[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 246 KB, 634x640, tenor.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16302709 No.16302709 [Reply] [Original]

>be socialist
>read free to choose and basic economics
>realize that wage labor is a voluntary exchange that necessarily benefits both the employer and the employee and that this is okay
>realize the power of the efficient, unbureaucratic free market that's nonetheless able to coordinate the efforts of people all over the world to produce things like a pencil for spare change
>tfw no longer a socialist

>> No.16302720

you never read marx

>> No.16302731

>>16302709
that's the first step, second step is realizing true free market while under the control of humans is an unachievable utopia

>> No.16302735

>>16302709
>labor is a voluntary exchange
It would be voluntary if there was some sort of basic income and you could pick between working for someone or not. Having to choose between starvation or work is just slavery with some extra steps.

>> No.16302740

>>16302735
>Having to choose between starvation or work is just slavery with some extra steps.
living is just slavery with some extra steps

>> No.16302745

>>16302709
>filthy neolib thinks he's fooling anyone
lol

>> No.16302763

>>16302735
>>16302740
Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

>> No.16302764

>>16302709
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>work job or starve homeless and die
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>sign this waiver before you start working that takes away most all of your legal rights
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>physical rights,
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>rights during work hours and on call hours,
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>rights to leave our employ,
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>ability to not get a raise,
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>right to get sacked whenever we want
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>unable to unionize or else get fired
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>unionize and they shut the entire factory down
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>have two degrees and still get paid minimum wage
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>send out 400 job applications with no call backs
>It's a voluntary exchange!
>some anon is going to quote this and think I'm talking about myself when I'm not
>It's a voluntary exchange!

>> No.16302782

>>16302709
>voluntary exchange
>will be miserable pauper without "job"

kek

>> No.16302788

>>16302764
kek. this.

except Kaczynski is right.

>> No.16302800

>>16302740
I don't get why bootlickers would want to turn anything into the absurd. Your masters would be better off if work is voluntary too, when the workers are motivated and driven, which doesn't require you to spend extra resources to monitor and push them. It's how chattel slavery became unsustainable in developed economies.

>> No.16302812

>>16302764
You could voluntarily not work.

You'll probably die, but at least you'll be exercising your voluntary will.

>> No.16302814

>>16302709
Neoliberalism=neoclassical economics as an ideology=just ends up creating massive bureaucracies dedicated to modelling artificial markets=undermine idea of the public good and create atomized hell.

>> No.16302820

>>16302735
work is the natural order of life
even if you lived as a freeman in the woods, you'd still have to hunt/gather/farm
work is life

>> No.16302825

>>16302812
You could voluntary not be a slave too, just kill yourself, bro.

>> No.16302826

>>16302812
Work or die isn’t a choice and the fact that you think it is is absolutely absurd.

>> No.16302835

>>16302820
It really isn't once civilization happened. And even less so these days, when money works for itself, once you have some.

>> No.16302851

>>16302826
You thinking that offering this choice to every single human being and society will be able to sustain itself is absurd and insane.

>> No.16302862

>>16302800
>bootlickers
i'm not even pro capitalism
you're just a fucking retard

>> No.16302865

>>16302851
*the choice between work and no work

>> No.16302884

>>16302826
You're right, its the condition of every living organism.
>oh no, I have to go catch a fuxking mouse to eat
>this is literally slavery, right fellow owls? Someone should catch me a mouse out of their own free will

>> No.16302899

>>16302826
Why should it be someone else's problem, especially the problem of someone who actually works, that you're crying about not wanting to work? You're a human, go sort your own shit out. Not wanting to work and not wanting to die necessarily means you want other to take care of you while you do nothing. Go fuck yourself.

>> No.16302907

>>16302709
>>realize that wage labor is a voluntary exchange that necessarily benefits both the employer and the employee and that this is okay
If I pay my workers a cent an hour sure they "benefit" just like I do but not at all equally. Second you need to define voluntary. In a situation where there's a monopoly that controls almost everything sure the workers might choose to sign a contract to work, but they might have no other choice but to work even if the terms are ridiculous. We might just as easily say that serfs in a feudal society chose to work.
Your use of the word 'voluntary' ignores how people's choices are limited according to their position in society.

>> No.16302919
File: 36 KB, 640x426, 2120814_web1_gtr-OutOwl-122919.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16302919

>>16302851
For the longest time women had the choice. And these days children and teenagers mostly do have this choice. What's a further step of offering it to everyone?
>>16302884
Yes because owls have consciousness and the means of production. But on that note, what's your favorite owl? Personally I like long horned owls because of their wacky lookin' eyebrows.

>> No.16302920

>>16302884
Then it'd be more of
>someone has something I want
>I take it
This is only work in the most basic sense of the word, and not the best model for society.

>>16302851
There is more than enough food for the entire earth population so far. More than enough shelter as well. Besides, as Corona shows, the choice wouldn't be taken by most either way. Look how crazies wagies get if they don't have a master for a few weeks.

>> No.16302924

Hi tech surveillance capitalism is morphing into a totalitarianism at the nervous system level.

>> No.16302934

>>16302919
>morality is dependent on complexity
Great, so when the rich upgrade themselves with cyberware and genetic manipulation they will beyond our petty moralising, good to know.

>> No.16302942

>>16302934
Will these really affect the choices they have?

>> No.16302956

>>16302764
>It's a voluntary exchange!
Yes.
>work job or starve homeless and die
You can also make your own products to sell on the market. Don't like working at a shirt making factory? Make your own shirts to sell. Of course, I leave no guarantees that people will want to buy your product but hey.
Also
>I exist, therefore I deserve to have people take your stuff you worked for so I can choose not to work while having food and shelter
Those who don't work don't deserve to eat.
>a series of "muh boss expects things out of me before he pays me!"
Find a better employer. Before any laws were set restricting labor hours, the average amount of hours worked in the U.S. already went under 40. If people want jobs with good labor practices in it, the free market will respond. But of course, if someone wants an even higher wage by say, sacrificing their ability to get worker compensation, then it's on them to take on that risk for that reward.
>have two degrees and still get paid minimum wage
Should have picked a more marketable degree lmao

>> No.16302959

>>16302942
Maybe, maybe not, but it will make them immune to our criticism.

>> No.16302960

>>16302907
To add 1 more pt to my post, I think to just waive your hands and say "it's voluntary bro" obscures any critical insight into the problems of society. Many things in society that are terrible could be considered chosen by individuals that doesn't mean we can't critique it. So people might very well 'choose' to work an awful wagecuck job but do we really want a world where generations of people have no other choice but to do menial labor for the rest of their lives. People here are framing things as a choice between working or not working, but I think it's important to note that Marx wasn't advocating against work but only that workers should be in control of their own work. He would in all likelihood agree with you that work is a central and very human thing, it's only that we live in a society wherein the kinds of work available to us collectively degrade us, leaving us alienated and animalistic.

>> No.16302968

>>16302709
This only applies in the very beginning and later on has the problems other anons have stated

>> No.16302977

>>16302956
>Those who don't work don't deserve to eat.
FUCK KIDS

>> No.16302985

>>16302977
ANON NO!

>> No.16302992

>>16302977
I presume everyone here is physically adult, though there may be a few mental childs.

