What do you think of Communism

[Redwood Ridge]

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

The incentive to work when the output of your work is collectively owned is the benefit of gaining access to the goods and services provided by society. In theory, this should provide people with a greater sense of community and responsibility towards others, which could lead to a "supposedly" more harmonious and cooperative world. However, it is possible that some people may take advantage of the system in order to gain access to its resources without having to offer anything in return. In-fact, they do, this is known as the Free-rider Problem. Freeloaders, the Lumpenproles, they create a vicious cycle in which more and more people become dependent on the collective output of others without contributing themselves, work for thee but not for me.

[Australian rePublic]

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?

- Socialism is not focused on profit above human wellbeing
- As a result, corners are not cut and factories are actually safe
- Workers are thus more happy and work more productively now that they're treated like a human being rather than a cog in the machine

Yea, that's nice, now who's going to rewire the houses and relay sewer pipes?

- People are able to produce things so easily and efficiently that, due to the laws of supply and demands, there is no scarcity and so when the state is not dedicated to making money, it makes no sense to apply a price tag to things.

Wait, what?

- People are then thus able to directly exchange the value of their labor for products without the need for money.

So give bananas to the apple grower in excahnge for apples? That's great, but what if the apple grower doesn't need bananas? What if he needs shoes? Or clothes? But you have none of those stuff, you have bananas. That's why cash was invented. Cash is just bateting but with a universally accepted tools. And debit cards are invisible cash. Also, what about people who work in services? They don't produce any goods. Taxi drivers don't produce goods. Couriers don't produce any goods

People don't need an incentive to work. They just like to be productive. And I'm not just talking about manual labor here- what some people like to work on, others don't- but they all share one thing in common: People like to work.

Yes, that's nice sweetheart, if you have a nice job such as woodworker or seemstress or taxi driver. But name ma one person who likes hanging from wires at 3 am in the niddle of a thunderstorm because thete's a power outage. Or realligning sewer pipes because there was a blockage somewhere which damaged the pipes. You can say whatever fucking bullshit you want about people liking different jibs or whatever crap you like, but as long as you fail to address the crappy jobs that no body likes, your point is still moronic no matter how much you repeat it. I don't know if your idiocy is intentional or otherwise, but idiocy is idiocy either way, and if you think that there are people out there who enjoy realligning sewer pipes or fixing electrical wires in the rain at 3 am, then there aren't enough in the English language for how dumb that is. Your entire argument here is that people enjoy their work. Okay, find me one single indovidual who, when discounting monetary incentives, enjoys hanging from electrical wires at 3 am. You can't find one? It's because they don't fucking exist. At this point, you're just banging your chest like King Kong, thinking that the act of banging your chest alome makes you intelligent. Also, if people like working so much, how do you explain "careers" like philosopher or artist or the like. If people like working so much, why don't they get actual jobs that actually pay more? It's almost as if people don't like working and need to be incentivised to do so. Sure people like doing some jobs, but those jobs contribute nothing to society. The jobs that contribute the most to society are the most unplesent ones.

People have to work under capitalism because without money, they will die, and even then their survival isn't guaranteed since minimum wage in most of the countries can't even rent you an apartment.

Which is why I am willing to test a UBI

Eventually the incentive stops being "I need to work to survive and provide for myself" and simply becomes "I want to work, because it makes me feel good and it makes me a productive member of society". The incentive to work BECOMES the natural instinct of humanity: to be productive members of society. Being able to exchange your labor directly for products you need or want is what replaces money, eliminating the middle man entirely. Again, people don't want money, they want things. Money is simply a bartering tool. When people get a paycheck they don't think "Ah, sweet! I have x amount of imaginary currency here!", they think "Aw sweet! Now i can pay my bills and get the things I want!"
Money only has a value because of scarcity, most of which is artificial. You eliminate scarcity and money becomes worthless because again, it is only valuable because of scarcity and when things are not scarce and you don't give a shit about making a profit, money loses its purpose altogether.

Oh my sweet, sweet child. You're so ignorant. You know what causes scarcity? Natural disasters. I've lived through the worst drought in Sydney's recorded history. We this close to running out of water. You know what caused the drought? Lack of raim? You know what didn't cause the drought? Capitalism. How the fuck would communism make the rian start falling? After the drought came floods. Floods wiped out entire crops causing shortages. You know what didn't cause those shortages? Capitalism. When a flood wipes out an entire yield of crops, how exactly would communism solve that? In fact communism would make matters worse. Under capitalism "oh shitz the floods wiped out our lettus crops, we need to temporarily buy some from overseas" vs communism "oh shit, a flood wiped out our lettus crops, we have to reduce rations." Honestly, what posses you to think that capitalism encourgaes wastefullness? Waste is not profitable. Capitalism encourages productivity, because the more you produce, the more you can sell. If anything, waste is a reult of too much productivity, leading to excess. Capitalism incentivises people to therefore up their productivity. The more you try to justify your point, the dumber it gets. And it's not just you either. All of you communists are making the same dumb point. Your point is stupid, your justification for communism is stupid, communism is stupid l and the more you try to justify it, the dumber it gets.

[Ifreann]

Why would anyone be working on a power pole at 3am in a storm? Just wait for the storm to pass.

[Land of The Furries]

Why would anyone be working on a power pole at 3am in a storm? Just wait for the storm to pass.

There's some pretty crazy people out there. Plus we are after all talking about communism so yeah.......

[Luna Amore]

- Socialism is not focused on profit above human wellbeing
- As a result, corners are not cut and factories are actually safe
- Workers are thus more happy and work more productively now that they're treated like a human being rather than a cog in the machine

Yea, that's nice, now who's going to rewire the houses and relay sewer pipes?

- People are able to produce things so easily and efficiently that, due to the laws of supply and demands, there is no scarcity and so when the state is not dedicated to making money, it makes no sense to apply a price tag to things.

Wait, what?

- People are then thus able to directly exchange the value of their labor for products without the need for money.

So give bananas to the apple grower in excahnge for apples? That's great, but what if the apple grower doesn't need bananas? What if he needs shoes? Or clothes? But you have none of those stuff, you have bananas. That's why cash was invented. Cash is just bateting but with a universally accepted tools. And debit cards are invisible cash. Also, what about people who work in services? They don't produce any goods. Taxi drivers don't produce goods. Couriers don't produce any goods

People don't need an incentive to work. They just like to be productive. And I'm not just talking about manual labor here- what some people like to work on, others don't- but they all share one thing in common: People like to work.

Yes, that's nice sweetheart, if you have a nice job such as woodworker or seemstress or taxi driver. But name ma one person who likes hanging from wires at 3 am in the niddle of a thunderstorm because thete's a power outage. Or realligning sewer pipes because there was a blockage somewhere which damaged the pipes. You can say whatever fucking bullshit you want about people liking different jibs or whatever crap you like, but as long as you fail to address the crappy jobs that no body likes, your point is still moronic no matter how much you repeat it. I don't know if your idiocy is intentional or otherwise, but idiocy is idiocy either way, and if you think that there are people out there who enjoy realligning sewer pipes or fixing electrical wires in the rain at 3 am, then there aren't enough in the English language for how dumb that is. Your entire argument here is that people enjoy their work. Okay, find me one single indovidual who, when discounting monetary incentives, enjoys hanging from electrical wires at 3 am. You can't find one? It's because they don't fucking exist. At this point, you're just banging your chest like King Kong, thinking that the act of banging your chest alome makes you intelligent. Also, if people like working so much, how do you explain "careers" like philosopher or artist or the like. If people like working so much, why don't they get actual jobs that actually pay more? It's almost as if people don't like working and need to be incentivised to do so. Sure people like doing some jobs, but those jobs contribute nothing to society. The jobs that contribute the most to society are the most unplesent ones.

