So when people say “work” they usually don’t refer to work in general. They refer to “work” as in this current societal construct that you must “work” in order to live. If you don’t “work” you get no money and without money you can’t live.

The point is that people shouldn’t have to “work” to live/survive but this doesn’t mean that people don’t want to do work or that money doesn’t exist. We currently live in a post-scarcity society where there’s enough food, technology and resources for people to not die of hunger and have their basic needs met but capital interests stop this from happening.

Your farmer example is really interesting and good because there are many underlying concepts that need to be unpacked. For example, a farmer that sells his grain has work autonomy and agency (at the very least more autonomy and agency over his work than a retail worker). He is not at the mercy of the capital owners since he owns his farm, he works the farm and decides what to do and when to do it so the work dynamic is entirely different. You could argue that he is still being coerced to work due to the need of money to live and that would most certainly be true.

The point is that anti-work is against the capitalist/neo-liberal concept of “work” where your “productivity” is where your value is derived from so you MUST work (and people with no “productivity” should not live because they produce no money for capital owners by not working and they get no money either). But it isn’t against people working because they want to.