>> No.16302993

>>16302985
NO CHILDREN GET TO EAT UNLESS THEY WORK. FUCK KIDS. LET THEM ALL STARVE. THE MARKET DEMANDS IT.

>> No.16303007

>>16302992
Why would it matter? You don't have to be physically or mentally an adult to work. Lots of jobs could be done by kids. And the fuckers want to eat, so they better work for a stale piece bread. Full employment, here we come!

>> No.16303013

>>16302992
So our conversation and it's topics/rationalities/effects/issues/application/appreciation only applies to us, huh? It's only us couple guys postin' talkin' bout the job market? Just a couple dudes, hangin' out, talkin' bout the invisible hand? Just some bros, chillin' postulatin' bout' employee rights?

>> No.16303033

>>16302993
>FUCK KIDS.
I heard there is a big, free ass market for that.

>> No.16303043

>>16303007
This may surprise you, but i got to choose to make my own children, I didnt have any say in whether anonymous internet neets exist. Which is why I accept responsibility for feeding and sheltering one but not the other.
Comparing the two is disingenuous.
Or retarded.

>> No.16303047

>>16302764
Most of that seems like they would only be issues for somebody completely retarded or incompetent.

>> No.16303053

>>16303043
>I have retarded values
>and they don't even apply when I choose they don't
Big brain reasoning.

>> No.16303056

>>16303043
>men get to choose whether they have children or not
wrong.

>> No.16303058

>>16303043
>it is the parent's voluntary exchange and not the child's

Boy I'm sure glad that personal autonomy thing doesn't matter when it's all in the family. Btw, favorite owl?

>> No.16303068

Gottfried Feder, Manifesto for the Breaking of the Financial Slavery to Interest
Gottfried Feder, The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation
https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/11/two-volumes-by-gottfried-feder/

>Mammonism is the unlimited hypertrophy of the — in itself healthy — human drive for acquisition. Mammonism is the lust for money grown into a madness, which knows no higher goal than to pile money on top of money, which seeks with unequaled brutality to coerce all forces of the world into its service, and must lead to the economic enslavement, to the exploitation of the work-potential of all peoples of the world.

>Mammonism is the sinister, invisible, mysterious reign of the great international money-powers. Mammonism is however also a mindset; it is the worship of these money-powers on the part of all those who are infected with the Mammonistic poison.

>Mammonism is the heavy, all-encompassing and overwhelming sickness from which our contemporary cultural sphere, and indeed all mankind, suffers. It is like a devastating illness, like a devouring poison that has gripped the peoples of the world.

>This [mammonist] mindset is embodied and reaches its acme in international plutocracy. The chief source of power for Mammonism is the effortless and endless income that is produced through interest.

>The only cure, the radical means to heal suffering humanity is the abolition of enslavement to interest on money.

>The abolition of enslavement to interest on money signifies the only possible and conclusive liberation of productive labor from the hidden coercive money-powers.

>The abolition of enslavement to interest signifies the restoration of the free personality, the redemption of man from slavery, from the curse whereby Mammonism has bound his soul.

>All state revenues flowing from direct and indirect sources pour constantly into the pockets of big loan-capital.

>All of our tax-legislation is and remains, so long as we do not have liberation from enslavement to interest, only a tribute-obligation to big capital, and not, as we would imagine, a voluntary sacrifice for the accomplishment of labor for the community.

>> No.16303070

>>16303058
>consciousness
>personal autonomy
Man you socialists really rely on magic nonsense to justify your world view?

>> No.16303085

>>16303007
So the only way you can argue that you, a grown able bodied adult man (sorry for the possibly incorrect presumption,) should be fed properly with no expectation of work placed on you is to put yourself in analogy to a child? Do continue the comparison. It's hilarious, really.
>>16303013
It's very easy to make a case that those who are incapable of work and would otherwise experience acute suffering should be assisted. But this would represent a minority of cases and is an exception to a rule that is broadly true. To use the fact that children shouldn't have the same expectations placed on them as able bodied adults to justify the lessening of expectation on able bodied adults is silly.

>> No.16303095

>>16302812
You could voluntarily go in front of Stalin and call in him a big faggot.

You will probably get send to Gulag, but at least you'll be exercising your voluntary will.

>> No.16303107

>>16303095
>someone failing to feed me is morally equivalent to someone violently excluding all possibilities of me feeding myself

>> No.16303110

>>16302800
He's not wrong. Every living being needs to work and struggle to obtain food, shelter, etc. The universe itself is slavery with some extra steps

>> No.16303113

>>16302884
Big difference between working directly for your own survival and working for someone else's interests only to get the means to survive.
Alienation look it up.

>> No.16303123

>>16302884
Cats don't have private property rights, you fucking retard.

>> No.16303125

>>16303113
>Big difference between working directly for your own survival and working for someone else's interests only to get the means to survive.
n-no there isnt. they are both means of survival and both enviornmental factors.

just because you have some fancy world like “alienation” doesnt make it somehow more legitimate.

>> No.16303142

>>16303107
>someone violently excluding all possibilities of me feeding myself
Even heard of police force and property rights? Try and live a hunter gatherer lifestyle or a self sustaining farmer lifestyle with no capital beforehand see what happens.
That's the reasons why you have to work for a wage. There aren't other options to live by yourself if you don't already have property.

>> No.16303156

>>16302907
>In a situation where there's a monopoly that controls almost everything sure the workers might choose to sign a contract to work, but they might have no other choice but to work even if the terms are ridiculous.
Free market + limited government intervention via anti-trusts and funding competition should help mitigate this from occurring
>We might just as easily say that serfs in a feudal society chose to work.
They didn't have the freedom of movement within their nation and limited educational opportunities
>>16302960
>Marx wasn't advocating against work but only that workers should be in control of their own work
The problem with that is the average worker person isn't willing to invest time, capital and attention in the pursuit of the maintenance and innovation of a business. They would rather work 9-5 and forgot about work at the end of the day instead of having to worry about contracts, shipment/supply chain complications, investing capital,hitting sufficient return on capital in order to make the investment worthwhile etc.

>> No.16303165

>>16303142
so, would you be all for it if the current system stayed, but there was someland over there you could fuck off to where there was no state apparatus involved?

>> No.16303173

>>16303125
>they are both means of survival
Yes but they are psychological not the same. Hunting for yourself isn't the same as grinding in an office for wage to buy food.

>> No.16303180

>>16303085
The child part just shows how insane the "work or die is voluntary" reasoning is for people who can't gasp the obvious. Apparently still not enough.

This entire discussion is fucking misdirection. Instead of looking for ways to make work actually voluntary (something which was constantly adjusted through times), you try to justify something you realize isn't voluntary; probably because the shit's been drilled so deep into you, looking past it is too hard, shit just doesn't process.

If we logically follow it, the best choice of someone who doesn't want to be a wagecuck (and obviously doesn't want to starve) would be to take food from someone who has. Now, if you are somewhat of a reasonable individual, you can easy see how such a society isn't optimal for anyone involved.

Thankfully for society (and your life, if you have something worth taking), most people can see this is stupid and attempted to balance the relationship; giving people options that go beyond an idiotic free for all. Shame you don't want to or don't have the capacity to think further to advance the progress.