People have to work under capitalism because without money, they will die, and even then their survival isn't guaranteed since minimum wage in most of the countries can't even rent you an apartment.

Which is why I am willing to test a UBI

Eventually the incentive stops being "I need to work to survive and provide for myself" and simply becomes "I want to work, because it makes me feel good and it makes me a productive member of society". The incentive to work BECOMES the natural instinct of humanity: to be productive members of society. Being able to exchange your labor directly for products you need or want is what replaces money, eliminating the middle man entirely. Again, people don't want money, they want things. Money is simply a bartering tool. When people get a paycheck they don't think "Ah, sweet! I have x amount of imaginary currency here!", they think "Aw sweet! Now i can pay my bills and get the things I want!"
Money only has a value because of scarcity, most of which is artificial. You eliminate scarcity and money becomes worthless because again, it is only valuable because of scarcity and when things are not scarce and you don't give a shit about making a profit, money loses its purpose altogether.

Oh my sweet, sweet child. You're so ignorant. You know what causes scarcity? Natural disasters. I've lived through the worst drought in Sydney's recorded history. We this close to running out of water. You know what caused the drought? Lack of raim? You know what didn't cause the drought? Capitalism. How the fuck would communism make the rian start falling? After the drought came floods. Floods wiped out entire crops causing shortages. You know what didn't cause those shortages? Capitalism. When a flood wipes out an entire yield of crops, how exactly would communism solve that? In fact communism would make matters worse. Under capitalism "oh shitz the floods wiped out our lettus crops, we need to temporarily buy some from overseas" vs communism "oh shit, a flood wiped out our lettus crops, we have to reduce rations." Honestly, what posses you to think that capitalism encourgaes wastefullness? Waste is not profitable. Capitalism encourages productivity, because the more you produce, the more you can sell. If anything, waste is a reult of too much productivity, leading to excess. Capitalism incentivises people to therefore up their productivity. The more you try to justify your point, the dumber it gets. And it's not just you either. All of you communists are making the same dumb point. Your point is stupid, your justification for communism is stupid, communism is stupid l and the more you try to justify it, the dumber it gets.

*** Warned for flamebaiting ***

Bolded for emphasis. If it were a one off, I would have been more inclined to ignore it, but you should be able to debate without being needlessly condescending.

[Nilokeras]

Metaphor my arse. What's the bet that he does some airy-fairy job such as painter or philosopher and claims that he suddenly would become a blue collar worker with no incentives, despite failing to do so with an incentive, but he's just too embarrassed to admit it?

I mean, I made exactly this point to Lower Nubia - I can say whatever I want about this really, and just lie to your face. Like how I apparently convinced you I worked in a classic Simpsons bit. Which is why this line of questioning is so silly.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Harsh words from someone who assumes international trade does not exist under communism and who does not realise that capitalism is indeed partially to blame for natural disasters. Apart from, you know, climate change, which is a primary example of capitalism changing the weather and being incapable to fix a problem, there are multitudes of ways capitalism creates disasters.

For this, you have to realise that what constitutes a 'disasters' is primarily controlled by how humans react and prepare for an eventuality. The mere absence of rain does not necessarily make a drought. It only becomes one if ground waters have also run dry, noy enough storage capacity has been built, desalination plants have not been constructed. Even then, if there is actually a water shortage, proper rationing can mean that many people do not go without water, at the expense of companies. Of course, under capitalism, businesses enjoy water access over people. And I see your typing, but no: business water use is not just about drinking water and toilets for employees. It's about production processes as well. However, under capitalism, which is 'efficient', only the minimum of measures is taken to offset business losses, and capitalism is notorious for lacking long term planning capabilities.

The same is true for floods. Excess water is not necessarily a problem. They turn to floods when water is not sufficiently handled. This happens when monoculture farming has reduced the ground's capacity to store water (which later causes droughts when groundwater aquafers are not replenished). Down the line, packed concrete and asphalt in cities reduce the capacity for water to run off, and sufficient dams and runoff infrastructure needs to be in place to divert excess water. We already prevent many rains from turning into damaging floods, just not enough to keep up with changing climate. Or more directly, the destruction of salt water mangroves has lessened the ability of some coastal regions to deal with salt water floods and storm tides. These are all aspects that can be taken into account by either planners or decentralised collectives working towards a common good, but not by self-interested capitalists.

Your understanding of scarcity is rudimentary. Capitalist producers enjoy scarcity, because scarcity makes the value of their goods go up. See, for example, this story. There are plenty more like it. It depends very much on the type of good, but for many goods creating abudance is actually inefficient. And in others, like you said, overproduction leads to waste. Only, in food markets, that 'waste' is only waste because some people are not wealthy enough to buy food. That we allow people to starve because they do not have enough money to buy food is another central moral failing of capitalism.

Not only that, but it is the kind of failing that creates whole new markets, which then defend their own existence jealously. A recent example is 'timesharing' companies, which are universally accepted as being harmful businesses for the people that make use of them. They are scams, another type of business that flourishes under capitalism. To combat this, timesharing exit companies have grown, which are also primarily scams, and which now combat legislation meant to ban timesharing companies because if timesharing dies, so do the timesharing exit companies. This whole industry wastes billions of dollars of no discernable gain to society. The same goes for many other useless industries. The point is not efficiency, the point is making mney, which is the only efficiency that capitalism recognises.

Here we see one of the true problems: you do not take into account the enormous failings of capitalism. You pretend that they are just 'a part of life' and that they must necessarily exist in all other economies too. This is faulty reasoning. You are defending a system that depends on people starving, that is breaking down the climate, that is unable to deal with those consequences, and which wastes billions upon billions of dollars in useless companies, and which wastes the labour of people who could be doing actually useful work like engaging in sustainable multilevel permaculture. Capitalism is a self-destructive system for the benefit of a tiny few, and yet you are pretending that without it, people will just idle themselves to death.

The problem with your view on the world is that you view some parts as natural and unfixable, and you get extremely emotional and defensive when people point out that certain things are indeed able to be changed outside of a capitalist viewpoint. By then, you start calling people stupid, which is an irrational amount of attatchment to an economic system. I have a feeling this anger has more to do with some personal aspects of this issue than the actual issue. There is no need to get this upset.

[Nilokeras]

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.

It is fun when people whose only conceptions of 'socialism' (always conflated with Marxism) come from Fox News. Like this fun little layer cake of a post: on the surface layer, we have the weird inversion of 'dialectical materialism'. Then, when it comes to applying dialectical materialism, it becomes obvious that what you meant by 'Materialist Dialectics' is some sort of weird conception of liberal identity politics, where personal expression determines class and racial condition.

