Why don't you all redistribute your wealth yourselves? That would be the morally right thing to do after all

If it doesn't require hard work than why don't you do it?
I wonder how those families got rich.

You're right, it shouldn't.

Attached: autism.png (375x360, 135.43K)

They clean stinky toilets so they're bad. Now fight each other, proles!

Dude, I went to fucking trade school for machining. Average pay coming out was $30,000 to $35,000 tops. After a few years, you might make $40,000 to $45,000 depending where you are. Left that to go to Aircraft Maintenance, which I'm training for now. Fuck off.

Simply not true, you have no idea of the real world.

by extracting the surplus labour of people below them? by manipulating money? anything that excludes doing much actual work

I don't know why you think this.

what is it with cappies and this phrase. we live in the same world, you just have your eyes closed.

So why don't you do that?

because it's unscrupulous, dishonest and exploitative?

If I had any capital I would.

But you could give your employees a good wage, good working conditions, etc. and also redistribute some of your wealth to the public.

...

I don't intend to settle for a guilded cage, nor would I give one for others. leftism isn't about better wages, working conditions and so on, it's abotu the elimination of capitalism and it's associated tendrils
you keep using this term, but it doesn't mean what you think it does

Good luck making money

you just got collectivised. hand over the toothbrush or it's the armchair-gulag for you, kid

Attached: josadeo staldiga.jpeg (300x400, 53.64K)

You keep criticizing people for not "Living in the real world", yet I bet you've never had to survive off of a near minimum wage. Again, fuck off.

in a communist society, there would be no currency nor any need for it.

what are nationalized industries?
what are worker cooperatives?

Attached: 7f5afa4c0af0e284e629e60001a67a38259eceabbfe4327112e7fedac69ccd8f.jpg (720x715, 91.8K)

How can you not have any form of currency? Are you suggesting a very large scale version of communal living?

You must be new here

What skills will you bring to this "worker cooperative"?

What exactly do you think money is?

Attached: 4cf0aa66afff7ca0bee5b037344b63fd599ff7ae7c3dd2a990639052a13439f2.webm (450x360, 4.26M)

see

Read Marx, Lenin and Bakunin.

A piece of metal, paper, whatever. That's value is based on some other material, such as gold, used for exchange purposes.

...

Labour vouchers for the transition:
Distinct from currency in that they're nontransferable and are only redeemed for consumer goods.

And the value of gold is based on?

Depends where I'm needed.

Attached: Quotation-Karl-Marx-From-each-according-to-his-abilities-to-each-according-to-18-93-50.jpg (1200x640, 101.18K)

Attached: lil reactionary.jpg (768x344, 77.66K)

if one more person tells me to volunteer or to look for an apprenticeship (which has the exact same set of problems) I will have a fucking aneurism

Attached: 1427050955194.jpg (191x255, 9.06K)

Every industrialized country stopped doing this decades ago, moving towards a fiat currency system. Closest you'll get is the United States petro-dollar, and that isn't exactly on the books.
That's the problem. Money can be utilized by individuals regardless if they were the ones who actually worked for it and then transferred between other individuals for exchange and use. A labor voucher/energy certificate on the other hand can only be used by a specific individual until it is used up, to which it then it ceases to function and is "destroyed". In this fashion, unproductive rent-seeking such as investment is avoided and the full productive potential of society can be utilized in an economy.

Webm unrelated, but the focus on maximum productivity and efficiency while ensuring a sustainable living is the same.

Attached: 800e251c775f7449c62ec2bb93b2753ec073c9470c29f5f053eb60c88a2f9d3a.webm (450x360, 3.2M)

why don't north korea do this

Attached: 1491965331_1470667008181.jpg (940x611, 35.67K)

what is with anti-communists using these same types of "arguments" every time? you're not really making a point since you seem to think life is a video game and every prole can just "redistribute their wealth" (which most of us don't have in the first place, most of the time we barely have enough for ourselves), or abstain from society completely and/or move to another country like it's that easy, because otherwise we don't have the right to criticise the system "cuz u use iphone and eed food produced unda capitalism".
not only are these things 99% of the working class can't exactly do, but they aren't even what socialism is about and won't fix things. read a book.

Attached: d84e1036c3e594b0ac7b925c6c8001c4dc878794d60cebee62ccc7cfa6bd047e.gif (291x300, 2.92M)

that's pushing it too far, you only really need a BCompSc, fluency in english and to memorize common interview questions to get an entry level job

I remember when I was this naive, oh how innocent I was…

what degree do you have

Generic IT with specialisations and functional experience in terminal emulators, corporate Remedy and professional technical support.

btw you do realize that job descriptions always depict ideal candidates, i've gotten offers with meeting like 10% of some of these written expectations, they're always bullshit. they will hire you if you're among the best that've applied or at least they figure they can profit from your labour

Protect this one. They are too pure for this cruel world.

