What do you think of Communism

[Redwood Ridge]

Bears who do not prepare for the winter will starve, lions that do not hunt but instead laze around by the watering hole all day will starve. If you don't want to starve, you have to work. This idea of "coercion" is a basic fact of the reality we live in, and you aren't entitled to the labor of others. The only reason parents provide to kids is because kids cannot provide for themselves, and it is moral for them to do so, because kids lack independence. At the very least, you're a grown adult. You aren't a kid, so you have the freedom to work in spite of how rough life can be, in order to make the best of your situation. Instead of blaming the employer for things outside of his control, you can take it upon yourself to plan your life and improve it somewhat. Believe it or not, this is in fact possible, everyone has the potential to be successful. The catch is that it requires hard work.

This doesn't change under Socialism. You still need to work in order to have an excess of anything, and labor needs to be carried out to produce anything. A bureaucracy is needed if you want to redistribute everything fairly at such a large scale, and you will need a state to hold people who don't want to live under this system at gun point: to re-educate the bourgeoise tendencies out of them (which is never successful because you can't reform human nature out of a human being), and to expropriate by force when somebody does not give your government the fruits of their labor.

The outcome of your experiments will result in tyranny, and this not just, moral, nor a good thing merely because this time the power dynamics have reversed and it's the dictatorship of the proletariat oppressing the bourgeoise, kulaks, counter-revolutionaries, and reactionaries.

Take a step back and ponder the following: the fact that a society needs work to function is not in dispute. What is in dispute are the very structures that compel work to take place, the nature of how it takes place and for whose benefit and to whose detriment. Your error lies in taking the natural starting point of "society needs work to function" and then proceeding to "that means people should work in the way capitalism makes them", when there is no apparent connection between these two things.

If we are to dissect what "people should work in the way capitalism makes them" means, since you don't define what this means then I'll have to assume you're referring to the surplus value of labor, and that people are compelled to work. Surplus value of labor is necessary, because businesses need a surplus to reinvest in their operations and grow. Without that surplus, there is nothing that can be used to reinvestment and grow the business, to attract shareholders to gain more funds, etc and so your business will fail. Why is all of this necessarily the capitalism way? Well, it isn't, capitalism can just as equally thrive in illiberal environments (see China, Nazi Germany, etc). However, the Socialist mode of economics infringes on unalienable individual liberty in obvious ways that Capitalism doesn't. For instance, the Right to Life is an absolute right, the Socialist government does not have the right to deprive people of this right through force multipliers just because you're judged as the class enemy. Many liberal countries have abolished capital crimes and death penalty based on this train of logic, because it is normal and right to be afraid of any government that reserves its right to sentence you to death. The Socialist do not believe in the right that human beings are free and equal either, because you guys think that everything is political, everything is defined by the system of oppression underpinning all social interactions, whereas in the liberal society you are allowed to have a private life. Even businesses aren't allowed to infringe upon that. If your boss asks you to work overtime, you have the freedom to pass it down, and the worst consequence you might get is losing your job but nobody is forcing you to work else you're accused of being a social parasite.

However, 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 this 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 soapbox for spreading the gospel of praxis. 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 which prolongs the current system of oppression.

Since everything is political to the Socialist, everything will invariably fall 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, 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 and to think otherwise makes you guilty of thought crime.

The idea that a society could thrive on a volunteer system is asinine. Who in fact would volunteer themselves for this? Hmm... I have my guesses. Those who seek to gain control of others through the guise of 'good will'. This is the ultimate trap, the ultimate lie... that which is free and easy, is paid for in the lives... in the work, of those who are unwilling to do so themselves. Freeloaders, the Lumpenproles, they will create this vicious cycle in your system in which more and more people become dependent on the collective output of others without contributing themselves and the Socialist's only answers to this is first through re-education, and repeat offenses will turn you into the class enemy, and you will be thrown into the gulag.

[Land of The Furries]

Take a step back and ponder the following: the fact that a society needs work to function is not in dispute. What is in dispute are the very structures that compel work to take place, the nature of how it takes place and for whose benefit and to whose detriment. Your error lies in taking the natural starting point of "society needs work to function" and then proceeding to "that means people should work in the way capitalism makes them", when there is no apparent connection between these two things.