Which really makes this whole post really rather pointless - a boomer shadow-boxing against a phantom that Tucker Carlson conjured up in their brain.

[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.

So in other words, thete is no incentive

I think we're using different definitions of the word incentive or something

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So in other words, thete is no incentive

I think we're using different definitions of the word incentive or something

If you define "incentive" to mean "monetary compensation which can be exchanged for shelter, food and healthcare", then yes, there is no incentive other than money.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Yea, that's nice, now who's going to rewire the houses and relay sewer pipes?

People will. There will always be someone to rewire the houses and do that type of shit. Houses won't stop being rewired and sewer pipes won't stop being relayed because currency no longer exists. Those are societal duties. They are necessary for the functioning of modern society and they will continue to be done.

Wait, what?

What about this is confusing?

So give bananas to the apple grower in excahnge for apples? That's great, but what if the apple grower doesn't need bananas? What if he needs shoes? Or clothes? But you have none of those stuff, you have bananas. That's why cash was invented. Cash is just bateting but with a universally accepted tools. And debit cards are invisible cash. Also, what about people who work in services? They don't produce any goods. Taxi drivers don't produce goods. Couriers don't produce any goods

I said "value of their labor", not bartering fruits. "Exchanging the value of your labor for products" is not "bartering a banana for an apple".

Yes, that's nice sweetheart, if you have a nice job such as woodworker or seemstress or taxi driver. But name ma one person who likes hanging from wires at 3 am in the niddle of a thunderstorm because thete's a power outage. Or realligning sewer pipes because there was a blockage somewhere which damaged the pipes. You can say whatever fucking bullshit you want about people liking different jibs or whatever crap you like, but as long as you fail to address the crappy jobs that no body likes, your point is still moronic no matter how much you repeat it. I don't know if your idiocy is intentional or otherwise, but idiocy is idiocy either way, and if you think that there are people out there who enjoy realligning sewer pipes or fixing electrical wires in the rain at 3 am, then there aren't enough in the English language for how dumb that is. Your entire argument here is that people enjoy their work. Okay, find me one single indovidual who, when discounting monetary incentives, enjoys hanging from electrical wires at 3 am. You can't find one? It's because they don't fucking exist. At this point, you're just banging your chest like King Kong, thinking that the act of banging your chest alome makes you intelligent. Also, if people like working so much, how do you explain "careers" like philosopher or artist or the like. If people like working so much, why don't they get actual jobs that actually pay more? It's almost as if people don't like working and need to be incentivised to do so. Sure people like doing some jobs, but those jobs contribute nothing to society. The jobs that contribute the most to society are the most unplesent ones.

Nobody likes hanging from wires at 3 AM in the middle of a thunderstorm because there's a power outage. But neither does anybody like to work office jobs where you sit under florescent lighting for 9 hours. Neither does anyone like to farm on a hot day. What you're saying are just nightmare scenarioes: they're bad days for these jobs. They're not the norm. You can't use a bad day for a job as an example of every single day for a job.
Again, what people like is not the job: It's being productive. That is why when one does schoolwork, which provides no monetary value to you whatsoever, makes you feel productive (even if it's fucking boring) because again, you are doing something. That is also why people volunteer for community service: because it means they are being productive and it makes you feel good about yourself. You can work cleaning up sewers for a living and can still go home feeling good about yourself because you are actually contributing to society. The job itself is not what makes you feel good, it's the feeling of being productive.
And again this type of language doesn't belong in this conversation, especially if you're going to provide no actual serious arguments of your own and instead point fingers and call me an idiot. This is not an argument.
"If people like working so much, why don't they get actual jobs that actually pay more?"
Because not everything is about money- and again, I said that people like to be productive, that just so happens to also include work... because being productive is working. Here's a dilemma for you: You can either choose between the job where you do the hobby that you like, with people that likely share your hobbies, for less pay, or you can go for the office job where you sit at a desk all day, barely move, might occasionally socialize with co-workers and get more pay. Which is more desirable to you? Is it worth sacrificing happiness for a bigger paycheck?
This problem wouldn't exist under socialism because people should be guaranteed their needs. Surprise surprise when everything isn't about profit people don't have to choose between life-saving medicine and rent. What is "the most productive"? What is "most productive" to you? Name these jobs.

Which is why I am willing to test a UBI

Here's a crazy idea- Why not just ensure that housing is affordable to everyone instead of just throwing more money at them, as if though that fixes the root of the problem?

Oh my sweet, sweet child. You're so ignorant. You know what causes scarcity? Natural disasters. I've lived through the worst drought in Sydney's recorded history. We this close to running out of water. You know what caused the drought? Lack of raim? You know what didn't cause the drought? Capitalism. How the fuck would communism make the rian start falling? After the drought came floods. Floods wiped out entire crops causing shortages. You know what didn't cause those shortages? Capitalism. When a flood wipes out an entire yield of crops, how exactly would communism solve that? In fact communism would make matters worse. Under capitalism "oh shitz the floods wiped out our lettus crops, we need to temporarily buy some from overseas" vs communism "oh shit, a flood wiped out our lettus crops, we have to reduce rations." Honestly, what posses you to think that capitalism encourgaes wastefullness? Waste is not profitable. Capitalism encourages productivity, because the more you produce, the more you can sell. If anything, waste is a reult of too much productivity, leading to excess. Capitalism incentivises people to therefore up their productivity. The more you try to justify your point, the dumber it gets. And it's not just you either. All of you communists are making the same dumb point. Your point is stupid, your justification for communism is stupid, communism is stupid l and the more you try to justify it, the dumber it gets.

How does it go...?

She sells seashells on the seashore, but the value of these shells will fall
Due to the laws of supply and demand
No one wants to buy shells 'cause there's loads on the sand
Step one, you must create a sense of scarcity
Shells will sell much better if the people think they're rare, you see
Bare with me, take as many shells as you can find and hide 'em
On an island stockpile 'em high until they're rarer than a diamond
Step two, you gotta make the people think that they want 'em
Really want 'em, really fuckin want 'em
Hit 'em like Bronson
Influencers, product placement, featured prime time entertainment
If you haven't got a shell then you're just a fucking wasteman

Yes, you're correct in that natural disasters can create scarcity. But again, they are not the only thing that causes scarcity. "Natural disasters" alone cannot be used to explain why people starve in the streets. "Natural disasters" cannot be used to explain artificial scarcity. "Natural disasters" cannot be used to explain companies bumping up prices of things that are in reality extremely inexpensive to make.
That comparison between communism and capitalism regarding a flood by the way, is stupid- but I need to finish this up and leave so I'll close out with this:
1. Watch your tone.
2. You have either misunderstood what I have said, or in the case when you did not, came up with very dumb arguments.

[Redwood Ridge]

Socialist are only concerned with the buyer side of the housing equation, much like how they also only care about the seller side of the labor equation. Because they don't actually care about the damage done by their idealized policies. They only care if the correct people are hurt by that damage. It's not as simple as the monopolistic hedgefunds buying up all the houses and renting them to people. Now, it's not to say this isn't happening, you had a massive crash during COVID, reducing the value of everybody's property, businesses closed down, etc and the ones who made a killing are the ones who vacuumed up property when they were at COVID lows because the property values were going to bounce back.