>> No.16303199

>>16302820

weird, because capitalists (ie those with capital) don't have to work. shouldn't those guys be prosecuted then? they go against natural law

>> No.16303202

>>16303156
>instead of having to worry about contracts, shipment/supply chain complications, investing capital,hitting sufficient return on capital in order to make the investment worthwhile etc.
Employees are paid to worry about those things, asshat.

>> No.16303221

>>16302826
SOMEBODY has to work or everyone will starve. Why should you get to NEET it up?

>> No.16303234

>>16303221
Capitalism forces people to work for capital owners.

>> No.16303241

>>16303156
>They didn't have the freedom of movement within their nation and limited educational opportunities
That's fair, obviously the analogy isn't airtight, but I raise it less to say the 2 are the same and more to point out the flaws in using a vague concept like "voluntary". There are many people who while having much greater freedom than literal serfs still have no other choice but to work a shit service job for the rest of their life. Every statistic I've seen suggests, at least in America, that inequality has gone up even as organized labor has all but disintegrated. I'm not interested in having a conversation about the specifics of running a business, all I know is that I'd prefer to work towards a world where low income workers have more power and options and where people can have some genuine engagement in their work. I don't think those Micky D's workers I see are living the high life just because they're engaged in a "mutually beneficial" enterprise.

>> No.16303244

>>16303221
Practically it would never become an issue because most people actually want to work. The ones who don't want to, would leave everyone else better off, if they stayed at home jerking off to anime instead. Forcing them to work only fucks up the productivity and motivation of people who want to work. Sending NEETs to jails would be much more expensive too.

>> No.16303245

>>16303165
No because there is no need to keep things the way they are. Humans will always need to work, but if the worker the wage earner has more negotiating power in the negotiation then the work contract becomes more fair and someone could actually call it voluntary. Today the worker need the employer more than vice versa (poverty versus one in a million labor provider), if the relation was equalized (both need each other as much) then things would get better.

>> No.16303246

>>16303199
nothing implied the amount of work must equal the amount of gain reaped.
>>16303173
i dont disagree, but that gets jnto wishy washy psychology.

>> No.16303257

>>16303180
>If we logically follow it, the best choice of someone who doesn't want to be a wagecuck (and obviously doesn't want to starve) would be to take food from someone who has.
And they should be jailed for stealing someone else's private property. If they don't want to be a "wage cuck", they are more than free to start their own business and try their luck. But since they don't want to starve, don't want to be a beggar, don't want to work for a wage, and don't want to try the risk of earning through their labor without the apparatus of production and distribution that other people set up, I guess they're shit out of luck.
>giving people options that go beyond an idiotic free for all.
Some people are given extra options, you mean. UBI isn't a thing anywhere. We reserve assistance to the people society deems most worthy of it, with some societies having a broader conception of that than others. I gave my own standard earlier. Which was that people who are either not able bodied or not adults who would experience acute suffering without any assistance.

>> No.16303262

>>16303245
yes, but you are talking about need and equity as if they are some sort of abstract absolute good we should all strive to atain. that first presupposes a consensus and is ultimately illibral, and second seems to be an idealist notion inregards to dialectic materialism as a historical perogative of time.

>> No.16303275

>>16303257
>And they should be jailed for stealing someone else's private property.
So cost even more money than it would take to give them something to eat? Very efficient thinking indeed.

How would it help the victim though? "Yeah, that NEET that stabbed me in the dick is in jail now, but at least I don't have to spend money on condoms anymore" might be not ideal. And again, it's more expensive too.

>UBI isn't a thing anywhere.
All the more reasons to fix that.

>> No.16303284

Next step is realizing that each of our minds is itself an internal bureaucracy attempting to regulate conflicting desires, and therefore just as inefficient.

>> No.16303291

>>16303234
Yeah, and the tribe forces you to go hunt or pick berries, or your lord makes you till the fields.

>>16303244
Someone is still working to pay for your gibs.

>> No.16303298

>>16302740
woah antinatilsm UwU

>> No.16303305

>>16303291
>Someone is still working to pay for your gibs.
And why wouldn't they? Most people want to work. It just be cheaper for them if I got more gibs directly, and put them into a better negotiating position with their employer, since they could threaten to go for gibs.

>> No.16303311

>>16303291
The people working to pay my gibs are (to put it bluntly) unimaginative drones who can't even conceive of doing anything else. They're actually happier working in their factory than they would be sitting around studying advanced philosophy like I will be doing

>> No.16303312

>>16303275
>So cost even more money than it would take to give them something to eat? Very efficient thinking indeed.
Countries that strongly enforce property rights are generally well off in comparison to countries that don't, and this has been demonstrated to a reasonable degree to be a causal connection through instrumental variable analysis.
>How would it help the victim though? "Yeah, that NEET that stabbed me in the dick is in jail now, but at least I don't have to spend money on condoms anymore" might be not ideal. And again, it's more expensive too.
He benefits from the deterrence enforcing the law provides. People would steal more if there were no penalties for stealing. If his property loss is significant, he can seek compensation for his loss in court.
>All the more reasons to fix that.
UBI would lower worker productivity because a bunch of people would NEET the fuck out. There would then be less resources to help people who actually need it. You can't have everyone be in the free ride cart and go anywhere when no one is pulling.

>> No.16303321

>>16303291
Tribes do no such thing. Lords are capitalists.

>> No.16303350

Leftists are brain dead.

>> No.16303352

>>16303312
>Countries that strongly enforce property rights are generally well off
And use some of the wealth into welfare systems. Because creating a safety net and options for poorfags is cheaper and preferable to societal peace. Less of initiative to steal food when you can just get it.
>He benefits from the deterrence enforcing the law provides.
IF it works. By the time some desperate poorfag took what they want, it failed.
>People would steal more if there were no penalties for stealing.
And they would steal less if there was less of a need for it.
>If his property loss is significant, he can seek compensation for his loss in court.
Can't really get shit from someone who doesn't have shit. Besides, why assuming it will be just monetary loss? Desperate people can be quite violent.
>UBI would lower worker productivity because a bunch of people would NEET the fuck out.
Based on what? We have a perfect example now with corona that shows, giving people free money, doesn't take away from they desire to make more or simply do something with their time. Motherfuckers can't even sit at home for a few months.

The cliche NEETs are a tiny group; trying to make them employable costs way more, before even considering the effects of some smelly, demotivated loser would have on the workspace and the effort it would take to ensure they work somewhat right.

>> No.16303353

>>16303350
no u

>> No.16303366

>>16302709
>be a dumbass 14 year old
>read 2 books
>be a dumbass 15 year old

wow truly one of the great thinkers

>> No.16303372

>>16303291
>le capitalism and le monkey tribe are only two options
seriously read a god damn book

>> No.16303380

>>16303311
Or perhaps you're a sloth with a lack of drive reasoning himself as to why he's providing little to no practical advancements in human living

>> No.16303381

>>16303291
>Someone is still working to pay for your gibs.
They have to work 10 times harder to pay for your imprisonment.

>> No.16303384

>>16303372
name literally one other system than capitalism and monkey tribe

>> No.16303389

>>16303384
Socialism, aka democracy.

>> No.16303396

>>16303380
And if that's the case, it'd be still cheaper to pay his gibs instead of having to deal with a fucker who talks about "advanced philosophy" in the work-place.