If we are to dissect what "people should work in the way capitalism makes them" means, since you don't define what this means then I'll have to assume you're referring to the surplus value of labor, and that people are compelled to work. Surplus value of labor is necessary, because businesses need a surplus to reinvest in their operations and grow. Without that surplus, there is nothing that can be used to reinvestment and grow the business, to attract shareholders to gain more funds, etc and so your business will fail. Why is all of this necessarily the capitalism way? Well, it isn't, capitalism can just as equally thrive in illiberal environments (see China, Nazi Germany, etc). However, the Socialist mode of economics infringes on unalienable individual liberty in obvious ways that Capitalism doesn't. For instance, the Right to Life is an absolute right, the Socialist government does not have the right to deprive people of this right through force multipliers just because you're judged as the class enemy. Many liberal countries have abolished capital crimes and death penalty based on this train of logic, because it is normal and right to be afraid of any government that reserves its right to sentence you to death. The Socialist do not believe in the right that human beings are free and equal either, because you guys think that everything is political, everything is defined by the system of oppression underpinning all social interactions, when in the liberal society you are allowed to have a private life. However, 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 this 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 soapbox for spreading the gospel of praxis. 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 which prolongs the current system of oppression.

Since everything is political to the Socialist, everything will invariably fall 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, 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 and to think otherwise makes you guilty of thought crime.

The idea that a society could thrive on a volunteer system is asinine. Who in fact would volunteer themselves for this? Hmm... I have my guesses. Those who seek to gain control of others through the guise of 'good will'. This is the ultimate trap, the ultimate lie... that which is free and easy, is paid for in the lives... in the work, of those who are unwilling to do so themselves. Freeloaders, the Lumpenproles, they will create this vicious cycle in your system in which more and more people become dependent on the collective output of others without contributing themselves and the Socialist's only answers to this is first through re-education, and repeat offenses will turn you into the class enemy, and you will be thrown into the gulag.

Ok not to change train of thought but can you give an example of what type of environment it would need to actually work and succeed?

[Umeria]

I agree that there is no direct connection between these two statements. Where there does exist a correlation, however, is that on the list of happiest countries, all the top members share one factor. They are all capitalist countries. They have various degrees of social programs, to be sure, but none are avowedly socialist/communist. China, for example, comes in at 82 out of 146. If socialism is a superior form of how people should work, one might think it would make for happier people.

yeah bro but consider the fact that these capitalist countries aren't happy off the back of them being capitalist, they are happy cuz there are poorer capitalist countries producing all their shit. the process by which the coltan (the shit that makes our electronics run) got into your mobile phone wasn't pretty bro

My mobile phone isn't making me happier though.

[Ifreann]

He who does not work does not eat. Employment for poor people is always accompanied by the imminent and real threat of starvation.

Bears who do not prepare for the winter will starve, lions that do not hunt but instead laze around by the watering hole all day will starve.

I like this comparison, because lions do laze around all day. They're inactive twenty hours a day. When they are active, they spend as much time socialising as hunting and eating. And only the lionesses hunt. You're here appealing to the rugged individuality of an animal who is out sitting in the sun, licking his own balls, waiting for his girlfriends to tell him dinner's ready.

[Rakhalia]

yeah bro but consider the fact that these capitalist countries aren't happy off the back of them being capitalist, they are happy cuz there are poorer capitalist countries producing all their shit. the process by which the coltan (the shit that makes our electronics run) got into your mobile phone wasn't pretty bro

My mobile phone isn't making me happier though.

You're probably happier than the people who mined that coltan under life-threatening, poorly-paid, and environmentally-devastating conditions, and the sweatshop workers who put it together.

[Redwood Ridge]

If we are to dissect what "people should work in the way capitalism makes them" means, since you don't define what this means then I'll have to assume you're referring to the surplus value of labor, and that people are compelled to work. Surplus value of labor is necessary, because businesses need a surplus to reinvest in their operations and grow. Without that surplus, there is nothing that can be used to reinvestment and grow the business, to attract shareholders to gain more funds, etc and so your business will fail. Why is all of this necessarily the capitalism way? Well, it isn't, capitalism can just as equally thrive in illiberal environments (see China, Nazi Germany, etc). However, the Socialist mode of economics infringes on unalienable individual liberty in obvious ways that Capitalism doesn't. For instance, the Right to Life is an absolute right, the Socialist government does not have the right to deprive people of this right through force multipliers just because you're judged as the class enemy. Many liberal countries have abolished capital crimes and death penalty based on this train of logic, because it is normal and right to be afraid of any government that reserves its right to sentence you to death. The Socialist do not believe in the right that human beings are free and equal either, because you guys think that everything is political, everything is defined by the system of oppression underpinning all social interactions, when in the liberal society you are allowed to have a private life. However, 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 this 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 soapbox for spreading the gospel of praxis. 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 which prolongs the current system of oppression.