But that isn't the only variable here, what's also happening is that in a lot of places you've got tons of people moving, whether that be out of cities or into them as work from home ends, and you have a historically low rate on mortgage loans. You also have many potential sellers shelving their plans due to uncertainty, you have many potential buyers who have reduced their incidental spending due to lockdowns while working at home and saving money, or taking pay raises for outside essential work. This has resulted in more buyers having more money, and less sellers willing to sell. It isn't merely a problem of opportunistic rich people buying up everything.

What are you going to do next, coerce home owners and force them to rent or sell their property?

[Australian rePublic]

Why would anyone be working on a power pole at 3am in a storm? Just wait for the storm to pass.

That isn't the "Got ya" that you think it is. Okay, the storm has passed at 3:30 am, it's still pissing down rain. Less dangerous, but still as unpleasant

People will. There will always be someone to rewire the houses and do that type of shit. Houses won't stop being rewired and sewer pipes won't stop being relayed because currency no longer exists. Those are societal duties. They are necessary for the functioning of modern society and they will continue to be done.

Wait, what? What are you talking about? WHO would rewire someone's house if there were no incentive for it? What you're describing is slavery. Slaves did all the unpleasant jobs for no money, but in order to get anyone to do it in any major degree, you had to chain people up and force them to. Slaves did all of society's most necessary jobs, but none of them did it willingly. How many people were slaves "for the good of society". Maybe like 2 of them. Even if there were like 200 people willing to do it, there's nowhere enough to run a functioning society. And if you think they would, then put your money where your mouth is and become an electrician. Seriously, stop pretending that people will do something that you yourself won't do

I said "value of their labor", not bartering fruits. "Exchanging the value of your labor for products" is not "bartering a banana for an apple".

Care to elaborate?

Nobody likes hanging from wires at 3 AM in the middle of a thunderstorm because there's a power outage. But neither does anybody like to work office jobs where you sit under florescent lighting for 9 hours. Neither does anyone like to farm on a hot day.

Which is why we have monetary incentives.

What you're saying are just nightmare scenarioes: they're bad days for these jobs. They're not the norm. You can't use a bad day for a job as an example of every single day for a job.

Um, depending on where you live, yes it is. I mean, if you live somewhere in the tropics where it rains for 6 months, then you will experience that day in day out for 6 months. If you live somewhere hot like the desert, where the temperature barely drops below 30oC during the day in summer, then that's the norm for you. It's not a nightmare scenario, it's reality for people who live in certain climates.

Again, what people like is not the job: It's being productive. That is why when one does schoolwork, which provides no monetary value to you whatsoever, makes you feel productive (even if it's fucking boring) because again, you are doing something.

Wait what? Do you know what "nerd" is? Do you know why nerds are teased? What planet do you live on where kids do school work without any fuss? Kids always get into arguments about whether or not to do school work.

That is also why people volunteer for community service: because it means they are being productive and it makes you feel good about yourself. You can work cleaning up sewers for a living and can still go home feeling good about yourself because you are actually contributing to society. The job itself is not what makes you feel good, it's the feeling of being productive.

So go and clean sewers for a living since you seem to think it's as pleasant as you say it is. Since you think it's as rewarding as you say it is, then go and do it. Or admit that you're a hypocrite.

And again this type of language doesn't belong in this conversation, especially if you're going to provide no actual serious arguments of your own and instead point fingers and call me an idiot. This is not an argument.

Well I try to make an actual argument but you keep ignoring it and keep repeating the same stupid crap that I am trying to argue against when you ignore my response. Now that you've finally tried to answer the question, I'll address it.

"If people like working so much, why don't they get actual jobs that actually pay more?"
Because not everything is about money- and again, I said that people like to be productive, that just so happens to also include work... because being productive is working.

No, I said "if people like working so much, why don't they get jobs that actually contribute to society?" I never said anything about money

Here's a dilemma for you: You can either choose between the job where you do the hobby that you like, with people that likely share your hobbies, for less pay, or you can go for the office job where you sit at a desk all day, barely move, might occasionally socialize with co-workers and get more pay. Which is more desirable to you? Is it worth sacrificing happiness for a bigger paycheck?

Congratulations of contradicting yourself. People do unpleasant jobs because of the paycheque. Some people prefer to do pleasant jobs for little money, whilst others prefer to do unpleasant jobs for the paycheque. People clean sewers for the paycheque. Take away the paycheque, and people have no incentive to do it. Under capitalism, you ask the question of "would you prefer to do a job you like for little money or a job you hate for a lot of money?" a valid question where people could answer either and society benefits. Where as under communism you ask the question of "would you prefer to do a job you like for no money, or a job you hate for no money". Who in their right mind would choose option 2? Under communism, someone still needs to clean out sewers, or fix electrical lines, or what not, but you don't get a big paycheque for doing so. Therefore, no body would be stupid enough to do it

This problem wouldn't exist under socialism because people should be guaranteed their needs. Surprise surprise when everything isn't about profit people don't have to choose between life-saving medicine and rent.

Same system exists under slavery. You have to provide your slaves with life saving medicine and accomodation. Does that mean we should go back to slavery

What is "the most productive"? What is "most productive" to you? Name these jobs.

Seriously, you need me to explain to you why a plumber is a more productive member of society than a philosopher? Okay, that's an easy one. Plumbers keep our water and sewerage systems operational. They keep our toilets flowing, and they ensure that we have access to clean safe water. Plumbers also ensure that we have hygienic, safe ways of disposing of human waste. Philosophers literally sit around literally contemplating their navals. I do enjoy philosophy, and if you can make a career from it, good luck to you. I do enjoy philosophy, and I do enjoy a good philosophical discussions, but when push comes to shove, society can't function without nurses, school teachers, couriers, plumbers, electricians, etc. Society can function without whatever conclusions you have drawn about your naval

Here's a crazy idea- Why not just ensure that housing is affordable to everyone instead of just throwing more money at them, as if though that fixes the root of the problem?

Housing isn't affordable because we want more migrants and fewer apartments for those migrants to live in, and less urban sprawl in the name of the environment. That, plus NIMBYism. Wanting fewer apartments, more migration and less urban sprawl in the name of the environment tends to be your lot. Right-wingers happily want more appartments and more urban sprawl.

How does it go...?

She sells seashells on the seashore, but the value of these shells will fall
Due to the laws of supply and demand
No one wants to buy shells 'cause there's loads on the sand
Step one, you must create a sense of scarcity
Shells will sell much better if the people think they're rare, you see
Bare with me, take as many shells as you can find and hide 'em
On an island stockpile 'em high until they're rarer than a diamond
Step two, you gotta make the people think that they want 'em
Really want 'em, really fuckin want 'em
Hit 'em like Bronson
Influencers, product placement, featured prime time entertainment
If you haven't got a shell then you're just a fucking wasteman

Yes, you're correct in that natural disasters can create scarcity. But again, they are not the only thing that causes scarcity. "Natural disasters" alone cannot be used to explain why people starve in the streets. "Natural disasters" cannot be used to explain artificial scarcity. "Natural disasters" cannot be used to explain companies bumping up prices of things that are in reality extremely inexpensive to make.
That comparison between communism and capitalism regarding a flood by the way, is stupid- but I need to finish this up and leave so I'll close out with this:
1. Watch your tone.
2. You have either misunderstood what I have said, or in the case when you did not, came up with very dumb arguments.