Why can't wagies see that literally everyone benefits from basic income.

>> No.16303400

>>16303389
Thats just state capitalism.

>> No.16303406

>>16303384
feudalism, monarchy, anarcho-syndicalism, any of the many manifestations of the government of the Soviet Union

These are mostly shit obviously but that answers your question about other systems just off the top of my head so I'm not sure what your point is in asking to name other systems

>> No.16303409

>>16303406
all those run on capitol.

>> No.16303412

>>16303406
all those run on the economic system of capitol. the political body which regulates and works as the stanging ground may be different.

>> No.16303414

>>16303396
You're still thinking UBI will just magically fix everything, huh?

>> No.16303421

>>16303406
And Mixed Economies
Like the US

>> No.16303437

>>16303400
No. Capitalism allows nonworker ownership of capital. Socialism does not.

>> No.16303445

>>16303437
False by definition.

>> No.16303469

>>16303445
I literally just recited the definition of capitalism.

>> No.16303484

>>16303414
Not sure about magically fixing everything but it's addressing the largest flaw in Capitalism. Work will actually become voluntary; and that's bound to have millions of positive effects across the board. Should soften the impact of automation on wagecucks too, and further speed up our advancement.

There is still the whole "unlimited growth in limited environment" timebomb, but hey, baby steps. If you actually want to keep Capitalism going instead of risking it all collapsing, UBI is your best call. It's not like it's even an idea from some scary marxists.

>> No.16303506

>>16303469
Don't you know, capitalism is what he likes, and communism is everything else?

>> No.16303507

>>16303352
>Based on what? We have a perfect example now with corona that shows, giving people free money, doesn't take away from they desire to make more or simply do something with their time. Motherfuckers can't even sit at home for a few months.
The fact that a lot of people still work under circumstances of being temporarily compensated an amount less than what they used to make doesn't mean a sufficient amount of people would work when promised a fixed sum a month indefinitely from adulthood to death. The idea that a significant amount of people wouldn't lower their work hours or leave the labor market completely is absurd. You want to give people the option to leave the workforce and you expect practically no one will take the free exit and live off the public? If practically everyone loves work so much, then there isn't much immoral about expecting them to work to be fed. They want to do it anyway!

>> No.16303553

>>16303484
I think if I had the safety net of UBI to fall back on, I would be somewhat more lax/careless in my job, be late or absent more often, be less productive. I suspect this is true of most people. If true, this would likely have a negative effect across all of society

>> No.16303562

>>16303437
Wouldn't the state own capital?

>> No.16303564

>>16303484
I really don't see how a system with a lack of external motivation would be more beneficial.

How do think a reasonable amount of production will be provided back to government so that it can provide in return? All it would be doing is sinking a monumental cost without any circulation. It can't provide back all the time from a limited deposit with little returns. That would be and has been an economical travesty leading to debt and starvation.

>> No.16303577

>>16303562
Only in state capitalism.

>> No.16303580

>>16303577
Is there socialism that is not state capitalism?

>> No.16303600

>>16303507
>doesn't mean a sufficient amount of people would work when promised a fixed sum a month indefinitely from adulthood to death.
Of course not, but it's a decent indicator. Despite having zero need to work to live and pay their bills, and not having society judging them for taking this options, people choose to do it. Even protest for it.
>The idea that a significant amount of people wouldn't lower their work hours
That's likely, and wouldn't be an issue. UBI means one can be more flexible with wages too, so you could as well hire 2 people who work for 4h each instead of 1 person getting fucked for 8h.
>leave the labor market
A lot less likely. People can't even spend couple months at home. NEET life isn't for most. Even some home office fucks are bitching about not being in office anymore. It's where a lot of social shit is happening and where they get their dose of recognizion.
It's not like UBI will cover luxuries like cars, vacation or whatever else people want to spend money on. If you want to impress your friends with new fancy shoes, you'd have to work for them.
>take the free exit and live off the public
I mean, you could technically do it right now in first world countries if you play your cards well. Just what are you actually going to do with all of the free time? Jerking off for days and weeks and months isn't for everyone.
>If practically everyone loves work so much, then there isn't much immoral about expecting them to work to be fed.
Practically everyone isn't everyone. Besides, while most like to work, they not always like the conditions or the stress of HAVING to work. A better negotiating position with the employer might not necessary improve their financial conditions but you can't underestimate the psychological factor of "I could quit and be fine".

>>16303553
Why would you turn up to a job you don't like in the first place instead of becoming a NEET?
>>16303564
How does it take the external motivation away? You don't have to work to eat, but we live in a consumerist hellhole, and you want that new GPU, phone and some Levi's to impress that girl. Probably wouldn't mind taking her on a vacation either and eating out with your friends.

>> No.16303601

>>16302740
based
gnostics are the true communists, everyone else is a bunch of faggots to fond of living and wanting to have comfort over truth

>> No.16303611

>>16303600
>Why would you turn up to a job you don't like in the first place instead of becoming a NEET?
>How does it take the external motivation away?
dude

>> No.16303612

Fuck them kids

>> No.16303636

>>16303611
But that's an option in the first world already. Why not taking it? Almost like there is more motivation to work than eating and having a place to sleep.

>> No.16303652

>>16303636
We're talking about UBI

>> No.16303661

>>16303652
So? How exactly would UBI change the external motivation side compared to NEETbucks you could get right now?

>> No.16303683

>>16303600
Not that anon but I would just find a new job that I could acquaint with.

On the other front I see you don't understand what I mean. In UBI people would probably pursuing more passionate careers in arts, literature, etc. But what about the essentials such as food and clothing? That would require attention and labor to provide to society. Not everything can be automated especially with the lack of funding or resources to do so. And as we've seen with the dubbed bread lines, a lack of drive to this work means less for an overall larger population that in no way can be provided the required amount of sustenance. And inflation would be inevitable. What would be considered average would become minimum wage give or take few years whether it be man made income or commodities for trade. It's the reason the USSR or China under Mao eventually crumbled and could not compete with the rest of the world.

>> No.16303697

>>16303683
Many social program statutes incorporated an inflation rate that was effective and livable into the monies dispersed until the Reagan administration stopped it.

>> No.16303712

>>16303697
Which in of themselves had a large effect on taxation.

>> No.16303728

>>16303580
Yes, no version of socialism is state capitalism. Socialism is by definition the abolition of capitalism.

>> No.16303729

>>16303683
>people would probably pursuing more passionate careers in arts, literature, etc.
Not even sure if it's true. These pursuits aren't for most – and if you're not successful enough, you wouldn't be able to COONSUM. Most would probably prefer to buy new shit instead of working on that novel for years.
>But what about the essentials such as food and clothing?
Supply and demand does the trick. And sure, the prices might rise when these workers refuse to get fucked, but we're already consuming too much either way, so it could be a huge boon for environment too if fuckers stopped to eat 20 burgers a week.

Also USSR crumbled because they also wanted to be a world power. Their economy would be perfectly self-sustainable if it focused just on that. Cuba does just fine, even against the boycotts.
>>16303712
And? It worked just fine. Meanwhile Ronald caused the spiral of work nothing being worth it when your capital just keeps exploding, which lead us to the current inequality and stagnant wages.

>> No.16303761

>>16303661
How would UBI be different at all from the NEETbucks I could get now?

