What do you think of Communism

[Umeria]

If the output of your work is collectively owned, then in theory you're incentivized to work because you partake in the benefits of it. Now, in my opinion this incentive isn't enough, but apparently it is to the person Austrailian republic was arguing with.

You're describing a monetary incentive.

I guess if you define any kind of reward as money.

[Galactic Powers]

You're describing a monetary incentive.

I guess if you define any kind of reward as money.

It is an external incentive, which is what a monetary incentive is. But there are other types of external incentives. Perhaps some confusion there?

[Kubra]

I don't see what one's job is under the current system has to do with incentives to work in a hypothetical future system.

Again, if he's not incentivised to work a crappy, manual labour job with a monetary incentive, why would he work one without the monetary incentive?

what makes a manual labour job "crappy"?
I mean, I had a blast assembling and installing cabinets back during college.

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

Ehhh... kinda.

I support taxing the rich and redistribution to the poor and further government control over big business. (Companies like Tesla, not companies like Gamestop)

1. Some of the stuff like garbage men or community service should be allowed to the homeless for monetary incentive.

2. Prisons should be both independent and under the government, like a company can administer the prison but the government actually owns the prison. Essentially outsourcing control of the prisons.

3. MAJOR medical issues should be free. Stuff like checkups or nonessential vaccinations should still be paid for. (But ofcourse for less money)

4. Chopping the military spending budget by a quarter, and then placing the newfound income into stuff like the health care center or NASA.

5. Allowing the rich tax breaks if their income begins to fall with no sign of rejuvenation, this tax break can last as long as it needs to. Why? Because if your economy is entirely dependent on take from the rich, give to the poor, you kinda need a rich to take from. If there are no rich, then there is no money.
(But if a rich person files for a tax break under false pretenses, it's counted has tax evasion/fraud)

(Kinda frisky so yeah, not to much though)

6. Any... ehum... movie businesses that wish to produce movies should it be cleared by the government that all of the actors and actresses are not being forced into work and/or that they are all legal.

... Am I a corporatist? Laying out my ideas makes me feel like a corporatist.

[American Legionaries]

You're describing a monetary incentive.

I guess if you define any kind of reward as money.

I mean, I suppose you could make it less useful and give me like a direct share of the product. But it seems like money would be a better form of pay than taking home five-hundred pairs pants because I work at a clothing factory

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

1. Some of the stuff like garbage men or community service should be allowed to the homeless for monetary incentive.

Could you elaborate more on this? It's not clear what this refers to, I think I have an idea but I'm not going to say anything until it's clarified

2. Prisons should be both independent and under the government, like a company can administer the prison but the government actually owns the prison. Essentially outsourcing control of the prisons.

That doesn't really make sense. If a private group controls everything in regards to a property, and the government only "owns" it... who actually owns the prisons?
Companies shouldn't even be allowed to run prisons. The legal system should not be privatized, especially considering it will always lead to the same thing.

3. MAJOR medical issues should be free. Stuff like checkups or nonessential vaccinations should still be paid for. (But ofcourse for less money)

That creates a problem where you have to define what "major" is. Yes, most people can agree on things which are major medical issues, but bodies are different and what might be major to someone might just be minor to another. You have to set a standard and that standard has to be flexible.
... But in the end, why make regular checkups still cost money? The salary of the physicians, surgeons, doctors, staff- all of that, can be paid for by the state.

4. Chopping the military spending budget by a quarter, and then placing the newfound income into stuff like the health care center or NASA.

I agree, but I think that it should be slashed by 50%.

5. Allowing the rich tax breaks if their income begins to fall with no sign of rejuvenation, this tax break can last as long as it needs to. Why? Because if your economy is entirely dependent on take from the rich, give to the poor, you kinda need a rich to take from. If there are no rich, then there is no money.
(But if a rich person files for a tax break under false pretenses, it's counted has tax evasion/fraud)

(Kinda frisky so yeah, not to much though)

Very easily abused, not a good system. Rule number one: If you want a rich person to do something, they will always find a way to loophole that thing.

6. Any... ehum... movie businesses that wish to produce movies should it be cleared by the government that all of the actors and actresses are not being forced into work and/or that they are all legal.