You do realise that very few industries actually work like that, and that's the exception, not the norm. My argument is stupid? I'm not the one who's trying to argue that someone would be more willing to clean sewers for free than what they would be for significant payment. I'm also not the one trying to argue that communism is the only solution to poverty

[Elwher]

Your understanding of scarcity is rudimentary. Capitalist producers enjoy scarcity, because scarcity makes the value of their goods go up. See, for example, this story. There are plenty more like it. It depends very much on the type of good, but for many goods creating abudance is actually inefficient. And in others, like you said, overproduction leads to waste. Only, in food markets, that 'waste' is only waste because some people are not wealthy enough to buy food. That we allow people to starve because they do not have enough money to buy food is another central moral failing of capitalism.

The problem with your view on the world is that you view some parts as natural and unfixable, and you get extremely emotional and defensive when people point out that certain things are indeed able to be changed outside of a capitalist viewpoint. By then, you start calling people stupid, which is an irrational amount of attatchment to an economic system. I have a feeling this anger has more to do with some personal aspects of this issue than the actual issue. There is no need to get this upset.

Scarcity is natural and unfixable. There is a limited quantity of all goods, whether that quantity is in excess or less than demand is the question. When the availability of a good is less than the demand, some method of allocation is required. Capitalism does this by increasing the price, thereby lessening the demand until an equilibrium is reached. Socialism doe this by allocating an equal quantity of the good to all consumers, thereby not fulfilling anyone's demand fully.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Your understanding of scarcity is rudimentary. Capitalist producers enjoy scarcity, because scarcity makes the value of their goods go up. See, for example, this story. There are plenty more like it. It depends very much on the type of good, but for many goods creating abudance is actually inefficient. And in others, like you said, overproduction leads to waste. Only, in food markets, that 'waste' is only waste because some people are not wealthy enough to buy food. That we allow people to starve because they do not have enough money to buy food is another central moral failing of capitalism.

The problem with your view on the world is that you view some parts as natural and unfixable, and you get extremely emotional and defensive when people point out that certain things are indeed able to be changed outside of a capitalist viewpoint. By then, you start calling people stupid, which is an irrational amount of attatchment to an economic system. I have a feeling this anger has more to do with some personal aspects of this issue than the actual issue. There is no need to get this upset.

Scarcity is natural and unfixable. There is a limited quantity of all goods, whether that quantity is in excess or less than demand is the question. When the availability of a good is less than the demand, some method of allocation is required. Capitalism does this by increasing the price, thereby lessening the demand until an equilibrium is reached. Socialism doe this by allocating an equal quantity of the good to all consumers, thereby not fulfilling anyone's demand fully.

You have to understand the difference between the two types of scarcity: scarcity in the economic sense, meaning that there is a finite supply of resources which take labour to turn into goods, is just part of the natural order. However, scarcity in the more regular sense means that there is 'not enough' of something, or that the supply side of the equation is low. This is not necessarily natural. Capitalism in general creates that scarcity in some instances, since it increases prices. Creating abundance is actually against the interests of capitalists, which is why is does not happen. Not only does it lower direct prices, but if there were abundance, people would have to worry less about work and their labour would grow more expensive.

Then we get to the solutions of various economic systems. Here, we hit a few problems. First, you mix up socialism and communism without regard for the difference. Subsequently, you assume that socialism (and therefore communism) is about state control and central planning. Then, you assume that socialism allocates and equal quantity of commodities to all consumers, not fulfilling everyone's demands. This is, however, a situation that you created, not taking into account actual socialist ideology.

So, first of all, speaking about communism: since producers are not hampered by markets and prices, producers are free to create abundance and thus escape the artificial scarcity that exists under capitalism. If the demands of people are not met, then production can be increased, which under capitalism only happens if the increased demand is profitable to fulfil. You claim that capitalism 'lessens demand' by increasing prices, but this is of course not true. It reduces the capacity of some people to fulfil their demands, thus freeing up supply to fulfil the demands of the wealthy. Thus, it fails to fulfil the demands of some while fulfilling the demands of others. I don't see why that is preferable to even the faulty explanation of socialism you give, let alone the actual expected results of implementing a socialist or communist economy.

Think about this: since the 1800s, human capacity to produce has expanded incredibly. Then why, even after increasing both the world population and world productivity, is there still so much poverty? Should we not be able to create enough for all by now? This can only have to explanations: either somehow increased production is not enough to satisfy the increased demand (doubtful, taking into account the advances in production capacity) or the scarcity we see today is of an artificial nature, because without scarcity there would be no need for markets.

[Australian rePublic]

Metaphor my arse. What's the bet that he does some airy-fairy job such as painter or philosopher and claims that he suddenly would become a blue collar worker with no incentives, despite failing to do so with an incentive, but he's just too embarrassed to admit it?

I mean, I made exactly this point to Lower Nubia - I can say whatever I want about this really, and just lie to your face. Like how I apparently convinced you I worked in a classic Simpsons bit. Which is why this line of questioning is so silly.

Yes, it's a Simpsons' joke. That changes nothing about the fact that you still don't want to answer about who will do shitty jobs. The fact that you've made it into a joke means that you really don't have answer to what I have to say and have a mockery out of it. You still can't answer the question of who will do all the shitty jobs, so you result to stupid jokes and out of place Simpsons' references. If you can't answer my question, then admit that there is no answer, therefore leading to communism's inevitable failure, instead of making stupid jokes. If you don't want to do a job which contributes to society but expect others to for free, then admit it, But then of coarse, that'll make you look bad and contradict your whole argument, so, you have to result to lies and out-of-place Simpsons' references.

The entirety of the argument is that you won't do a horrible job which actually contributes to society for money, but claim you would do it for free. You know how moronic that sounds, you know how stupid it is, you know that no body is actually stupid enough to believe that, so you have to result to pathetic jokes and out-of-place TV references. Communism sucks and your biggest argument in favour of it is so stupid that you have to use pathetic diversion tactics. This is becoming very cult-like, and I don't know how to deprogram cult members. At least the way that you interpret it, communism is a full-blown cult.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I mean, I made exactly this point to Lower Nubia - I can say whatever I want about this really, and just lie to your face. Like how I apparently convinced you I worked in a classic Simpsons bit. Which is why this line of questioning is so silly.

Yes, it's a Simpsons' joke. That changes nothing about the fact that you still don't want to answer about who will do shitty jobs. The fact that you've made it into a joke means that you really don't have answer to what I have to say and have a mockery out of it. You have no good arguments in favour of communism, so admit it

I'd love to hear you make the argument that capitalism is better, even with the problems you imagine communism would have.