>> No.16303764

>>16302993
Children work through learning what their parents consider necessary for later independant survival.
Children also nee a firm but loving hand to blossom. No chid will starve, it will simply work aka learn and follow to oth, the parents and its own benefit.

People need to work, especially men. Give men enought food, housing and money to leizure away and they will degenerate. Decadence is our own undoing, all those asking for it are like children wishing for ice cream instead of vegetables.

>> No.16303772

>>16303728
So in socialism, it is not the case that the state owns capital?

>> No.16303776

>>16302956
>Make your own shirts to sell.
With all those industrial machines you just left at the shirt factory? Most industries have insane barriers of entry.

>> No.16303898

>>16303372
Any society will have most of its members being commanded to perform work by authority, be it a monkey, a cheiftan, a slavemaster, a lord, a boss, or a commissar.

>> No.16303908

>>16303898
We don't HAVE to repeat history. Mutual aid and anarchist societies are possible. Communes and employee owned production are all possible.

>> No.16303914

>>16303908
>Mutual aid and anarchist societies are possible. Communes and employee owned production are all possible.
Filed under "commanded to work by a Commissar".

>> No.16303929

>>16303914
Is that how you act irl too? You just tell people that the words they use actually all mean this one very specific thing and that specific thing is a joke to you?

Does that work?

Do you have friends?

>> No.16303937

>>16303908
>We don't HAVE to repeat history. Mutual aid and anarchist societies are possible. Communes and employee owned production are all possible.

>make every business a co-op
>suddenly investing in the country is only attractive to old people who want steady income from bonds
>mass disinvestment ensues
>GDP free falls
>there's now less material prosperity
>"b-but at least we're equitably impoverished and don't have bosses"

>> No.16303944

>>16303761
No waste of time and state bucks on the bureaucracy. And no need to play along with "I actually want to work" bullshit. It being a more official version puts it directly on the negotiating table between the employee and employer.

>> No.16303947

>>16303937
Sounds good to me friend.

>> No.16303965

>>16303947
I hope you one day find your commune, anon. Just not in my country. Start a co-op movement in China if you can.

>> No.16303968

>>16303937
BASED. Beats having a little more prosperity which depends on the wills of rich parasites.

>> No.16303972

>>16303661
see
>>16303944
> no need to play along with "I actually want to work" bullshit

>> No.16303976

>>16303965
That's not how China works. Mao is dead and state run capitalism is all the rage over there. It'd be harder to start one there than in the U.S. by a long shot.

>> No.16303980

>>16303968
Why?

>> No.16303987

>>16303980
It's a lot more motivating to fight and work for common good, when it's actually common good, not one fuck taking most of it; even if you're left with a bit more in the end.

>> No.16303990

>>16302709

Congratulations on your maturation.

>> No.16303996

>>16303968
>more poverty and less luxury for the majority is okay so long as I get to stick one to Bezos
I for one congratulate him on reaching 200 billion not too long ago. He helped many people get what they need and want easily in this time of crisis. But fuck those people I guess.
>>16303976
You're probably right. It would just be preferable to have China lose presence on the global stage. The U.S. is needed as a bastion of freedom and democracy.

>> No.16303997

>>16303772
In socialism capital is directly owned by workers, not the state.

>> No.16304002

>>16303972
>have to pretend that you want to work to get NEETbucks
>actually work to be a wage cuck
If you pick the second option, you already choose to work more to work less.

If you were

>> No.16304004

>>16303980
Because a society that is run more by the masses that operate it more than the parasites that accumulate so much wealth they can directly affect the public policy choices of a government is a better society to be a part of. Ford v. Dodge set the standard for priority of monetary gain for minor shareholders over the decisions of the majority, the board, or the workers. This is a framework for greed to be the primary driving force in any action, by law, of a corporation. Greed does not see past this quarter, greed does not see the poor, the homeless, the oppressed, the abused. It only sees investor's portfolios and replaces pensions with 401ks. It disbands unions in exchange for a factory in china, a corporation in Ireland, and the HQ mailbox in Delaware. The laws and social rules dictated by greed have been excessive to say the least and the dream of a world full of co-ops, where everyone works together, where the individual has not been isolated by consumerist propaganda and advertising, sounds pretty fucking swell to me.

>> No.16304015

>>16303996
These people would get all of the shit if Bezos reached 1 million. And his wage slaves would actually be able to afford more.

>> No.16304036

>>16303997
Does the state own anything?

>> No.16304053
File: 1.78 MB, 245x350, 3362B332-9374-4D79-BDA4-02B3DDC3B5AB.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16304053

>>16302709

>realize that wage labor is a voluntary exchange that necessarily benefits both the employer and the employee and that this is okay
I know this is a troll, but
Here. Look here. Just 13 minutes of your time
https://youtu.be/YMdIgGOYKhs

>> No.16304133

>>16303929
Anarchist society might be a joke to me, but it wasn't very funny when it was tried on other people, and yes, it more or less ends up in production via the command of a commissar, to the extent that anything is produced at all. I'm sorry that you're offended by my disregard for your favored political ideology.

>> No.16304143

>>16303987
>>16304004
Both of these posts assume the people (or leaderless groupthink) which directs society is correct about what it sees as the "common good". It's great if people experiment with various economic systems on the small scale, but it would be a mistake on the scale of the entire U.S.

>> No.16304154

>>16304133
Nah, it’s all good bruv. But what about Spain before the war. They had a real anarchosyndicalist society goin on, without commissar might telling them what to do. And yes Israel may just be breeding children for their war machine, but they have communes without commissars. To think that production can’t be mutually agreed upon means that you were always the shitty guy in group projects that wouldn’t let other people speak.

>> No.16304160

>>16304133
You're an idiot, plain and simple.

>> No.16304171

>>16304154
>Nah, it’s all good bruv. But what about Spain before the war.
Actually, that was the main example of an anarchist shithole that I was thinking of. Predictably, all the different flavors of leftist were denouncing each other as they lost the war, as well.

>>16304160
Why do you think so?

>> No.16304181

>>16304143
It’s presupposing that profit motives shouldn’t be the primary directive of a society. Full stop. The whole point of a direct democracy and of socialism is for the people to choose what they think is “good”. I’m presupposing one value judgement that has been implemented and made into law and societal rule, I am not continuing that extrapolation of value judgements beyond that.

Also fuck you, that’s the whole point of the federalist system. Every major policy has been “tried out” on the small scale before being adopted by congress or slowly being introduced to every state legislature. That’s how you got your god damn UCC. Holy shit.

>> No.16304183

>>16303047
Retards think socialism is free money when in fact they would be shot or sent to gulags for being mentally disabled

>> No.16304197

>>16304053
This nigga is really trying to imply that labor is the sole source of value.

>> No.16304215

>>16302956
>You can also make your own products to sell on the market
With the means of production someone else owns?
Even if the big company plays dirty against my small business?

>> No.16304231

>>16302735
>>16302764
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH I LITERALLY CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT WORKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE! I CHOOSE TO LIVE IN SOCIETY INSTEAD OF LIVING IN THE BUSH LIVING LIKE A HOBO BUT I REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE. WAAAAHHH

>> No.16304236

>>16303997
So as a worker I can exercise my will to claim any of the capital at any time? Since I own 0.1% of a factory I can remove that part at any time. Real smart you fucking retard.