Since everything is political to the Socialist, everything will invariably fall 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, 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 and to think otherwise makes you guilty of thought crime.

The idea that a society could thrive on a volunteer system is asinine. Who in fact would volunteer themselves for this? Hmm... I have my guesses. Those who seek to gain control of others through the guise of 'good will'. This is the ultimate trap, the ultimate lie... that which is free and easy, is paid for in the lives... in the work, of those who are unwilling to do so themselves. Freeloaders, the Lumpenproles, they will create this vicious cycle in your system in which more and more people become dependent on the collective output of others without contributing themselves and the Socialist's only answers to this is first through re-education, and repeat offenses will turn you into the class enemy, and you will be thrown into the gulag.

Ok not to change train of thought but can you give an example of what type of environment it would need to actually work and succeed?

It is by definition a subversive ideology, you are planning to overthrow the status quo and impose your revolutionary regime, which is all about transforming the society into your arbitrary view of what progress is. In the case of China, the Communist forces recuperated their strength while the Kuomintang took the brunt of the Japanese invasion in the second world war. Socialism there was brought about during a time of crisis. The same can be said for the Russian Revolution, earlier revolution attempts spectacularly failed, it wasn't until the Russian Empire was weakened by three years of war against German and Austro-Hungarian Empires that the communist forces would prevail against the whites. Paris Commune came about after France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian war.

The only other times Socialism has come about is if it's propped up by another Socialist power. Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba, are obvious examples. Now, the Warsaw Pact countries didn't adopt socialism on their own accords, the Soviet Union sought to expand its sphere of influence as far as possible whether the people there wanted it or not. The baltic countries were outright invaded unprovoked and conquered.

Now the type of environment in which it may actually succeed? Well, the fact that the currently existing Socialist nations (continuously governed by their original revolutionary parties, because these countries don't generally happen to have elections) had to reform and adopt markets and other capitalist concepts makes any arguments for Socialism weak ones. If you do happen to succeed with your revolution, there is a very real concern that your experiment will fail. A lot of people will die. And if what we end up with is a state that has regressed into illiberal state capitalism at the end, your idea won't be popular because everyone knows how it will always turn out.

[Elwher]

If there has never been a socialist/communist economy in the world, then is there any evidence that it would work at all, much less work better than a capitalist economy?

It works in smol Spanish village cooperatives.

China, for example, comes in at 82 out of 146

We should unironically assign blame for the Tiananmen Square Massacre to the ever growing list of crimes against humanity committed by capitalist hoarders.

But is there any evidence that it can be scaled up?

[Redwood Ridge]

Bears who do not prepare for the winter will starve, lions that do not hunt but instead laze around by the watering hole all day will starve.

I like this comparison, because lions do laze around all day. They're inactive twenty hours a day. When they are active, they spend as much time socialising as hunting and eating. And only the lionesses hunt. You're here appealing to the rugged individuality of an animal who is out sitting in the sun, licking his own balls, waiting for his girlfriends to tell him dinner's ready.

Oh, how much you'd love to be in the position of the male lion, ehhh?

[Ifreann]

My mobile phone isn't making me happier though.

You're probably happier than the people who mined that coltan under life-threatening, poorly-paid, and environmentally-devastating conditions, and the sweatshop workers who put it together.

Do they have to see @catturd2's tweets, though? That's real suffering.

[Duvniask]

Take a step back and ponder the following: the fact that a society needs work to function is not in dispute. What is in dispute are the very structures that compel work to take place, the nature of how it takes place and for whose benefit and to whose detriment. Your error lies in taking the natural starting point of "society needs work to function" and then proceeding to "that means people should work in the way capitalism makes them", when there is no apparent connection between these two things.