I mean yeah it's the government's responsibility to do that, but there shouldn't be a BOPI. You can tell what the acronym is.

... Am I a corporatist? Laying out my ideas makes me feel like a corporatist.

No, you just sound like a social democrat. ... actually maybe that's not a good example. You sound like, well- you're a welfare capitalist, that's the best I can describe it.

[Corporate Collective Salvation]

what makes a manual labour job "crappy"?

An overinflated sense of entitlement coupled with an under developed self-image that lends a poor perspective that fails to inform them that some people enjoy working with their hands, and that doing so is not inherently low-brow, and contemptible.

A neighbor of mine is a retired forklift mechanic whose main side hustle was building cabinets, and his particular portrait of middle class life brushed by his own hand according to what inspires him is more rich and dignified than might be expected from some.

[Kubra]

what makes a manual labour job "crappy"?

An overinflated sense of entitlement coupled with an under developed self-image that lends a poor perspective that fails to inform them that some people enjoy working with their hands, and that doing so is not inherently low-brow, and contemptible.

A neighbor of mine is a retired forklift mechanic whose main side hustle was building cabinets, and his particular portrait of middle class life brushed by his own hand according to what inspires him is more rich and dignified than might be expected from some.

A guy who builds cabinets, custom instead of pre-assembled, those guys are artisans. Ain't met one that didn't love what they do.
I mean I'm not gonna say there's no crappy manual labour jobs, but this has a lot to do with how the work itself is organised. When the goal is to keep labour as unskilled as possible, I mean yeah it's gonna be crappy and the monetary incentives won't match. The former is gonna get paid more and be happier regardless of his rates.

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

Could you elaborate more on this? It's not clear what this refers to, I think I have an idea but I'm not going to say anything until it's clarified

Y'know how some criminals are made to do community service? Well basically that but better.

Prisoners should be allowed to do community service on lets say... Friday to Monday, the rest of the week can be filled by the homeless so then they can have a well paying, stable job.

Add stuff like garbage pickup, prison cook, street cleaner, etc and now you're cooking with fire.

That doesn't really make sense. If a private group controls everything in regards to a property, and the government only "owns" it... who actually owns the prisons?
Companies shouldn't even be allowed to run prisons. The legal system should not be privatized, especially considering it will always lead to the same thing.

An outsourced company controls the day-to-day work of the prison. They purchase food, toilet paper, keep up on maintenance. But all of this stupid "you need X prisoners to get your paycheck" is done away with. All of the actual police work and getting people into prison is handled by the government.

Any rule changes are made by the government.

Essentially, the front desk is a government guard, Cell Block E is a private guard.

That creates a problem where you have to define what "major" is. Yes, most people can agree on things which are major medical issues, but bodies are different and what might be major to someone might just be minor to another. You have to set a standard and that standard has to be flexible.
... But in the end, why make regular checkups still cost money? The salary of the physicians, surgeons, doctors, staff- all of that, can be paid for by the state.

If you're a fit 28 year old with no prior medical history and you want a COVID vaccine? 30-40$.

If you are a 87 year old with tuberkulosis and have been in and out of the hospital? Free!

I agree, but I think that it should be slashed by 50%.

Lol based.

Very easily abused, not a good system. Rule number one: If you want a rich person to do something, they will always find a way to loophole that thing.

Yeah, but when I say that a tax break is needed, I mean needed. If you start losing some money, then no, no tax break for you!

If your collapse is eminent, then yeah, you can get a tax break.

I mean yeah it's the government's responsibility to do that, but there shouldn't be a BOPI. You can tell what the acronym is.

I essentially mean that more regulations and further government oversight.

Also, please TG me what BOPI means.

No, you just sound like a social democrat. ... actually maybe that's not a good example. You sound like, well- you're a welfare capitalist, that's the best I can describe it.

Phew!

[Kubra]

If you're a fit 28 year old with no prior medical history and you want a COVID vaccine? 30-40$.

If you are a 87 year old with tuberkulosis and have been in and out of the hospital? Free!

Is thus, uh, is this sarcasm or some sort of joke?

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

If you're a fit 28 year old with no prior medical history and you want a COVID vaccine? 30-40$.