>> No.16304246

>>16304197
Labor + resources + time = product
The others do nothing. But as you can see they get the lions share. Why do you consider Bill Gates so valuable? He been a retired lazy lout for decades.

>> No.16304247

>>16303944
You will likely still need bureaucracy because UBI will not be enough for some people, like the suck.

>> No.16304258

>>16304236
Is this bait? Hard to tell these days.

>> No.16304259

>>16304246
Labor + time + resources + resources + resources + ... = product
The time and labor of one person is insignificant compared to the resources required for any modern technology. If you don't think so then you should have no problem making computer systems like Bill.
>inb4 don't consider resources
nice one

>> No.16304264

>>16304258
>no answer
typical. Communists only live in their fantasy lands and don't have an answer to any real world applications.

>> No.16304277

>>16302735
>It would be voluntary if there was some sort of basic income
There is: time. Everyone is allotted the same amount each day. Your labor is optional, but in order to trade up your time currency for money currency you often have to make a meaningful exchange through investing your time into labor which will then provide currency, whether that be through a middleman under employment or more directly under self-employment

>> No.16304278

ITT: misanthropes who get their rocks of through economic coercion

Imagine simping for Locke's ideology due to banal amounts of imagination

>> No.16304281

>>16304246
>Labor + resources + time = product
So if I buy a computer (resource) and spent 3000 hours (time) playing online video games (labor) am I entitled to rewards?

>> No.16304282

>>16304246
Butterfly, you forgot about the advertising budget, the CEO’s bonus, and the presumed value generated by legal costs when you strangle a market with litigation! Those all add value to a product! Silly billy. Don’t you see how smart I am, pointing out how society currently functions, as if anything outside normalcy is wacky?

>> No.16304287

>>16304247
I mean, depends on the execution. The hardcore Capitalists are about cutting the rest of support but a more reasonable system would include more. It'd be still cheaper overall since one could focus on specific cases.

>> No.16304288

>>16304281
People sell their world of Warcraft accounts for stupid amounts of money. If you commodify the end result of your time creating something, it counts I guess.

>> No.16304291

>>16304215
>With the means of production someone else owns?
The most valuable means of production is your brain, learn some craft and sell it

>Even if the big company plays dirty against my small business?
If they really played dirty you go to a court of law

>> No.16304295

>>16304288
What if I spend the 3000 hours dying in the most fantastic ways? My character wouldn't be so strong, but I really gave an effort in dying with very stupid and different ways.

>> No.16304296

>>16304277
Cute idea in theory but laughable in practice. Someone starving with no place to live can't just study how to create their own business, research the market, fight to get funding, recruit workers, pay them and start Poorfag Inc.

>> No.16304297

>>16304291
>doesn’t understand how limpwristed state business codes are for corporations doing dirty business

Oh, yes, I’m sure the states that desire large business interests to participate within their markets for tax revenue and political support are going to have the perfect cause of action and subsequent case law to help out the little guy!

>> No.16304299

>>16304288
A World of Warcraft account is more valuable than an account in some random game even if labor and time are the same

>> No.16304304

>>16304295
If you also record it, you might be able to find people willing to pay to watch it.

>> No.16304305

>>16304296
>whether that be through a middleman under employment

>> No.16304308

>>16304297
So we agree it's government fault then

>> No.16304310

>>16304295
I’d suggest getting a screen capturing program and recording that instead. The value of strange deaths is temporary in that sense. Commodify the video footage. I’m not even sure what the point of this back and forth is but it’s funny so I’m rolling with it.

>> No.16304313

>>16304246
>>16304259
>>16304288

Actually a more accurate model would be:
Labour * Time + Resources = Product. Since the resources required and product produced each have a related value (not to be taken for granted but afforded by the capitalist system [not applicable in commie land]) you can subtract resources from the product and then you have Labour * Time = Profit. Since time is a constant in most cases (everyone has the similar amounts) the only real variable is the quality of the labour you spend your time performing. And that's what you get paid for, if you produce shit you get paid shit.

>> No.16304312

>>16304304
I didn't have the chance to record it because I forgot to. But I really really put a lot of labor into it, I swear

>> No.16304319

>>16304296
You're right. You have to deal with the difficulties imposed by your shitty parents/ancestors. I looked at my family tree awhile ago. Apparently part of my family was upper middle class back in the 1800s, they had freehold land and a massive house for not being nobility. Then after a couple of marriages to poor retards my family lost all their wealth and homes. One of those homes is still around today in England.

>> No.16304321

>>16304308
Only because business interests hire lawyers and law professors to design statutes they then introduce to state legislatures to regulate what they want. They also hire lawyers to bring specific cases in specific ways, not to win particular cases, but to change the law in a particular way because of the net benefit in exchange for their pecuniary losses. The entire model of the legal system has been transformed and shaped to be the slave of the business class since the start of the republic. Private capital interest has the resources to directly change public policy. I said this earlier and you are purposely misreading what I said :(

>> No.16304335

>>16304319
>You have to deal with the difficulties imposed by your shitty parents/ancestors.
Which wouldn't even be that bad by itself, but since there is a competition, it's not just you having a harder start but someone also having everything they need to succeed, and extra resources to try different stuff. Capitalism as a pure meritocracy would actually be an interesting idea but just not feasible.

>> No.16304343

>>16303600
>Despite having zero need to work to live and pay their bills
Do we know that? A lot of families have debt and live pay check to pay check. A reduction in income may lead to eviction for some people. Also, how many people are still choosing to do it versus not?
>That's likely, and wouldn't be an issue. UBI means one can be more flexible with wages too, so you could as well hire 2 people who work for 4h each instead of 1 person getting fucked for 8h.
So you want people to work half as much? That won't negatively impact our economic output, therefore impacting our ability to help people who really need it.
>It's not like UBI will cover luxuries like cars, vacation or whatever else people want to spend money on. If you want to impress your friends with new fancy shoes, you'd have to work for them.
So in theory, yes. You could place the UBI limit at an amount that is JUST enough to live on but not enough to give people too much ability for leisure, so there's a Goldilocks region you want to land in. The problem is that the moment you pass legislation on UBI, it'll become a political football. The left leaning side of the country will keep pushing for bigger and bigger increases in UBI. It'll become a vehicle for redistribution, and you'll get retards demanding higher and higher taxes on the rich, so you can't guarantee that it'll remain in your Goldilocks zone.

>> No.16304354

>>16304335
Resources isn't the challenge, it's knowledge. Thankfully due to the modern world and the internet everyone has access to all the knowledge they need. The issue is they first have to have the knowledge that they need to gain that knowledge, which is what parents are for. Either that or you need to be smart enough to work it out yourself or have a mentor kind enough to tell you.

>> No.16304357

>>16303600
Another point. A lot of those people who are demanding to work are aware of the massive hit being taken to the economy as a result of so many people not working. The people protesting are doing so because they don't want the economy to get worse than it has to.

