends who’ve felt burnt out by jobs that demand everything and give nothing. But in practice, withholding extra effort does little to change the workplace’s underlying power structures. If one worker refuses to “go above and beyond”, an employer simply redistributes the workload, hires new employees, or automates tasks. The machine keeps running, rendering the worker’s resistance utterly ineffective.
More importantly, capitalism has always been adept at co-opting and commodifying dissent. Corporate wellness programs, self-care rhetoric, and the endless cycle of productivity hacks quickly absorb critiques of work culture, repackage them, and sell them back to us. “Quiet quitting” is no different. The discourse around it has been transformed into think-pieces, management strategies, and corporate policies that encourage “healthy boundaries” — all while ignoring the root issues of wage stagnation, insecure work, and the erosion of labor rights.
The analogy to climate change is instructive. Just as individual recycling efforts have been used to shift responsibility away from corporate polluters and systemic environmental destruction, “acting your wage” individualises what is fundamentally a collective problem. One worker disengaging from their job doesn’t pose a meaningful threat to capitalism. If anything, it creates an illusion of agency while leaving the underlying system completely intact.
This is not to say that workers should willingly overextend themselves for exploitative employers — the pressure to be a “team player” undoubtedly leads to burnout and exploitation. But there is a crucial distinction between personal self-preservation and systemic resistance. The former is about surviving within the system; the latter is about transforming it. Real power lies in collective action: unionisation, strikes, and workplace organising. History has repeatedly shown that when workers band together, they can achieve substantial gains; the eight-hour workday, weekends, paid leave, and protections against unfair dismissal all came from organised labour movements, not from individuals quietly disengaging.
Yet, the current anti-work discourse largely sidesteps the necessity of organised resistance. Instead of mobilising workers to fight for higher wages, better conditions, and workplace democracy, it offers a form of passive defiance that is all too easy for capitalism to co-opt. The popularity of “acting your wage” and similar trends reflect a deep frustration with the realities of modern work, but frustration alone does not create change. Without collective power, workers are left negotiating the terms of their own exploitation rather than challenging the system itself.
I don’t say this as someone theorising from the outside. Like so many students, I’ve spent my time at university in precarious positions when it comes to work, and I’ve seen how little individual resistance matters when it isn’t backed by collective action. If we truly want to reclaim our time, energy, and dignity, the answer is not “quiet quitting” but organised resistance. Capitalism isn’t toppled by individuals withdrawing their enthusiasm — it’s disrupted by collective action that demands structural change. Workers have power, but only when we act together.
The lesson is clear: meaningful resistance isn’t about opting out; it’s about fighting back.