If you are a 87 year old with tuberkulosis and have been in and out of the hospital? Free!

Is thus, uh, is this sarcasm or some sort of joke?

I want to strike a balance between Communists and Capitalists. (So then my ideas aren't so... overly utopian sounding)

Making those who don't need severe medical attention pay up will be able to keep those who require medical attention alive and also keep the insurance sharks at bay.

Also it could help take some of the weight off of the government, seeing as the hospitals themselves would still be able to have some income.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Is thus, uh, is this sarcasm or some sort of joke?

I want to strike a balance between Communists and Capitalists. (So then my ideas aren't so... overly utopian sounding)

Making those who don't need severe medical attention pay up will be able to keep those who require medical attention alive and also keep the insurance sharks at bay.

Also it could help take some of the weight off of the government, seeing as the hospitals themselves would still be able to have some income.

You are not necessarily 'striking a balance'. If anything, you are proposing social democratic measures.

The main thing here is profit. Why does a hospital need to make profit? And I am not talking about income, I am talking about profit, so earnings for investors.

[Kubra]

Is thus, uh, is this sarcasm or some sort of joke?

I want to strike a balance between Communists and Capitalists. (So then my ideas aren't so... overly utopian sounding)

Making those who don't need severe medical attention pay up will be able to keep those who require medical attention alive and also keep the insurance sharks at bay.

Also it could help take some of the weight off of the government, seeing as the hospitals themselves would still be able to have some income.

So, you see the problem, yes?
COVID vaccines are in order to slow the spread more than it is to dampen the symptoms. On the other hand, tuberculosis even with the elderly is actually pretty treatable as it occurs, and it's not terribly endemic in these nicer parts of the world.

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

I want to strike a balance between Communists and Capitalists. (So then my ideas aren't so... overly utopian sounding)

Making those who don't need severe medical attention pay up will be able to keep those who require medical attention alive and also keep the insurance sharks at bay.

Also it could help take some of the weight off of the government, seeing as the hospitals themselves would still be able to have some income.

You are not necessarily 'striking a balance'. If anything, you are proposing social democratic measures.

The main thing here is profit. Why does a hospital need to make profit? And I am not talking about income, I am talking about profit, so earnings for investors.

Earnings for the hospital itself.

If the government had to prop up EVERY SINGLE hospital or clinic, we would go over budget reeeaaal fast.

If hospitals (and the insurance companies) could still make some money whilst still allowing those who need emergency medical care receive said medical care for nothing. That would be the most preferable outcome. (In the USA, this would be a horrible idea in Canada or Norway)

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You are not necessarily 'striking a balance'. If anything, you are proposing social democratic measures.

The main thing here is profit. Why does a hospital need to make profit? And I am not talking about income, I am talking about profit, so earnings for investors.

Earnings for the hospital itself.

If the government had to prop up EVERY SINGLE hospital or clinic, we would go over budget reeeaaal fast.

If hospitals (and the insurance companies) could still make some money whilst still allowing those who need emergency medical care receive said medical care for nothing. That would be the most preferable outcome. (In the USA, this would be a horrible idea in Canada or Norway)

So why does it work for Canada and Norway and not for the US?

Anyway, we are having the wrong discussion. If you're talking about the government paying for verything, you are not talking about communism. Especially not if you leave hospitals in the hands of private owners.

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

Earnings for the hospital itself.

If the government had to prop up EVERY SINGLE hospital or clinic, we would go over budget reeeaaal fast.

If hospitals (and the insurance companies) could still make some money whilst still allowing those who need emergency medical care receive said medical care for nothing. That would be the most preferable outcome. (In the USA, this would be a horrible idea in Canada or Norway)

So why does it work for Canada and Norway and not for the US?

Anyway, we are having the wrong discussion. If you're talking about the government paying for verything, you are not talking about communism. Especially not if you leave hospitals in the hands of private owners.

Last thing I'll say because you're right, we are kinda thread jacking.

The USA is in a tough place, Norway and Canada had almost immediately allowed free health care, meanwhile insurance companies and banks were allowed to grow larger.

If we had just free health care, those big businesses would go under, thus putting thousands out of a job. Plus then lobbyists would step in to make sure that free healthcare was dead in the water.