Anyway, there is no job that is inherently shitty. Shitty jobs arise out of bad hours, low pay, low input in your own work, or your work itself being pointless. Capitalism makes many jobs shitty by forcing you to work for the benefit of someone else. And, of course, since capitalism is all about 'efficiency' (meaning reducing cost while increasing income), they don't invest in things that would make those jobs less shitty. For example, while not all jobs can be automated (and neither do we want them to), many jobs are improved by at least partial automation. With the right protective equipment, sewer work can be one of the most fulfilling jobs out there, making sure cities remain clean and safe. Some jobs, such as middle manager, sales consultant, stock trader and HR manager would disappear, but you still have to make a compelling argument for why those jobs need to exist.

Please argue why people need to starve in order so that sales consultants may exist.

[Australian rePublic]

Yes, it's a Simpsons' joke. That changes nothing about the fact that you still don't want to answer about who will do shitty jobs. The fact that you've made it into a joke means that you really don't have answer to what I have to say and have a mockery out of it. You have no good arguments in favour of communism, so admit it

I'd love to hear you make the argument that capitalism is better, even with the problems you imagine communism would have.

Anyway, there is no job that is inherently shitty. Shitty jobs arise out of bad hours, low pay, low input in your own work, or your work itself being pointless. Capitalism makes many jobs shitty by forcing you to work for the benefit of someone else. And, of course, since capitalism is all about 'efficiency' (meaning reducing cost while increasing income), they don't invest in things that would make those jobs less shitty. For example, while not all jobs can be automated (and neither do we want them to), many jobs are improved by at least partial automation. With the right protective equipment, sewer work can be one of the most fulfilling jobs out there, making sure cities remain clean and safe. Some jobs, such as middle manager, sales consultant, stock trader and HR manager would disappear, but you still have to make a compelling argument for why those jobs need to exist.

Please argue why people need to starve in order so that sales consultants may exist.

No job is inheritably shitty in and of itself? You've NEVER done a single day of blue collar work in your life, have you? Of coarse not, that's a stupid question. You obviously haven't. It goes without saying. Your ignorance is showing.

Also, yea, why do you think people work overnight. Why do you think people dangle from electrical wires at 3 am? In Australia, you have to pay penalty rates, where you have to pay like 1.5x to do it, but companies still pay for it, because they need to be done. Why do you think companies pay premium wages? Why do you think people need to do these jobs at 3 am? Because they need to be done at 3 am. If there's a storm which causes a power failure at 3 am, the storm's not gonna care about the fact that it's 3 am. That's not something that can wait till morning. Try telling everyone that we're not turning back on until morning because it's unpleasant to work overnight. In the meanwhile, all the food in the fridge has expired, people with sleep apnoea machines are unable to utilise them.

Sewer work can be fulfilling? Yea and? How the fuck would that encourage people to do it for free? Just because you think that something that you've never attempted is fulfilling, it doesn't mean that people are willing to do it for free. And if you think they are, then prove me wrong by fucking doing it. But of coarse you never will, just expect others to do it.

As for the starving to death if you choose not to work part, I already addressed that, a UBI.

Also, middle manager, sales consultant, etc. don't need to exist. Yea? Okay. Those aren't the worst jobs out there. The worst jobs out there still need to be done. Just because somewhat pleasant jobs won't, according to you, don't need to exist, it doesn't mean that jobs which objectively DO need to exist aren't much worse. No body does a job because they think it's fulfilling.

Don't sit here and pretend to know a thing about blue collar work when you're not even willing to attempt it. And don't sit here and pretend that you're willing to do blue collar work when you're not. It doesn't help your agenda, it just makes you look like a liar.
nd end all of capitalism? Suggesting that efficiency is the be and all of capitalism is the worst strawman of capitalism I have ever heard. No body said that efficiency was the central tenement of capitalism. Saying so is a strawman.

Also, who the fuck said that efficiency is the be all a
As for your question about why should salespeople starve to death when working hard? Who the fuck said that they should? You do realise that capitalism and elimination of the working poor are not mutually exclusive, right? Try stepping outside of the USA, and visiting a place like Canada, or Australia, or western Europe, or NZ. In those places, the concept of working poor is almost non-existent. You can have capitalism without the working poor, again, look at the aforementioned countries. Ironically, if anyone in those countries is working poor, it's small business owners.

[Kubra]

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.

I mean you don't seem to understand the distinction between skilled and unskilled, so it ain't clear if you have, either.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I'd love to hear you make the argument that capitalism is better, even with the problems you imagine communism would have.

Anyway, there is no job that is inherently shitty. Shitty jobs arise out of bad hours, low pay, low input in your own work, or your work itself being pointless. Capitalism makes many jobs shitty by forcing you to work for the benefit of someone else. And, of course, since capitalism is all about 'efficiency' (meaning reducing cost while increasing income), they don't invest in things that would make those jobs less shitty. For example, while not all jobs can be automated (and neither do we want them to), many jobs are improved by at least partial automation. With the right protective equipment, sewer work can be one of the most fulfilling jobs out there, making sure cities remain clean and safe. Some jobs, such as middle manager, sales consultant, stock trader and HR manager would disappear, but you still have to make a compelling argument for why those jobs need to exist.

Please argue why people need to starve in order so that sales consultants may exist.

No job is inheritably shitty in and of itself? You've NEVER done a single day of blue collar work in your life, have you? Of coarse not, that's a stupid question. You obviously haven't. Your ignorance is showing.

Also, yea, why do you think people work overnight. Why do you think people dangle from electrical wires at 3 am? In Australia, you have to pay penalty rates, where you have to pay like 1.5x to do it, but companies still pay for it, because they need to be done. Why do you think companies pay premium wages? Why do you think people need to do these jobs at 3 am? Because they need to be done at 3 am. If there's a storm which causes a power failure at 3 am, the storm's not gonna care about the fact that it's 3 am. That's not something that can wait till morning. Try telling everyone that we're not turning back on until morning because it's unpleasant to work overnight. In the meanwhile, all the food in the fridge has expired, people with sleep apnoea machines are unable to utilise them.

Sewer work can be fulfilling? Yea and? How the fuck would that encourage people to do it for free? Just because you think that something that you've never attempted is fulfilling, it doesn't mean that people are willing to do it for free. And if you think they are, then prove me wrong by fucking doing it. But of coarse you never will, just expect others to do it.

As for the starving to death if you choose not to work part, I already addressed that, a UBI.

Also, middle manager, sales consultant, etc. don't need to exist. Yea? Okay. Those aren't the worst jobs out there. The worst jobs out there still need to be done. Just because somewhat pleasant jobs won't, according to you, don't need to exist, it doesn't mean that jobs which objectively DO need to exist aren't much worse. No body does a job because they think it's fulfilling.

Don't sit here and pretend to know a thing about blue collar work when you're not even willing to attempt it. And don't sit here and pretend that you're willing to do blue collar work when you're not. It doesn't help your agenda, it just exposes you as a liar and/or hypocrite

You would be so much more productive if you could lay off the arrogant condesension for one second, but no, you choose to be highly unpleasant to interact with (which you regard as winning, somehow).

