Mods do not delete my thread, I am not here to break any rules

mods do not delete my thread, I am not here to break any rules.
Ok leftists, I'll humor you. Why would anyone bother working if everything is free? How is socialism a sustainable economic model when clearly no one will bother working?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (7895x10000, 1.74M)

Other urls found in this thread:

t. Garl Marx

Because you have to work if you want the benefits like free health care, education, etc. You still get paid, but instead of money we would use labor vouches.
Why wouldn't they work when they need to work to get anything at all? The only exception to this would be people that can't work, like old people or disabled people.
I think your question is about competition, the classic "why would I bother working effectively when someone else will get the same as I do while being lazier?". In a socialist economy you can introduce differences in terms of workers effectiveness, like Cockshott describes in his book Towards a New Socialism.

Counterpoint: capitalism has a class of capitalists that is nowadays basically a rentier class which consumes a disproportionate amount of resources and labor in their upkeep, it also has systematic unemployment for a reserve army of labor and the whole administration of the capitalist state-apparatus to uphold all of this. What motivates people to work under capitalism besides the real threat of deprivation?
user I… this has been adressed since forever, you realize your idea of socialism is literally a strawman made up by retards who believe nothing is free but the "market" despite the real functionings of a capitalist economy with consolidation of capital and state intervention (and this is how capitalism has always worked)?

To use a real world example of socialism which I still do not believe is the end all of how it could be implemented (but at this point to denounce the USSR fully you have to be an idiot), it used to be the world's 2nd largest economy up till the very last years (when it was overtaken by Japan before they peaked in 1995 never really overcame that peak). Under Stalin, they actually implemented a piece wage system for many industries to compensate people for their output.
All of this despite starting out in an agrarian backwater, civil war, isolation from most of the world, no colonial/imperialist spoils, world war two etc.
In the 60s, the USSR accounted for 20% of the world's GDP.
Another example: Cuba's GDP PPP per capita is higher than the Dominican Republic (a country you can actually make a fair comparison with)

Socialism unironically makes people wealthier than capitalism does if you account for imperialist exploitation of the bottom 90% of the capitalist world by the top 10% of the capitalist world (the only part which is ever acknowledged as capitalism and thus creates an unfair comparison with the socialist world)

Attached: Soviet_Union_GDP_per_capita.gif (952x565, 37.82K)

Google it nigger

What do you mean by "everything"? Housing, healthcare and medicine, transportation, child and elderly care, education? If so, even under some capitalist countries much of these were almost entirely achieved and people kept on working.

In any case: pic related is how capitalism used to sell itself. Compare to current reality. Only socialism can achieve these (and more).

Attached: prophecy.jpg (2300x1594, 663.33K)

You have a normie tier understanding of socialism. Try and at least find out what something means before criticizing it. Just find an explanation of socialism on youtube (from a socialist) or look on wikipedia for ten minutes and you can come back and make a valid point.

The OP is a faggot, he tried to get us on /tv/ to help him BTFO you guys. I've got a better question, why don't you just use money to determine the value of someone's productivity or service? The market will automatically adjust the value of what you're selling or offering depending on the level of demand.

But nobody thinks that

Because Marxists are against the market.

Even if they're against the market, it is a powerful tool in determining the value and demand of certain services or products, especially if they want to "redistribute" these services or products.

The issue isn't people not working, it's that they put in the least amount of effort possible since it hardly matters for their personal wealth, just like NEETs faced with the decision to work 40h a week for little more than their subsidies amount to anyway.
That and the fact the free market allows competetion and faster innovation put the USSR at an economical disadvantage the longer it went on, although there are more factors to it.

Some countries in Western Europe aren't to far away from becoming de facto socialist states with mulitnational companies as their leaders, and it's still somewhat working, althought the future looks very bleak.

1) Marxists subscribe to the labor theory of determining value.
2) No one wants to "redistribute" anything. That's a misnomer for what we want to do.

People work for the same reason in any system. Meeting basic (or advanced) needs requires work. That's the motive capitalism uses - if you don't work you don't get paid, you can't buy food, you can't eat. That's how it worked in feudalism. That's how it worked in primitive times. The difference in a class society is that one class controls the supply and won't pay you unless you work extra to support them.

Capitalists (business owners) are the real welfare queens. Look at how much they get in subsidies and how little they pay in taxes. Walmart makes enough profit to pay their employees better but it's cheaper to let them go on food stamps, especially since they will soend the food stamps at Walmart since they're already there.

Some people might be lazybones and not work, but people hate boredom as much as work. Even so, other people are inclined to work hard and it will likely balance out. A major illusion of capitalism is that so much work is necessary to make the world run, despite all our technology reducing how much work is needed. That's because capitalism needs to keep selling shit to function. If we made things to be used instead of to be sold for profit we could dramatically cut down waste and redundancy. Almost all the shit that wears out or is disposable could be made to last a lifetime but that's just not profitable. Add on top all the bullshit being made that nobody needs and it turns out that we could sustain our society with shockingly less work if we got rid of the need for profit.