My thoughts are basically to just throw them a bone so then the insurance companies won't just start ripping heads off.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Earnings for the hospital itself.

If the government had to prop up EVERY SINGLE hospital or clinic, we would go over budget reeeaaal fast.

If hospitals (and the insurance companies) could still make some money whilst still allowing those who need emergency medical care receive said medical care for nothing. That would be the most preferable outcome. (In the USA, this would be a horrible idea in Canada or Norway)

So why does it work for Canada and Norway and not for the US?

Anyway, we are having the wrong discussion. If you're talking about the government paying for verything, you are not talking about communism. Especially not if you leave hospitals in the hands of private owners.

Saying it works for Canada is a bit incorrect, I'd argue. On paper they have a better system than we do but they also have things like exorbitant bills for ambulance usage, incredibly lengthy wait times more often than not, etc etc.

Honestly Germany seems to be the best model to emulate.

[Redwood Ridge]

The problem with this point of view is that it implies that the government is responsible for feeding, clothing, and housing you. It's not, there is something called individual responsibility.

That is literally not what socialism is at all.
"Hey, the state should actually treat its people like human beings and ensure their well-being by ensuring food security, affordable housing and free heal-"
"UHM... SOUNDS LIKE A NANNY STATE TO ME."

This doesn't mean that those 50,000 Somalis aren't suffering and that they shouldn't be cared for in some capacity, in-fact I'm all for the welfare state as a means of giving the poor a chance to reclaim that agency they lack for whatever socioeconomic reason. But I do see it for what it is, the welfare under capitalism isn't some grand moral project which we should swear our undying allegiance to, it's a practical solution to a real world problem.

Welfare is not a "capitalism" thing. It exists because capitalism is above all else focused on profit regardless of morals. The problem with that is that there can be opposition and so when people stop working, capitalism makes less money. Capitalism is faced with two options: Make less money than before but still make money by passing token reforms, or don't do anything and don't make any money at all. They choose the second option and this also kills two birds with one stone as it also targets socialism and tries to put it out before it can.
Again, welfare is not the same thing as constructing a socialist society. Welfare is only the icing on top- the government should not have to help people in need because there should not be anyone in need, there shouldn't be food insecurity, there shouldn't be financial instability. This is surprisingly easier when your economy isn't ran by randomly changing lines on a graph because people decide "Hmm, I will sell this 2 dollars higher today" only for somebody to say later "Hmm... I will buy this for only one dollar".

Unlike with Socialist Solidarity, in which the people are giving out of guilt, welfare isn't done as some part of building a post-capitalist utopia like with mutual aid, it is done through state retaliation via taxation. That is why the true egalitarian position to help out human lives is in-fact charity, because of the fact charity by definition is voluntary and not a coerced activity, which isn't present in the other methods of helping the poor.

You have no idea what socialism is whatsoever holy fuck. Making sure that your citizens don't die on the streets because they can't afford something as basic as a loaf of bread and medicine isn't a bad thing and it's not what you're describing. Nobody in socialism "gives" anything out of guilt. They don't give anything as a matter of fact because taxes under socialist countries have actually been lower than capitalist countries despite the myth that socialists tax more. The reason why capitalist countries tax you more than socialist ones is that capitalist ones have to spend all that money on their massive state bureaucracy and overbloated military while socialist nations are not worried about profit and invest that money into things that matter like healthcare and other programs that are significantly cheaper to run then a trillion-dollar business known as "the military". I don't know what else to make of this aside from the fact that you genuinely think socialism is when "take away property from this guy and give it to that guy"... which isn't true.

Socialism is institutionalized theft, where it's normal to point at whoever has more than you and call them a capitalist oppressor, a counter-revolutionary, a bourgeoise, a kulak, and then use those labels as consequentialist justification to steal from them. Unlike Socialism, Capitalism doesn't condition people to belittle and hate, and weaponize victimization. It does not transform society into a constant struggle of selfishness, where if everybody owns everything collectively, why not just take everything you see?