Attached: IMG_0123.PNG (636x1092, 1.64M)

Nuclear take tbh

Attached: 1542404722191.gif (480x480, 2.56M)

Whoring is the world's oldest and most honorable profession.

if you're this outwardly negative irl then it's pretty clear why no one would want to hire you

I'm not being overly negative, you just have no clue what you're talking about. If you are not up to your eyeballs in qualifications and experience, you will be passed over. This is a demonstrable fact.

Read The Soul of Man under Socialism to find out why charity can only go so far and humanizes an inhumane system.

But you cant explain why Kim k is wealthy. Go fuck yourself you retarded bootlicker. If those CEOs worked hard Jim k must've also worked hard. All those royals and trust fund kids too.

Hahaha you fucking retard
t. lazy, talentless class traitor

an entry level IT job does not require relevant job experience. i didn't have any when they hired me for my first jr. SE job. nor did all my friends/colleagues that i know. but go on, keep living with that stubborn fatalistic attitude if that makes you satisfied

0.000000000000000000000000000000Btc has been deposited into your account

Dude 30-35k turns into 15-20k after factoring things required to live, like food and rent/mortgage/other bills. Take half that for savings and unexpected expenses and you're literally down to 10k profit for the year.

That's the real world.

...

wow that's pretty bad
I work at an Amazon warehouse (for health insurance benefits) and I make a little over that in gross income. It's a job that you don't need to go to school for, and some of my coworkers are fresh out of jail or have basically no education other than a diploma.
Skills were never an indicator about how much you actually make, or I would be making top dollar because I'm fluent in 3 languages. But nobody seems to care much that I can speak them other than as a footnote on a resume.

what's wrong with that? 10k is a decent amount, so is 5k. You're working and gaining in skill, which will lead to raises in time and promotions if you play your cards right. You can also invest that money or work on side hustles, like doing painting and drywall jobs on the weekend. I feel for people who aren't able to escape living paycheck to paycheck, but pocketing thousands of dollars is nothing to scoff at. Maybe you need to put your desires and expectations in check my dude.

When people say skills they mean skills that pertain to providing value to your employer. Of course you also have to consider how in demand those skills are, and how many other workers have them too. In the US obviously the most in demand languages are English and Spanish, but plenty of people know both of those languages so it doesn't help that much. The demand for other languages is much rarer, and you're probably going to need to couple them with other industry specific skills.

I have $5.00.

People would still hire people without the currently established businesses. The thing about private companies today is that they're essentially middlemen for labor. Some people don't understand this, but the reason they hire is that they need services completed. Hiring itself is not a service, it's an expression of their desire for services. Anyone who has ever been in a position where they had money and wanted to pay someone to do something could replace existing businesses in a market economy.

I'm bein' generous here, since this thread is locked.

Part of the problem in my mind isn't even the pay. This may not be the same for everyone on Zig Forums - but one of the reasons that 10k is so shit is that the prices of land and essentials are still massively inflated. And the reason those prices are inflated is largely due to land speculators who, instead of offering any kind of skilled service, just buy up (and often inherit) a finite resource and then mark it up.

So if someone goes out and learns a skill that's valuable to society, they're ultimately going to get paid less than they would if they just started on square one as a wealthy parasite. And then said parasites will make housing and the like unaffordable and charge rent to the workers - on top of the money taken from them by employers when they extract profit from their wages and the money taken by the government through any applicable taxes. It's unreasonable to expect people to work for years just to afford shelter, especially when their pay isn't going to actually keep up with inflation. Historically, shelter for much of human history has been a very basic thing. The reason for this is that for much of it landlords did not hold the kind of power they do today.

This trajectory is detrimental to productive work, and a recipe for increased poverty and homelessness. Ftr you wouldn't even have to discard a (precious, precious) market economy to solve the landlord problem. But telling people with leeches on their necks to work moar isn't going to do it.

If you're taking home ~10k a year it's not going to be long before you can afford a down payment on a decent house in most parts of the country. You can even live with roommates or family to be able to save more. Land speculation is annoying, and there are probably taxation measures that could be used to discourage entities from doing too much of it. I don't know how much undeveloped land is inherited but I doubt it's a significant figure.

Same goes for wealth from what I have seen, leftists often complain about 'wealthy parasites' but from what I have seen most wealth only lasts a few generations and most people who are wealthy and own large amounts of property came into their wealth by their own means. Of course not every starts at the same place in the race, but we are talking about how many people are born into enough wealth to live off of investments alone, no?