Besides, work doesn't inherently suck. Work under capitalism sucks because of alienation (look up Marx's idea of alienation on Wikipedia, better explanation than I can summarize). The gist is that when you ate in control of your labor/actions you feel fulfilled and working to meet society's needs (including your own) is itself rewarding. Before capitalism people generally weren't so alienated, and with capitalism we're as alienated as possible. Cogs in a machine. Many people don't have the faintest idea how their job fits into a larger picture so of course nobody likes doing what seems like pointless bullshit.

Isn't that a bit antiquated in the age of automation?

we do want to redistribute the means of production and probably other material wealth at least initially
not gonna leave zucc and bezos with all that shit

There's no difference whatsoever in any real world application of those ideas. There still are leeching ruling classes in Communism that dictate your life and leave even less possibilities for social mobility.

This seems unnecessary just like this user said:

Why don't you just stick with following the principles of supply and demand which makes more logical sense?
What do you want to do then? I was under the impression that the welfare state was a socialist model of redistributing wealth to the underclass?

If they earned their wealth why shouldn't they be able to keep it?

They "earned" it through economic exploitation.

What if I made a lot of money by carefully investing in the market? Would I be exploiting anyone? Would my money have to be distributed among people who didn't study or put effort or risk into making money?

We are against the welfare state, which is capitalist. We don't want to "fairly distribute money", we want to abolish wealth accumulation and private property altogether. "Wealth redistribution" is the slogan of liberals who want to make capitalism fairer.

Not directly but capitalism is a SYSTEM. Your ability to become rich solely through financial speculation is contingent in there being something to invest in, i.e. businesses that employ and exploit workers.

No your money would simply be abolished.

But I would like to own my own material possessions, what is wrong with that?
But I'm investing in businesses that provide value, jobs, and innovation. Willy Wonka (for example) would not have had such a successful business if others had not invested in his company to help pay for the machines required to produce chocolate with amazing qualities. Willy Wonka is happy, his investors are happy, and most of all his consumers are happy.
What counts as exploitation? I'm about to work for a business in barbering, is my employer exploiting me for giving me an opportunity to make money, gain experience, and provide value to society?
That seems counter-productive, why would you abolish money? You're still going to replace money with another value system that determines the value of labour.

You can run an experiment by throwing your money in your backyard and check back after quarter of a year how much your investment grew.
It didn't!? Err, thats weird, because that would imply that SOMEONE is DOING SOMETHING to make your money magically multiply in the market. Hunh.
So, like, its either that theres people actually doing manual labor for the every extra penny that you make by sitting a thumb in your ass while your daddy's money is circling from one billionaire tophat to another in the market OR there is a magical fairy of capitalism that brings good luck and fortunes for everyone who keeps believing in him and puts more daddy's money in the market!
God bless the based free market fairy. God bless the mother-Trump.

Attached: PFwVUAu.jpg (620x349, 22.07K)

Retard. They're not free. They're the fruits of your labour. No labour= nothing. You starve to death.

Saying everything would be free is a huge assumption. You would have to produce value to make up for the value you consumed. Without this, society would crumble. Although, if labour was productive enough, you could have a situation where a relatively few people working could cover an entire societies consumption. Stop assumimg that everything would be free.

With investments you either get extremely lucky or you have a fucking load of money. The only way to get tons of money is to be some super valuable professional or to directly benefit from some sort of exploitation. I wouldn't say it is directly necessary to redistribute this money though. I would hope that people would naturally want to retake this money though, as it was taken from the workers of the businesses these people invested in. I don't think it would be necessary however, as this money would naturally disappear through consumption without the means to get more of it. It is definitely exploitative, and it doesn't really matter where the money is redistributed to. There are a number of obvious uses and it would have to be decided based on the situation.

No one should be denying that supply and demand exists, but it doesn't actually describe anything. You can't tell me how much something is worth based on how much people want it and how many things there are. It is an incredibly simplistic observation that is outshined by the Labor Theory of Value.
The LTV allows the prices of goods to be predicted and then to be made by a society without a marketplace. The value of a good is the value of the labor + the value of the resources spent on it.
You can see the ltv in simplistic terms as such. If it costs you two dollars of materials and two dollars of labor to make an object, you must sell it for at least four dollars to break even. However you are the only one who makes the item, so you can sell it for almost anything you want. However, when other Capitalists compete with you, you will have to sell closer and closer to the actual value of this good. Thusly, Capitalist competition over the price of a good creates the value system.

Willy Wonka is making so much money because he doesn't need to pay a workforce, because he has enslaved the Oompa Loompas.

Employers are always exploitative. When you have a job you produce, for your boss, as set amount of money. Your boss pays you a small amount of this, uses some for running costs and keeps the rest for himself. That is exploitation.

We make a distinction between private and personal property. You get to keep the latter. Private property refers to the means of production, which you most likely do not own.