If we are to dissect what "people should work in the way capitalism makes them" means, since you don't define what this means then I'll have to assume you're referring to the surplus value of labor, and that people are compelled to work. Surplus value of labor is necessary, because businesses need a surplus to reinvest in their operations and grow. Without that surplus, there is nothing that can be used to reinvestment and grow the business, to attract shareholders to gain more funds, etc and so your business will fail. Why is all of this necessarily the capitalism way? Well, it isn't, capitalism can just as equally thrive in illiberal environments (see China, Nazi Germany, etc). However, the Socialist mode of economics infringes on unalienable individual liberty in obvious ways that Capitalism doesn't. For instance, the Right to Life is an absolute right, the Socialist government does not have the right to deprive people of this right through force multipliers just because you're judged as the class enemy. Many liberal countries have abolished capital crimes and death penalty based on this train of logic, because it is normal and right to be afraid of any government that reserves its right to sentence you to death. The Socialist do not believe in the right that human beings are free and equal either, because you guys think that everything is political, everything is defined by the system of oppression underpinning all social interactions, whereas in the liberal society you are allowed to have a private life. Even businesses aren't allowed to infringe upon that. If your boss asks you to work overtime, you have the freedom to pass it down, and the worst consequence you might get is losing your job but nobody is forcing you to work else you're accused of being a social parasite.

However, 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 this 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 soapbox for spreading the gospel of praxis. 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 which prolongs the current system of oppression.

Since everything is political to the Socialist, everything will invariably fall 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, 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 and to think otherwise makes you guilty of thought crime.

The idea that a society could thrive on a volunteer system is asinine. Who in fact would volunteer themselves for this? Hmm... I have my guesses. Those who seek to gain control of others through the guise of 'good will'. This is the ultimate trap, the ultimate lie... that which is free and easy, is paid for in the lives... in the work, of those who are unwilling to do so themselves. Freeloaders, the Lumpenproles, they will create this vicious cycle in your system in which more and more people become dependent on the collective output of others without contributing themselves and the Socialist's only answers to this is first through re-education, and repeat offenses will turn you into the class enemy, and you will be thrown into the gulag.

You utterly failed to think about what I said and instead went on this absolutely batshit tirade about "socialists think everything is political and that means free reign to murder everyone". Very amusing, but not something I'm going to waste any more time on, other than in mockery.

The only reason I can think of as to why you're talking about this random shit is that you saw the phrase "the personal is political" (something more related to feminism) and wildly misinterpreted what it means.

[Ifreann]

I like this comparison, because lions do laze around all day. They're inactive twenty hours a day. When they are active, they spend as much time socialising as hunting and eating. And only the lionesses hunt. You're here appealing to the rugged individuality of an animal who is out sitting in the sun, licking his own balls, waiting for his girlfriends to tell him dinner's ready.

Oh, how much you'd love to be in the position of the male lion, ehhh?

I think I'm fine with showering instead of licking myself clean.

[Rakhalia]

You're probably happier than the people who mined that coltan under life-threatening, poorly-paid, and environmentally-devastating conditions, and the sweatshop workers who put it together.

Do they have to see @catturd2's tweets, though? That's real suffering.

the blissful ignorance of the congolese child labourer: not having to read conservative twitter

[Umeria]

My mobile phone isn't making me happier though.

You're probably happier than the people who mined that coltan under life-threatening, poorly-paid, and environmentally-devastating conditions, and the sweatshop workers who put it together.

Could I have the same or greater level of happiness if they didn't undergo that suffering? I think I could.

[Redwood Ridge]

If we are to dissect what "people should work in the way capitalism makes them" means, since you don't define what this means then I'll have to assume you're referring to the surplus value of labor, and that people are compelled to work. Surplus value of labor is necessary, because businesses need a surplus to reinvest in their operations and grow. Without that surplus, there is nothing that can be used to reinvestment and grow the business, to attract shareholders to gain more funds, etc and so your business will fail. Why is all of this necessarily the capitalism way? Well, it isn't, capitalism can just as equally thrive in illiberal environments (see China, Nazi Germany, etc). However, the Socialist mode of economics infringes on unalienable individual liberty in obvious ways that Capitalism doesn't. For instance, the Right to Life is an absolute right, the Socialist government does not have the right to deprive people of this right through force multipliers just because you're judged as the class enemy. Many liberal countries have abolished capital crimes and death penalty based on this train of logic, because it is normal and right to be afraid of any government that reserves its right to sentence you to death. The Socialist do not believe in the right that human beings are free and equal either, because you guys think that everything is political, everything is defined by the system of oppression underpinning all social interactions, whereas in the liberal society you are allowed to have a private life. Even businesses aren't allowed to infringe upon that. If your boss asks you to work overtime, you have the freedom to pass it down, and the worst consequence you might get is losing your job but nobody is forcing you to work else you're accused of being a social parasite.

