Questions for real socialists tm

If someone wagered a higher than average amount of resources in a gamble and won, should he not get a higher than average reward?

Attached: FB_IMG_1531825916777.jpg (1160x774, 88.15K)

How much is "average", what defines "winning"? Why should surplus from workers be the "reward"?

Does it matter the specific number of the average? Why shouldn't it? If you work harder making something, it usually is better than if you half assed it.

By the rules of the game, certainly. But the question is the "should": "should" we be gambling with society? More importantly, "should" we organize the entirety of human life around gambling, being a gambler, or helping gamblers with the hope that we'll be paid the earnings?

Random chance doesn't seem like a very efficient method to reward or punish anyone, as any insight into the game that is supposed to be random is either untrue or cheating, and anyone who wins or loses the game is not deserving for any particular reason in either case, but simply lucky or unlucky.

We don't deal in this magic spook speak

When you say,
without explaining what that average actually is, you haven't said anything meaningful at all

Ok, let me sell it to you a different way. I'm working on a piece of art, shouldn't I get more out of it the more I put in?
Like it or not, random chance is something we can't get rid of even in a commie utopia.

So you don't think more people ought to hold your ideaology? And doesn't your ideaology only work if everyone has the same ideaology?

Why does it matter? We're talking principles here.

Right but the workers are the ones making something, not you. Without workers your gamble would never succeed, so why do you think you should take some of their value?

Principles with vague premises are useless

Absolutely. This is a major problem with capitalism, no matter how much value I produce for the company I'm still paid the same wage

Taking risks does not justify the dominance over the lives of others held by the contemporary bourgeoisie. Genghis Khan took a risk when he invaded China- will you defend the Yuan Dynasty on account of this?

This isn't true at all. Lots of jobs have commissions and other incentives for selling/doing more. Plus, pointing out to/being recognized by management you're a harder worker than others is the most common reason people get promoted and pay raises.

Attached: 1388855726631.jpg (367x388, 28.52K)

lul kill yourself kid

Some, do (I don't know about a lot per se) but the point is that the owner doesn't have to ultimately the owner has total control in what is decided.

Again, great but only some will get raises/promotions for working harder. It's all decided by the boss in the end. It's not a systematic thing where if I work harder I'm guaranteed a better outcome.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Ironically, you're both espousing a vulgar version of the labor theory of value, and, because you lack the nuance of "socially necessary labor" in the theory, you're vulnerable to the "mud pie" argument sometimes leveled at socialists by the ignorant. The analogy is different, however, because the piece of art is a product of labor; winning at gambling is a product of luck (or cheating).

Their is no ideology, only material reality

To add to this, it's important to make the distinction between incentivizing someone to produce more value and really rewarding someone for the value they contribute. These incentives are designed such that in order to attain them you need to produce value on a greater order of magnitude than the value of the actual incentive so that way the business still makes a profit out of it. It's about creating a complacency not economic justice.

Raises don't counteract surplus extraction either. If you're labor cost more than or was equal to the value you made you'd get fired so it's impossible to get fully rewarded for your labor no matter how good of a worker you are.

I'm also curious about your privileged utopian society where these incentives are so prominent and raises so frequent that everything is fair and balanced. I'm sure the sweatshop workers in Bangladesh and the Amazon workers pissing in jugs because they'll get pay deducted if they leave to go to the bathroom are getting compensated super fairly and have a ton of incentive to work harder.

Attached: moderateDisgust.png (504x878, 125.22K)

Degenerate

Attached: Anger.jpg (603x570, 71.14K)

who said anything about fair and balanced or being equally rewarded for your labor? I said some jobs pay you more for working more, which is true, which refutes the previous statement that no matter how hard you work, you get paid the same.

For the vast majority of jobs it isn't true though. It isn't some kind of proof that capitalism dynamically rewards its workers based on how hard they work. You've given the exception and not the rule.

The question of exploitation is not a matter of gambling or investment, but relations of production. The worker owns no capital. The only way he can earn money to support himself is by selling the only thing he has to sell: his labour. This labour is bought by the capitalist, who owns a means of production which, through labour, produces goods with value. It is the labour of the worker which creates value, without labour there would be nothing. The capitalist sells these goods for money, and if the price is higher than the cost he gets a profit. This is called surplus value. Since the worker gets less than he produces, he is exploited. It is the equivalent of someone buying something from you for five dollars and selling it for ten - you got ripped off. This is the simple reality of production, no oughts about it. The consequence of this exploitation is class conflict.

Right, I didn't say it was. I said some, key word operative "some", do.
I've given an example that's not uncommon. There is no rule in the first place, compensation differs greatly across jobs and across industries.

Karl Marx. Such a baste jew. All these baste jews killing whites. It's all so baste. So rad man. So revolution. So che and chomsky.

Enjoying theology much?

Right but I'm talking about wage labor, which is pretty consistent between industries

Why do you want to reward people for gambling?
And why do you want to reward people for gambling based on how much money they personally have?

The anwer is no by the way. Gambling does not contribute anything to society.

Unlike poker, the participants of this game are not in agreement, nor do they all start with equal opportunity as liberals seem to imply.

yeah this analogy is shit bro
(not that analogies are ever really good)

Why do right wingers always have to use vague analogies that border on flase equivalence to make their points instead of actually just saying what they mean?

Is it because if they gave you a honest interpretation of their ideology without appealing to these parlor tricks the true nature of what they believe would reveal itself and everyone would instantly be repulsed?

Attached: c1902753aacfdce5e84782ddc50de548238b16c408d3a6185e325bd01c343bfc.jpg (362x346, 37.5K)