Through exploitation. You can have value, jobs and innovation in a planned economy without exploitation and cutthroat business practices. That's how humans ended up in space.

Extracting surplus value from workers.

You shouldn't see exploitation as a moral judgement but rather in the same sense resources get exploited or bugs in games get exploited. Yes, you still get exploited by cold, hard scientific definition since you do not benefit from the full value of your labor. Even if you are liking it.

While we do want to introduce a system of labor vouchers, they'll be categorically different from money as we know it. They won't be transferable, for one.

Imagine being so alienated from product that you forgot that you made it!

What's wrong with reaping the benefits of investing in companies? Even the employers of these companies may invest and own parts of the companies they work for. I'm sure my money would be put to good use into expanding the company and may even provide more jobs depending on how successful they are.
The way investments work is that you do your research and carefully invest in companies which show promise in the future, there is no luck involved, only analysis. It isn't necessary to distribute the money since it's money well earned, even if I didn't have a hand in being a professional in any of the businesses I invested in, I still took risk and made a profit. Whether you believe that is exploitative or not is subjective, that being said I would not invest in companies like Uber or Nike who actually do exploit their workers.
This is redundant in a society with growing automation since no labour was put into it. Thus, if you can produce more of a product without the liability of manual labour, you shift the dynamic back to supply and demand since the game has changed entirely.
I don't see anything wrong with competing with others, and neither should you since the price will keep being undercut until it reaches closer to the original value of the good.

I'm still not convinced, but I'll read more about these concepts later on. I only have a few hours to sleep before I gotta go to get my apprenticeship set up. Thanks for the information, goodnight.

Yeah mods delete the thread.

read a book for once in your life or kys faggot

The guy you’re talking to sounds like he doesn’t understand business startup and development very well, but I’ll answer your first part because the rest is too long and addressing what looked like a bad point

There isn’t anything morally wrong with it, it’s a matter of whether the economy is “rational” and what groups benefit, and what distinctions there are between the groups that benefit and those that don’t. For Marx and Marxists, the capitalist economy is fundamentally flawed and unstable. It concentrates wealth increasingly and experiences periodic crises with the possibility always there for an especially damaging one when multiple contradictions have reached a breaking point. The especially bad crises can result in war and revolution. Its logic creates the conditions for it to be undone by the very mass of people who are most vulnerable to the crises. That is the basics. There are leftists who are driven primarily by a moral feeling, and Marx and Engels certainly loathed many bourgeois values (Engels called some of the businessmen he rubbed shoulders with in England “philistines” and other insults), but fundamentally Marxism isn’t about who should or shouldn’t do this or that. It was Marx’s theory that capitalist society was unstable and held within it the germ of what would come out of the revolutionary chaos during its crises. He identified the proletariat as the revolutionary class caught in the gears and being ground up by capitalist contradictions. It’s presumed to be in their self-interest to oppose capitalist accumulation, austerity, global imperial war etc. and we literally see this. Even the right wing takes on these causes because it clearly is in the self-interest of the average person to oppose them, albeit obviously marxists think they are misguided in their conclusions that they just need white bourgeoisie etc.

This stuff is rather obvious if you're familiar with the Marxist critique of capitalism, but here's the simplest answer I can think of:
The problem with money is that it is freely transferable, and this means clever people can start accumulating it without producing value themselves. With labor vouchers, we're able to give people that produce value a strong assurance that their labor is going to a good end (i.e. another socially productive worker, or someone with genuine reasons not to work), and not into the pockets of some exploitative capitalist.

You can understand this on a purely emotional level. Say you're working in a shop. What would make you happier about your work?
(1.) You're handing out commodities to people who have managed manipulate others into giving them money. This is what your boss wants you to do as part of his scheme to manipulate people into giving him money. He rewards you for the task with only a part of the money you're bringing in, simply because he owns the place and you don't.
(2.) You're handing out rewards to people holding vouchers verifying that they've either done some good work for the community, or are being maintained by the community because you've collectively decided this to be a moral imperative. This is part of the duty you are expected to perform for your fellow workers, and makes you eligible for rewards as well.

The first alienates people, the second makes them enthusiastic about their job.
It's all about giving power to the workers rather than those who are clever at playing the property game.

This is true of bullshit McCommunist states, which we would call "state capitalist." If they are actually structured to be democratic or anarchic so that the people are in charge, then there is no ruling class. The whole point is to get rid of that, and it has turned out (as Bakunin predicted) that if you have a vanguard trying to lead people to communism, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to being capitalism again.
This wouldn't even be a thing in communism because everyone's the same class. You either get back what you put in or you get what you need (depending on how developed the system is). If there is a way to be socially mobile, to change your position so that you get a proportionally bigger return, then you are not in a communist system.

Just gonna post some basic pamphlets. If OP is serious about understanding communism, these are a good place to start. They're like 100 pages total.

How do you expect to le BTFO communism if you don't have the slightest clue what that word means? OP is a faggot and so are you.