Institutionalized theft from who? The working class? No. They gain the most out of socialism. Institutionalized theft from... the petite bourgeoisie'? Kind of, but most of them are lumped in with the working class. The bourgeoisie? Who make so much money and have so much wealth that they don't need to work for life's needs or wants anymore and as a result lose their connection to other human beings? Yes. We "steal" their property (translation: take away the means of production from a private individual and place it in the hands of the people to ensure that monopolies cannot be formed). Also the claim that capitalism "doesn't condition people to belittle or hate" is such a fucking lie. Remember fascism? Of course you do. Fascism is simply capitalism in decay- corporatism is capitalism, presented as a collectivist "compromise" between capitalism and socialism when it's actually just state capitalism that crushes the proletariat with an iron fist. It's able to achieve all this by putting the blame of all the bad things happening in society on... usually minorities. If something goes bad for capitalism, then it always finds a scapegoat to ensure that it keeps making money. For most of history, it was the Jews. For the cold war, it was the Soviets and communists and now it's any refugee or migrant. People get outraged, they ignore the actual problem and the bourgeoisie can keep making money. Also that last part is stupid because again, that's not what socialism is. Nor does everyone own everything collectively, only the means of production are owned collectively, and they're managed and ran by a council of workers, not just one individual. If you as an individual tried to privatize something and take it for yourself while up against 20+ other people without the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to back you up, you would be royally fucked.

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.

Capitalist economies literally crash solely based on lines on a graph. If we're playing the "x is sin of y" game, then capitalism encourages:
1. Pride- capitalism encourages the separation of the bourgeoisie from the proletariat through pride where the bourgeoisie sees themselves as better than the proletariat by having more wealth- and their pride also drives greed.
2. Envy- capitalism encourages envy by having a group of one people control all the wealth and live significantly more comfortable lives than 90% of the population without even feeling a dent in their bank account.
3. Anger- capitalism creates fake problems, directs people to lash out at those problems (like scary immigrants!) and in the process makes sure the proletariat are blind to their actual problems.
4. Sloth- it makes people depressed, lazy and less likely to work knowing that their efforts will be wasted on a system where you have to work to survive and even then your survival is not guaranteed.
5. Greed- I don't need to explain this, I think I explained it already.
6. Gluttony and Lust- it encourages pleasure seeking through coping mechanisms used to escape reality whilst being harmful. This includes both overeating as a response to stress or watching the Hub to escape reality for a few minutes of euphoria.

I can see why you guys think this shit, but it's not out of a place of understanding, it's only out of a place of ignorance.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against these things as a concept. Food security, affordable housing, and increasing access to healthcare are all important things, improving peoples' lives is great and as I'm not a post-modernist, I agree with you in that regard. But the reasons why I as a non-Socialist would want to pursue them are not the same as why as Socialist desires them, and this same argument goes for welfare as well.

All these values seem to boil down to big ideas that somebody else will do the hard work of implementing.

In regards to your dogshit views on the petit-bourgeoise, hey, at least you're mask-off about the reality of what your glorious Socialist state will do to dissidents and those who do not agree with their political positions. The fact that you pat yourself on the back for viewing expropriation, an act of state theft by the way, as a legitimate means of achieving wealth redistribution is actually not a good position to have. You say that Fascism is Capitalism in decay, but I think this is a misnomer meant to disguise the similarities between Fascism and Socialism; of which there's a lot in common and I'll address that later. Right now, I want you to know that there is a distinction between the private and political life. Under Liberal Capitalism, the president wakes up at 4 AM in the morning to work his butt off, understanding that his time is finite, and he has the time from now up until his death to accomplish his goals. He's not going to waste a minute of it, one second lost maybe an opportunity lost, but he's ultimately doing it for himself. He may seek to improve society through his work, but he's not seeking to force others to wake up at 4 AM everyday and grind it out as hard as he is.

Can the Socialist say the same? Because the socialist position is that society must be radically transformed. That liberalism must be overthrown, that capitalism must be smashed, the market must be abolished, products must be decommodified. It's not hard to see why this stops being individuals being allowed to grind it out, and instead becomes a totalitarian collective controlling everybody's lives. If we unpack the phrase that "Hey, the state should actually treat its people like human beings and ensure their well-being by ensuring food security, affordable housing and free healthcare", all this generally means is that treating people as human beings and ensuring their wellbeing means whatever pet projects the socialist personally believes in, whether or not most people agree with them. And if you don't agree with these things, there is no neutral position under Socialism, you're now a petit-bourgeoisie or a bourgeoisie because your positions on these problems define what class you belong to according to Materialist Dialectics. This means you are a class enemy for not allocating every second of your life, as efficiently as possible, to achieve the Socialist's goals because ethically they're just that important.