But yeah, under capitalism, where you have to get money in order to survive, you can do nothing for free, and nothing can be fulfilling. Anyway, the hundreds of blue collar workers I work with on a daily basis don't hate their work. They hate their managers or their low pay or the lack of respect they get or people assuming that their jobs are shit. Blue collar jobs under capitalism can be shit because the market undervalues them. All you are doing, all the time, is proving the point I am making. Under capitalism, nobody is free to do a fulfilling job because you are forced to work in order to eat and your job is created to be fully in line with the profit motive of the company owner, not because the owner is bad, but because otherwise they would go out of business.

Just to show it to you: why does a worker need to dangle by a wire in the middle of a storm? It is because, under capitalism, power generation is centralised instead of distributed, and a lot of power infrastructure lacks redundancy because redundancy is redundant and expensive. Under communism, where market forces are not the primary drivers of production, power generation can be decentralised and energy infrastructure can have some redundancy so that a single wire snapping does not endanger the safety of people, as it does under capitalism.

You are just saying that you cannot live a communist life under capitalism, which is totally correct, and nobody is arguing against that. It's literally the most easy argument to 'win', but you are still constantly bashing capitalism. So please, keep going.

As for your question about why should salespeople starve to death when working hard? Who the fuck said that they should? You do realise that capitalism and elimination of the working poor are not mutually exclusive, right? Try stepping outside of the USA, and visiting a place like Canada, or Australia, or western Europe, or NZ. In those places, the concept of working poor is almost non-existent. You can have capitalism without the working poor, again, look at the aforementioned countries. Ironically, if anyone in those countries is working poor, it's small business owners.

Jesus, read the question: why should people starve so we can have an economy where salespeople exist, not whatever you turned it into.

I am not an American, actually. I am a Western European. And there are working poor here, a lot of them. And that is even if you don't count emotional and house labour as work, which of course it is. There is a lot of poverty here, and capitalism literally cannot exist without poverty. In order for capitalists to have power over people, some people must be poor. That's why, in the Netherlands, 1 million people out of 18 million inhabitants don't earn enough to live. And those are not 'small business owners'. Those are nurses and teachers, who love their jobs tremendously.

Anyway, do you want to make the argument that capitalism has nothing to do with decreasing costs and increasing profits?

[Ifreann]

Why would anyone be working on a power pole at 3am in a storm? Just wait for the storm to pass.

That isn't the "Got ya" that you think it is. Okay, the storm has passed at 3:30 am, it's still pissing down rain. Less dangerous, but still as unpleasant

Working on electrical equipment in the rain sounds pretty dangerous. Probably best to wait until the rain's stopped.

---

...If there's a storm which causes a power failure at 3 am, the storm's not gonna care about the fact that it's 3 am. That's not something that can wait till morning. Try telling everyone that we're not turning back on until morning because it's unpleasant to work overnight. In the meanwhile, all the food in the fridge has expired, people with sleep apnoea machines are unable to utilise them.

If the power's out at 3am then most people won't even notice, and the inconvenience of a power outage isn't worth risking someone's life. Even to a power company operating under capitalism, the cost of a lawsuit from a dead employee's family isn't worth avoiding a handful of customer complaints. You're trying so hard to think up a terrible job that no one would ever volunteer to do without some kind of reward that you're inventing work that even under capitalism nobody actually does. People don't climb up power poles in the middle of the same storm that took the power out. We don't need the power on that badly. Anyone who does need to keep the power on that badly, hospitals or whatever, would have a back-up generator.

[Elwher]

Scarcity is natural and unfixable. There is a limited quantity of all goods, whether that quantity is in excess or less than demand is the question. When the availability of a good is less than the demand, some method of allocation is required. Capitalism does this by increasing the price, thereby lessening the demand until an equilibrium is reached. Socialism doe this by allocating an equal quantity of the good to all consumers, thereby not fulfilling anyone's demand fully.

You have to understand the difference between the two types of scarcity: scarcity in the economic sense, meaning that there is a finite supply of resources which take labour to turn into goods, is just part of the natural order. However, scarcity in the more regular sense means that there is 'not enough' of something, or that the supply side of the equation is low. This is not necessarily natural. Capitalism in general creates that scarcity in some instances, since it increases prices. Creating abundance is actually against the interests of capitalists, which is why is does not happen. Not only does it lower direct prices, but if there were abundance, people would have to worry less about work and their labour would grow more expensive.

Then we get to the solutions of various economic systems. Here, we hit a few problems. First, you mix up socialism and communism without regard for the difference. Subsequently, you assume that socialism (and therefore communism) is about state control and central planning. Then, you assume that socialism allocates and equal quantity of commodities to all consumers, not fulfilling everyone's demands. This is, however, a situation that you created, not taking into account actual socialist ideology.

So, first of all, speaking about communism: since producers are not hampered by markets and prices, producers are free to create abundance and thus escape the artificial scarcity that exists under capitalism. If the demands of people are not met, then production can be increased, which under capitalism only happens if the increased demand is profitable to fulfil. You claim that capitalism 'lessens demand' by increasing prices, but this is of course not true. It reduces the capacity of some people to fulfil their demands, thus freeing up supply to fulfil the demands of the wealthy. Thus, it fails to fulfil the demands of some while fulfilling the demands of others. I don't see why that is preferable to even the faulty explanation of socialism you give, let alone the actual expected results of implementing a socialist or communist economy.

Think about this: since the 1800s, human capacity to produce has expanded incredibly. Then why, even after increasing both the world population and world productivity, is there still so much poverty? Should we not be able to create enough for all by now? This can only have to explanations: either somehow increased production is not enough to satisfy the increased demand (doubtful, taking into account the advances in production capacity) or the scarcity we see today is of an artificial nature, because without scarcity there would be no need for markets.

There is an essential difference between demand and desire in economics. Demand implies a willingness to pay the required price, desire does not. Therefore, the rising costs will decrease demand while having minimal or no effect on desire. My desire for a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud is very high, my demand is nil.

As to poverty, it is true that productivity has increased greatly since 1800. It is equally true that poverty has decreased greatly in that same period. If graphed, they would show an inverse relationship. Both curves will approach a desired point, but can never reach it as the slope increases; poverty will never reach 0 and productivity will never reach infinity.

[Land of The Furries]

I'd love to hear you make the argument that capitalism is better, even with the problems you imagine communism would have.

Anyway, there is no job that is inherently shitty. Shitty jobs arise out of bad hours, low pay, low input in your own work, or your work itself being pointless. Capitalism makes many jobs shitty by forcing you to work for the benefit of someone else. And, of course, since capitalism is all about 'efficiency' (meaning reducing cost while increasing income), they don't invest in things that would make those jobs less shitty. For example, while not all jobs can be automated (and neither do we want them to), many jobs are improved by at least partial automation. With the right protective equipment, sewer work can be one of the most fulfilling jobs out there, making sure cities remain clean and safe. Some jobs, such as middle manager, sales consultant, stock trader and HR manager would disappear, but you still have to make a compelling argument for why those jobs need to exist.

Please argue why people need to starve in order so that sales consultants may exist.

