>They really think work itself is the product of capitalism, as though it isn't part of the human condition and a necessary part of every society that has ever existed.

The idea of 'work' in our society is quite different to the idea of 'work' in past societies. Time is allocated in a particular way (to particular people), usually by particular people, and the direction of the labour performed during that time, as well as the restrictions within that time and the end purpose of labour during that time, is determined by a complex social arrangement. There are several reasons why someone involved in that arrangement would be critical of it to various degrees.

For example, some people on HN are critical of the five day work week. Others are critical of the "back to the office" rhetoric pushed out by big corporations. Still others are critical of what Graeber called "bullshit jobs". These are all criticisms of 'work', usually from the point of view of wanting to do less of it, and under different conditions of society.

Nobody - not even the orthodox Marxist or the anarchist - believes that society functions without labour. However, they do recognize an important point: 'work' is a particular implementation of a much more abstract 'labour' in a particular (global) society. It's necessary, but not immutable.