I want to make it clear I don't think things are great for workers, and I certainly think that workers on both sides of the political spectrum (especially right and left populists) need to come together and work on pushing reforms they can agree on. The reasons why essentials have become so expensive is complicated, it involves markets but it also involves government intervention as well.

Also, I wasn't saying 'work more'. I'm saying keep working. 5-10k saved per year is a good amount of money. If you're in a part of the country where housing prices are ridiculous, don't be a fool, move somewhere else. Side hustles aren't required but if you really are not satisfied with what you make, they are an option.

I don't consider markets to be precious, I simply see them as more feasible to central planning considering the history of central planning's failures. I've met Marxists that were reasonable and well read enough to make me open minded towards the idea of alternative systems, but not all Marxists inspire such a thing (often the opposite). I don't understand how more Marxists don't realize that succeeding in the current system despite its obvious failures is a path way to spreading your views. Wanting to free workers is a very noble goal, but you have to realize people will be skeptical of such a goal if it appears you are more interested in alternative systems because it is potentially the answer to your own personal situation.

Fucking hilarious

Attached: 17.jpg (992x880, 157.09K)

You're absolutely correct with one minor change.
Should be

This isn't how the actual world works. Most people in the US who take this much home after factoring in other costs don't live in houses, they live in apartments because that's all they can afford or all that they can acquire relative to where their job is. For those that can afford a down-payment in between all their bills and family expenses and that the bank determines are "safe" enough to offer a mortgage, they still have to contend with the added cost of the mortgage, maintenance costs on the house, and their other property based costs on top of their previous expenses and still while only taking ~10k home. There's a reason why a majority of seniors in the US are still living paycheck to paycheck into their 60s.
I've had to address this moralistic concept of what the bourgeoisie "deserve" more times then I can count, even recently we had similar arguments that I shortly addressed here . It doesn't matter if that wealth dissipates in a few generations. It doesn't matter if they came into their wealth by their "own means" (highly unlikely). The Rothschild's trading places with a nicer version of the Rothschild's wouldn't change anything in regards to the actual problems inherent to the economic system and both would still need a class system to continue operating their businesses and investments. It wouldn't do anything towards utilizing the full economic potential of society towards public efficiency and use, it would do nothing to reverse the declining rate of profit in capitalism, it would do nothing to end the inherent structural instabilities inherent to capitalism. All it would do is change out one group or person for another while leaving the system exactly the way it was before.
This would take a whole separate thread to talk about, but I would advise visiting the Cockshott thread. Central planning actually did very well where it was utilized, the problem was that those that utilized it didn't go far enough as technology improved.
We're not reformists, and I don't see how this does anything given that the argument against us would just shift from "You just have to work harder" to "You don't understand what its like to work hard, why don't you give up your wealth?".

Attached: karl-marx-439365.jpg (640x820, 115.11K)

The average home price in the US is around 190k, median is 200k. 5% downpayment for those prices is around 10k, with a mortgage payment of ~1000 dollars on a 30 year mortgage with average credit. if you are taking home ~10k a year after factoring in other costs you can certainly afford a home in most places in the US. What's more likely in the actual world is the person making ~35k isn't taking home 10k. That is much more believable. If you take home 10k after paying your normal bills and you can't afford a house then you live in an area where housing prices are far above the countries median or average or the price you are paying for rent is abnormally low to the point that a $1000 mortgage payment would much higher.

35K falls within the second quintile of income earners in the US. The upper bound for that group is around 44K (as of 2015, so it's higher now). The rate of home ownership for the second quintile in the US is 48%. If we're talking about a machinist (the job that one user used to hold) in a few years on the job that person will make 40-55K depending on the area. The home ownership rate of third quintile income earners is over 60%.
I could only find one paycheck to paycheck poll that showed age groups. In the 55-64 age group, 53% of people live paycheck to paycheck, at 65+ that drops to 44%.
Morality is a sticky subject, especially since I would assume you're a moral relativist. Regardless of what you feel they deserve, they earn a certain amount. The majority of millionaires (~80%) are first generation.
Yeah, I have it tabbed, it seems interesting. I'm still skeptical that technology is that advanced but who knows.
I think not pushing for reforms is foolish but you are your own master.
If you are successful in some capacity, more people will listen to your ideas no matter what domain the idea belongs in. The answer to people who tell you to give up your wealth if you are successful is to already be using your wealth and time to help others. You can still spread an ideology without wealth, but wealth, power, and influence go hand in hand. I often question how much devotion leftists(and rightists) have to their ideologies, sometimes it seems like these beliefs are for comfort or entertainment.