No job is inheritably shitty in and of itself? You've NEVER done a single day of blue collar work in your life, have you? Of coarse not, that's a stupid question. You obviously haven't. It goes without saying. Your ignorance is showing.

Also, yea, why do you think people work overnight. Why do you think people dangle from electrical wires at 3 am? In Australia, you have to pay penalty rates, where you have to pay like 1.5x to do it, but companies still pay for it, because they need to be done. Why do you think companies pay premium wages? Why do you think people need to do these jobs at 3 am? Because they need to be done at 3 am. If there's a storm which causes a power failure at 3 am, the storm's not gonna care about the fact that it's 3 am. That's not something that can wait till morning. Try telling everyone that we're not turning back on until morning because it's unpleasant to work overnight. In the meanwhile, all the food in the fridge has expired, people with sleep apnoea machines are unable to utilise them.

Sewer work can be fulfilling? Yea and? How the fuck would that encourage people to do it for free? Just because you think that something that you've never attempted is fulfilling, it doesn't mean that people are willing to do it for free. And if you think they are, then prove me wrong by fucking doing it. But of coarse you never will, just expect others to do it.

As for the starving to death if you choose not to work part, I already addressed that, a UBI.

Also, middle manager, sales consultant, etc. don't need to exist. Yea? Okay. Those aren't the worst jobs out there. The worst jobs out there still need to be done. Just because somewhat pleasant jobs won't, according to you, don't need to exist, it doesn't mean that jobs which objectively DO need to exist aren't much worse. No body does a job because they think it's fulfilling.

Don't sit here and pretend to know a thing about blue collar work when you're not even willing to attempt it. And don't sit here and pretend that you're willing to do blue collar work when you're not. It doesn't help your agenda, it just makes you look like a liar.
nd end all of capitalism? Suggesting that efficiency is the be and all of capitalism is the worst strawman of capitalism I have ever heard. No body said that efficiency was the central tenement of capitalism. Saying so is a strawman.

Also, who the fuck said that efficiency is the be all a
As for your question about why should salespeople starve to death when working hard? Who the fuck said that they should? You do realise that capitalism and elimination of the working poor are not mutually exclusive, right? Try stepping outside of the USA, and visiting a place like Canada, or Australia, or western Europe, or NZ. In those places, the concept of working poor is almost non-existent. You can have capitalism without the working poor, again, look at the aforementioned countries. Ironically, if anyone in those countries is working poor, it's small business owners.

But what of those who actually enjoy the blue collar jobs or shall we go into the territory of the intelligence community how about those who actually enjoy the jobs within that community?

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Why would anyone be working on a power pole at 3am in a storm? Just wait for the storm to pass.

That isn't the "Got ya" that you think it is. Okay, the storm has passed at 3:30 am, it's still pissing down rain. Less dangerous, but still as unpleasant

Wait, what? What are you talking about? WHO would rewire someone's house if there were no incentive for it? What you're describing is slavery. Slaves did all the unpleasant jobs for no money, but in order to get anyone to do it in any major degree, you had to chain people up and force them to. Slaves did all of society's most necessary jobs, but none of them did it willingly. How many people were slaves "for the good of society". Maybe like 2 of them. Even if there were like 200 people willing to do it, there's nowhere enough to run a functioning society. And if you think they would, then put your money where your mouth is and become an electrician. Seriously, stop pretending that people will do something that you yourself won't do


Care to elaborate?


Which is why we have monetary incentives.

Um, depending on where you live, yes it is. I mean, if you live somewhere in the tropics where it rains for 6 months, then you will experience that day in day out for 6 months. If you live somewhere hot like the desert, where the temperature barely drops below 30oC during the day in summer, then that's the norm for you. It's not a nightmare scenario, it's reality for people who live in certain climates.


Wait what? Do you know what "nerd" is? Do you know why nerds are teased? What planet do you live on where kids do school work without any fuss? Kids always get into arguments about whether or not to do school work.


So go and clean sewers for a living since you seem to think it's as pleasant as you say it is. Since you think it's as rewarding as you say it is, then go and do it. Or admit that you're a hypocrite.


Well I try to make an actual argument but you keep ignoring it and keep repeating the same stupid crap that I am trying to argue against when you ignore my response. Now that you've finally tried to answer the question, I'll address it.


No, I said "if people like working so much, why don't they get jobs that actually contribute to society?" I never said anything about money


Congratulations of contradicting yourself. People do unpleasant jobs because of the paycheque. Some people prefer to do pleasant jobs for little money, whilst others prefer to do unpleasant jobs for the paycheque. People clean sewers for the paycheque. Take away the paycheque, and people have no incentive to do it. Under capitalism, you ask the question of "would you prefer to do a job you like for little money or a job you hate for a lot of money?" a valid question where people could answer either and society benefits. Where as under communism you ask the question of "would you prefer to do a job you like for no money, or a job you hate for no money". Who in their right mind would choose option 2? Under communism, someone still needs to clean out sewers, or fix electrical lines, or what not, but you don't get a big paycheque for doing so. Therefore, no body would be stupid enough to do it


Same system exists under slavery. You have to provide your slaves with life saving medicine and accomodation. Does that mean we should go back to slavery


Seriously, you need me to explain to you why a plumber is a more productive member of society than a philosopher? Okay, that's an easy one. Plumbers keep our water and sewerage systems operational. They keep our toilets flowing, and they ensure that we have access to clean safe water. Plumbers also ensure that we have hygienic, safe ways of disposing of human waste. Philosophers literally sit around literally contemplating their navals. I do enjoy philosophy, and if you can make a career from it, good luck to you. I do enjoy philosophy, and I do enjoy a good philosophical discussions, but when push comes to shove, society can't function without nurses, school teachers, couriers, plumbers, electricians, etc. Society can function without whatever conclusions you have drawn about your naval


Housing isn't affordable because we want more migrants and fewer apartments for those migrants to live in, and less urban sprawl in the name of the environment. That, plus NIMBYism. Wanting fewer apartments, more migration and less urban sprawl in the name of the environment tends to be your lot. Right-wingers happily want more appartments and more urban sprawl.

You do realise that very few industries actually work like that, and that's the exception, not the norm. My argument is stupid? I'm not the one who's trying to argue that someone would be more willing to clean sewers for free than what they would be for significant payment. I'm also not the one trying to argue that communism is the only solution to poverty

Here's the thing. Since there is no currency, and people are able to directly exchange the value of their labor for goods, and since goods are for the most part not scarce, it means you do not need to get paid. You are guaranteed all of your needs and you can get what you want by working.
So... as an example. Let's say I work as a bricklayer. Just a completely random job. Okay, so- I don't get paid, right? Not in currency. But the thing is that I would still be able to exchange the value of my labor for products that I want and need *without* bartering things.

[Kubra]

Try stepping outside of the USA, and visiting a place like Canada, or Australia, or western Europe, or NZ. In those places, the concept of working poor is almost non-existent. You can have capitalism without the working poor, again, look at the aforementioned countries. Ironically, if anyone in those countries is working poor, it's small business owners.

huh...?
Buddy, we've got metrics to track the population considered working poor. Here in the great white north, last published figure that I know of (by that I mean hastily googled) was in 2019, at 7.9%