The principle that everything is political once again underlies this draconian thinking. Everything is wrapped up in systems of oppression, everything can be examined critically, and the inherent bigotry sussed out. Everything impacts people and not just in an everyday way, but as a collective society wide class one, therefore everything is political. Now this is true, everything can have a political element to it. A coffee you buy from a store can simply be a drink, but it's also consideration of where it came from, was slave labor involved in its creation? Were the workers involved in its creation compensated fairly? Are there injustices that forced workers into that position? In the trade deal between the two governments to get that coffee from their country to your kitchen, was that deal fucking somebody else over? This is a materialist lens of viewing that coffee, and Socialists are not wrong for being able to critically analyze things this way, but what you're missing is the public-private split.

In liberal society, you're allowed to have a private life. You aren't required to obsess over politics, the idea that because the media doesn't explicitly address the political makes it worthless to the socialist, and many socialists probably do view the world as shallowly as this. But that isn't the ideological core of the Socialist ethic being represented here, as if everything is political and Socialism is the embodiment of all that is caring, just, and fair in the world, then everything must be about creating the utopia and every apolitical space and moment must be turned towards your politics. Every moment where Socialism isn't being discussed, every space where Socialism isn't present, it's all a potential soapbox for you guys. Because the alternative, which is disengaging from the eternal class struggle, is a direct setback to the righteous cause: it's a waste of precious resources, precious time, precious space.

Because everything is political to a Socialist, everything falls within the jurisdiction of the Socialist state. It's much the same as Fascism, where Mussolini famously described the Fascist state as "everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state", making Socialism inherently totalitarian. Because to make the distinction that there can be a private or personal life, separate from the political, is to believe there can be apoliticality. This runs antithetical to Socialism's totalitarian nature, where nothing outside of its ideological goals can be remotely thought of as virtuous or having any kind of beneficial value, because it already knows all that is good for the proletariat class. Fascism and Socialism are blood brothers, seeking to make a virtue out of the act of destruction.

[Galactic Powers]

An overinflated sense of entitlement coupled with an under developed self-image that lends a poor perspective that fails to inform them that some people enjoy working with their hands, and that doing so is not inherently low-brow, and contemptible.

A neighbor of mine is a retired forklift mechanic whose main side hustle was building cabinets, and his particular portrait of middle class life brushed by his own hand according to what inspires him is more rich and dignified than might be expected from some.

A guy who builds cabinets, custom instead of pre-assembled, those guys are artisans. Ain't met one that didn't love what they do.
I mean I'm not gonna say there's no crappy manual labour jobs, but this has a lot to do with how the work itself is organised. When the goal is to keep labour as unskilled as possible, I mean yeah it's gonna be crappy and the monetary incentives won't match. The former is gonna get paid more and be happier regardless of his rates.

When people say "manual" they often mean "unskilled," is the thing. No one thinks that the plumbers or electricians are miserable, those are the poster children for "get into trades! Good money! Don't go into student debt!" But worker #235 in a factory production line that essentially does nothing important at all would probably be considered in a "crappy" job.

[American Legionaries]

A guy who builds cabinets, custom instead of pre-assembled, those guys are artisans. Ain't met one that didn't love what they do.
I mean I'm not gonna say there's no crappy manual labour jobs, but this has a lot to do with how the work itself is organised. When the goal is to keep labour as unskilled as possible, I mean yeah it's gonna be crappy and the monetary incentives won't match. The former is gonna get paid more and be happier regardless of his rates.

When people say "manual" they often mean "unskilled," is the thing. No one thinks that the plumbers or electricians are miserable, those are the poster children for "get into trades! Good money! Don't go into student debt!" But worker #235 in a factory production line that essentially does nothing important at all would probably be considered in a "crappy" job.

