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