>> No.16304358

>>16304321
Cool, so we're both against (most) regulation. Do you think under socialism there wouldn't be smart-ass people trying to bend state power in their favor? It would be even worse because power is so concentrated

>> No.16304361

>>16304310
I'm just trying to understand labor theory of value. Recording would be a good idea, see >>16304312

>> No.16304367

>>16304358
The regulations these lawyers implement are either the regulation of what can be regulated or regulation that benefits the elite. Lawyers will discuss these laws in their abstract applicability but in actuality they hinder most small business and individuals and are only useful to corporate leviathans. I’m all for regulation and USEFUL antitrust law, but again, none of it works for workers. So who cares. It’s a fucking monster. You should hear the way some of these lawyers talk. It’s disgusting.

>> No.16304387

>>16302709
I'm willing to bet you were never a socialist and already believed wage labor is a voluntary exchange that necessarily benefits both the employer and the employee. Though anyone who has bothered to give this more than a moment's thought knows wage labor is neither a voluntary exchange nor beneficial to the wage laborer.

>> No.16304398

>>16304343
>A lot of families have debt and live pay check to pay check.
I'm looking at it from Yuro perspective tqbh. Wouldn't be surprised if lots of Burgers were still forced to work. Here, you're getting most of your wages (and obviously state support if the number is too low) Nobody is at risk of getting evicted either unless they somehow managed to find a place to live that wasn't even covered by their previous wage.
> Also, how many people are still choosing to do it versus not?
Tricky to find hard numbers for now but at least from personal experience of knowing lots of people (and them talking about lots of people they know) basically everyone seems to want to go back to work. I'm curious whether you know someone who was previously working and doesn't.

Thankfully there are also lots of studies about what motivates people to go to work too, which correlate with it. Sure, most are done with office fags but still seems to lean into an obvious direction of money not being the key motivator.
A few seconds of google, do suggest that it's similar for the minimum wage fags too.
https://www.workforce.com/uk/news/tips-for-motivating-a-low-wage-workforce
>That won't negatively impact our economic output
Given the amount of unemployment, shorter workhours wouldn't necessary have any impact. Half as much was just a simplistic example. You may have heard of the 4 days workweek meme, which often had positive impact on productivity. Obviously depends on the branch too.
>The problem is that the moment you pass legislation on UBI, it'll become a political football.
Of course but that's how any policy works. People can always vote for 50 bucks minimum wage or 99% rich tax too; it hasn't happened.

The biggest issue might be the transition period if it happens too suddenly. Without the government paying extra attention to renters and businesses in the first months, the potential price hikes risk to negate the entire thing or cause a stupid war of higher UBI and higher prices. Guess one could counteract it by starting with the welfare fags and slowly moving up to the middle class.

>> No.16304403

>>16304354
Eh, I wouldn't say it's not a challenge, and you still need time to implement and gain knowledge but yeah, "knowledge that they need to gain that knowledge" is likely the biggest factor.

>> No.16304430

>>16304357
True but a lot of the desire for a better economy also comes from the wish to get even more money to COONSUM. For welfare fags the economy is fine as it is. Critical stuff was never impacted.

>> No.16304449

>>16303776
>>16304215
Of course there's barriers to entry in a market, but that drives in the point that being a wage laborer is a voluntary exchange that c e r t a i n l y benefits the worker. Without the business owners' management, capital, set up supply chain, agreements with retail stores for distribution, marketing campaigns, R&D, etc. the worker wouldn't be able to clock in, do mindless repetitive work and get a regular paycheck. Starting a small business is a VERY risky venture. So of course the worker wouldn't just be able to start sewing one shirt a week and expect to compete with his former employer, but that just drives in the point of how beneficial his employment really was for him. This is the point socialists miss out on when reduce everything to labor. Sure, labor is a necessary component to the process, but it isn't sufficient to reproducing the kind of wages an employee gets under a successful business.

>> No.16304461

Why do so many fags defend their own enslavement? Maybe workers deserve to be chucked if most of them are like this

>> No.16304472

>>16304461
Can you really blame them if they only repeat shit they been fed all their lives?

>> No.16304527

>>16304461
Because it's not enslavement, the alternative is. The fact you can't see that because you're delusional enough to think you'll be part of the elite jerkoffs telling everyone else what to do is the exact reason you're shitty ideology won't work.

>> No.16304528

>>16304449
Major companies leverage their risk out to government bodies while privately reaping the benefits and profits from them. Mom and pop shops and “small businesses” struggle to compete with them as well as all the regulatory and legal hurdles implemented by large corporations, basically as taxes they know their competition can’t afford. A small business is a risky venture because the elite have made it that way after decades of restructuring our laws and our economy.


Also are you saying co-ops don’t have advertising budgets lmao wtf
>all parts of a business that capital hires out to peons anyway are fundamental to the job of capital and not just more laborers participating within the company

>> No.16304535

>>16302720
>you were never undwerent indoctrination like me, it's no surprise your intellectual views are inferior to mine

>> No.16304556

>>16304535
Or you know ... educating yourself about new stuff. If reading a book leads to your indoctrination, you have issues that need a therapist.

>> No.16304571

>>16304528
I'm fine with deregulation anon. We don't live in the ideal capitalist system. I'm aware regulations are a tool used by big business to fuck the little guy. The smaller the government, the less able the wealthy are to leverage it against small businesses.

Co-ops are fine, but if you made them the exclusive way to organize the economy, you'd probably get less small businesses made a year.

>> No.16304591

>>16304296
It still holds. Someone starving and destitute still gets 24 hours in the day during which they can toil away for some form of profit. Peddlers do it, vagrants do it, beggars do it, tenant farmers do it. Not choosing to spend your time to convert it into another currency is laziness, and is not affected by any birthright

>> No.16304602

>>16304571
But without regulation to stop might makes right business practices, who’s there to help the little guy? Any change to the law is a form of regulation in some sense (I know that sounds stupid hear me out) even in a system with little to no regulation you are telling businesses the extent of what actions they can or can’t take and are defining what motives or reasons to do or not do an action. The invisible hand and all that. Whatever you do, as the entity to wield that power, you are making decisions on how the market will perform, thereby regulating it. Thus, you must decide what outcome you want before you make that decision, and if you agree that fucking over the little guy is a bad thing, then you should be in support of some form of regulation to support that little guy, less the free market, with all it’s already imposing dominant global market figures, crush them all in a word without safeguards.

>> No.16304637

Work is not a voluntary. The agreement by which you choose to work, is.

>> No.16304655

>>16304231
Based desu

>> No.16304664

>>16304591
>Peddlers do it, vagrants do it, beggars do it, tenant farmers do it.
And basically remain in that position for ever unless they hit a lucky break.
>Not choosing to spend your time to convert it into another currency is laziness, and is not affected by any birthright
Being born from the right hole means you don't even need to bother doing anything beyond filling your time and will have to take some effort to lose the position. While any non utterly horrible decision will make your money grow by itself.

>> No.16304666

>>16302800
Then commies would just complain when the guy who chooses to work has a better life than them.

>> No.16304675

>>16304666
So? People will complain about something no matter what. Is this really an argument against improvement?

>> No.16304709

>>16302709
>200 posts
/lit/ is so easy to troll never change faggots

>> No.16304818

>>16304709
They really all. This board is more shallow than /tv/. And half if /tv/ complains about niggers while other half posts thots and sneed.