Former utility worker here. Despite the decent pay, anyone who is on their twelfth hour on a telephone pole working by flashlight in the frigid rainy night is miserable, no matter how enormous their bank account balance is. And even then, cabinet makers and utility workers aren't the average manual laborer, for each manual laborer with a union wage and a good pension, there's ten who's job is building pallets of whatever product for eight or ten or twelve hours for minimum wage and no guarantee he'll have work the following day.

[Galactic Powers]

When people say "manual" they often mean "unskilled," is the thing. No one thinks that the plumbers or electricians are miserable, those are the poster children for "get into trades! Good money! Don't go into student debt!" But worker #235 in a factory production line that essentially does nothing important at all would probably be considered in a "crappy" job.

Former utility worker here. Despite the decent pay, anyone who is on their twelfth hour on a telephone pole working by flashlight in the frigid rainy night is miserable, no matter how enormous their bank account balance is. And even then, cabinet makers and utility workers aren't the average manual laborer, for each manual laborer with a union wage and a good pension, there's ten who's job is building pallets of whatever product for eight or ten or twelve hours for minimum wage and no guarantee he'll have work the following day.

Aye, true. It's all on a case by case basis, I was just addressing what I see is a common confusion that people have between "manual" and "unskilled" labor when discussing types of jobs and such. Or at least, one that I've perceived.

[Land of The Furries]

Ehhh... kinda.

I support taxing the rich and redistribution to the poor and further government control over big business. (Companies like Tesla, not companies like Gamestop)

1. Some of the stuff like garbage men or community service should be allowed to the homeless for monetary incentive.

2. Prisons should be both independent and under the government, like a company can administer the prison but the government actually owns the prison. Essentially outsourcing control of the prisons.

3. MAJOR medical issues should be free. Stuff like checkups or nonessential vaccinations should still be paid for. (But ofcourse for less money)

4. Chopping the military spending budget by a quarter, and then placing the newfound income into stuff like the health care center or NASA.

5. Allowing the rich tax breaks if their income begins to fall with no sign of rejuvenation, this tax break can last as long as it needs to. Why? Because if your economy is entirely dependent on take from the rich, give to the poor, you kinda need a rich to take from. If there are no rich, then there is no money.
(But if a rich person files for a tax break under false pretenses, it's counted has tax evasion/fraud)

(Kinda frisky so yeah, not to much though)

6. Any... ehum... movie businesses that wish to produce movies should it be cleared by the government that all of the actors and actresses are not being forced into work and/or that they are all legal.

... Am I a corporatist? Laying out my ideas makes me feel like a corporatist.

You basically just described Robin Hood in the first part of this comment lol.

[Kubra]

A guy who builds cabinets, custom instead of pre-assembled, those guys are artisans. Ain't met one that didn't love what they do.
I mean I'm not gonna say there's no crappy manual labour jobs, but this has a lot to do with how the work itself is organised. When the goal is to keep labour as unskilled as possible, I mean yeah it's gonna be crappy and the monetary incentives won't match. The former is gonna get paid more and be happier regardless of his rates.

When people say "manual" they often mean "unskilled," is the thing. No one thinks that the plumbers or electricians are miserable, those are the poster children for "get into trades! Good money! Don't go into student debt!" But worker #235 in a factory production line that essentially does nothing important at all would probably be considered in a "crappy" job.

and that was an observation of 19th century economists: as productive as the division of labour was, it made the people subjected to it dumb, bored, and underpaid. Shit wages had to be lowered to *make* people work.

[Redwood Ridge]

The division of labor is in-fact the reason why it's possible for workers to upskill in the first place. A hardworking fisherman who fishes for the whole day will be a lot more proficient at fishing than the lazy fisherman who only fishes in the morning. And with the sophistication of modern technology, a factory worker today is on average more educated than a 19th century steel mill worker. Anyone who thinks a modern factory worker barely contributes anything of value to the overall production of the goods in the factory have evidently never stepped foot in any modern factory of any kind, and should not be so confident, uncritical, and assertive of their outdated presuppositions.

[Australian rePublic]

What other incentives?

If the output of your work is collectively owned, then in theory you're incentivized to work because you partake in the benefits of it. Now, in my opinion this incentive isn't enough, but apparently it is to the person Austrailian republic was arguing with.

So in other words, thete is no incentive