>> No.16304839

>>16304664
Luck=time+possibility
>right hole
Someone spend time or got lucky to fill that hole with wealth

>> No.16304846

>>16302709
Fuck off.
You haven't exactly been a "socialist" if babbys-first economics ruffles you up. Socioeconomic theories are advanced-level stuff to begin with.

Stupid frogposter.

>> No.16304847

>>16302709
Read Marx.

>> No.16304851

>>16302735
the natural state of man is poverty

>>16302720
you've never read Adam Smith or if you did you didn't understand it

>> No.16304872

>itt seething dilettantes and posturing pseuds all assure OP he is wrong and he'd know that if he were smarter or better read
>not one for a single moment substantiates how or why OP is wrong beyond inferiority which naturally typifies opposing beliefs
Loving every laugh.

>> No.16304898

Thanks jannies for letting politics threads here so I no longer come to this shithole

>> No.16304937

>>16304898
>He said, while posting on lit
Shoo, go away and be free

>> No.16304952

Didn't read. Off with your head.

>> No.16305009
File: 1.14 MB, 2500x3017, 1592678759648.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16305009

The "free market" is one of the biggest shams in human history
Not only has it lead to what are functionally monopolies just as large and oppressive as the ones it was intended to prevent it also puts incredible power in the hands of room temp IQ brainlets thus removing any hope of it providing a merit based system another thing it supposedly should achieve
Yeah just about the only thing it's good at is very efficiently keeping third world sweatshops running so first worlders can buy cheap junk they don't need and toss it into a landfill a couple weeks later

>> No.16305168

>>16304527
The whole objective of socialism is to get rid of "elite jerkoffs." I doubt even 1% of the people who espouse these ideas do it because they think they can maneuver themselves into a position of power.

>> No.16305178

>>16302735
Then starve. Dying for your principles is the only way to prove you have them.

>> No.16305181

>>16305178
Why starve when you can rob the rich?

>> No.16305184

>>16303123
Which is a capitalist idea retard

>> No.16305187

>>16305009
>corporate rent-seeking
>free market

>> No.16305554

>r-read marx
said the drooling commie for the umpteenth time instead simply refuting the argument presented with his supreme knowledge

>> No.16305559

>>16302709
you're an idiot

>> No.16305797

>>16302709
>realize that wage labor is a voluntary exchange that necessarily benefits both the employer and the employee and that this is okay
The hunter gatherer didn't have any choice but to hunt. Even if he enjoyed hunting. The wage worker has no other choice but to work if he wants to pay for his roof and food. The wage worker doesn't have his own means of production, because he starts from 0, and also historically due to primitive accumulation. The Capitalist (owner of the means of production), is in a position of strength, because he can always import cheap labor from third world countries or outsource the production.
>>tfw no longer a socialist
You are as useless as a socialist than as a liberal of whatever. In both case, you are an idealist anyway, and only reform the garbage that is political economy. If you are a reformist, in opposition to being an abolitionist, you are still framed into political economy. Thus you are still a cuck of the exchange value system, and it's latest development: Capitalism.

>> No.16305888
File: 3.75 MB, 540x304, hehe.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16305888

if this is what made you change your mind I don't believe you were a socialist in the first place. You were an internet lefty at best.

>> No.16306115

>>16302820
There is a distinction that needs to be made between "work" in this incredibly broad sense and employment

>> No.16306689

>>16302731
Thats exactly why it works, humans die and have empathy

>> No.16306692
File: 19 KB, 337x570, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16306692

>>16305009
Nazism is the way if IQ is the issue.
They managed to put people in the 125+ IQ range in position of power.

>> No.16306722

>>16303244
>Sending NEETs to jails would be much more expensive too.
Just killing them is fine. Much cheaper and everybody left benefits greatly from it. Win-win.

>> No.16306725 [DELETED] 

>>16304259
Doesn’t matter how many time you type resources you aren’t getting them made into your little money makers with those “insignificant” people.

>> No.16306727

same except I saw american imperialism and crony capitalism for what it is.

>> No.16306733

>>16304259
Doesn’t matter how many time you type resources you aren’t getting them made into your little money makers without those “insignificant” people.

And again. We don’t need Bill Gates to collect a cent from the system. He does nothing.

>> No.16306749

>>16304851
Marx was a Smithist and his ideas do not contradict anything by Smith. You've obviously never read either.

>> No.16306812

>>16306692
>Nazism
Capitalism with Hugo Boss uniforms and Swastika flags.

>> No.16306820

>>16304259
>If you don't think so then you should have no problem making computer systems like Bill.
Sorry i've been using Linux for almost 10 years.

>> No.16306849

>>16306820
Anon wrote word for word "making computer systems" not "using" you fucking moron leave lit

>> No.16306851

>>16302740
>living is just slavery with some extra steps

We already possess the technology to free up our day & meet essential needs. Building a house can be achieved cheaply and quickly. And yet people work to pay a mortgage for 20 years just for the right to own a house. The work that capitalism necessitates is useless and benefits only the ruling class not the workers

>> No.16306878
File: 155 KB, 780x1053, Communism_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16306878

>>16306849
We all make part of gnu-linux just by using it.

no company in the world has the means to produce such a system. To put so many testers, coders etc, would take so much money. So is a bad example.

>> No.16306902

>>16305888
/thread

>> No.16306917

>>16306849
His example is bad, since making OSes don't use ressources like he said. Ressources have value, but often it takes human work to extract them. Gold doesn't appear magically in nature. There are humans working in mines, extraction, transport, refining, to give the final product: gold. Same for many other ressources. The only thing that have intrinsically value that is independant from work is natural ressources that renew themselves, but at a limited rate, like fish. In this case, man could increase the yield with more work, but then, there wouldn't be any ressources left in the next year: indeed, all the fish would have been fished, without any possibility for it to renew itself.

>> No.16307207

>>16305178
based

>> No.16307230

>>16304319
Why? Some people ancestors killed everyone to get what they want. Why should modern women not do the same?

>> No.16307298

>>16306749
Marx also didn't understand Smith, a bit rich to call him a Smithist when their conclusions are completely different. You ideologues are funny.

>> No.16307374

>>16307298
Marx totally understood Smith, and even corrected him (and Ricardo), on their mistakes.

>> No.16307421

>>16307374
>commie larpers actually believe this

>> No.16307507

>>16302812
Heh, sure, in principle you can also *voluntary* choose not to give your wallet to hood criminal who holds you at a gunpoint. This choice is hardly a free one, though.

>> No.16308427

>>16306727
American imperialism is a good thing. Chile is very wealthy compared to its neighbors.

>> No.16308482

>>16304535
Having a basic understanding of a relatively common philosophy doesn't mean you're brainwashed.

>> No.16308787

>>16306812
dumb shallow commie 'analysis'

>> No.16308798

>>16302735
*BUUURP*
WUBALUBADUBDUB
GOD'S *burp* NOT *burp* REAL MORTYYYY

>> No.16308905

>>16308787
HEIL HITLER, der fuhrer des deutschen jungen.

>> No.16309041

>>16304535
As a rule of thumb, those who regard reading a book as intellectually harmful are usually the ones indoctrinated.

>> No.16309225

>>16306722
Killing people who don't work sounds something closer to Maoism. Capitalism is supposed to reward you for grand daddy picking a good fiance adviser.

>> No.16309717

>>16302720
But I did.