However, 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 this 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 soapbox for spreading the gospel of praxis. 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 which prolongs the current system of oppression.

Since everything is political to the Socialist, everything will invariably fall 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, 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 and to think otherwise makes you guilty of thought crime.

The idea that a society could thrive on a volunteer system is asinine. Who in fact would volunteer themselves for this? Hmm... I have my guesses. Those who seek to gain control of others through the guise of 'good will'. This is the ultimate trap, the ultimate lie... that which is free and easy, is paid for in the lives... in the work, of those who are unwilling to do so themselves. Freeloaders, the Lumpenproles, they will create this vicious cycle in your system in which more and more people become dependent on the collective output of others without contributing themselves and the Socialist's only answers to this is first through re-education, and repeat offenses will turn you into the class enemy, and you will be thrown into the gulag.

You utterly failed to think about what I said and instead went on this absolutely batshit tirade about "socialists think everything is political and that means free reign to murder everyone". Very amusing, but not something I'm going to waste any more time on, other than in mockery.

The only reason I can think of as to why you're talking about this random shit is that you saw the phrase "the personal is political" (something more related to feminism) and wildly misinterpreted what it means.

It is not a misinterpretation, it is the logical conclusion of the term, which describes that what is happening in someone's personal lives speaks to a larger political or systematic issues. In the case of feminism, there were very legitimate and valid criticisms on the conservative patriarchy. In the case of the Socialists, you guys are not wrong for thinking this way, people should be more mindful about the ethnics behind they consume. They should unionize and endeavor to get fairer wages and be entitled to decent working conditions. The difference is that under capitalism, whether you consume or you don't is your responsibility, not the state or community's mandate.

You have also yet to pay any lip service to the problem of how the socialist state would even hope to reconcile itself with the private-political split. Because if the politics behind goods and services in a socialist economy take on an even more important and active role than how it is under liberal capitalism, how do you define where these boundaries start and begin? Will you even make an attempt to? Because you have to acknowledge that the liberty of being allowed to have a private life may serve as a potential avenue for dissent, the communication of less than virtuous if not dangerous ideas to your socialist nanny state. This is why historically, Socialist nations that lasted more than 10 years often had to spy on their own populations, to root out the reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries, and other class enemies of the state.

[Ard al Islam]

What is your reaction to hearing the word "fascist?" Or to hear something labeled as "fascist?"

That is my reaction to communists/communism.

[Land of The Furries]

Ok not to change train of thought but can you give an example of what type of environment it would need to actually work and succeed?

It is by definition a subversive ideology, you are planning to overthrow the status quo and impose your revolutionary regime, which is all about transforming the society into your arbitrary view of what progress is. In the case of China, the Communist forces recuperated their strength while the Kuomintang took the brunt of the Japanese invasion in the second world war. Socialism there was brought about during a time of crisis. The same can be said for the Russian Revolution, earlier revolution attempts spectacularly failed, it wasn't until the Russian Empire was weakened by three years of war against German and Austro-Hungarian Empires that the communist forces would prevail against the whites. Paris Commune came about after France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian war.

The only other times Socialism has come about is if it's propped up by another Socialist power. Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba, are obvious examples. Now, the Warsaw Pact countries didn't adopt socialism on their own accords, the Soviet Union sought to expand its sphere of influence as far as possible whether the people there wanted it or not. The baltic countries were outright invaded unprovoked and conquered.

Now the type of environment in which it may actually succeed? Well, the fact that the currently existing Socialist nations (continuously governed by their original revolutionary parties, because these countries don't generally happen to have elections) had to reform and adopt markets and other capitalist concepts makes any arguments for Socialism weak ones. If you do happen to succeed with your revolution, there is a very real concern that your experiment will fail. A lot of people will die. And if what we end up with is a state that has regressed into illiberal state capitalism at the end, your idea won't be popular because everyone knows how it will always turn out.

Fair enough. I'm actually opposed to the idea but love to entertain the thought of the what if scenario.

[Betoni]

And what entitles you to stealing the fruits of somebody else's labor? If your only answer to everything is by turning the government into an organ of collectivized theft, that is not only very mask off, but it will make everything worse than they already are. There are less radical, legal, and genuinely helpful solutions to this problem without having to resort to tyranny.

Oh, probably that about two thirds of said labour is just going to end up in the trash anyways. That's pretty entitling.
If you want to make a moral stand, go right ahead, but it's a discussion that won't go anywhere. Offering solutions to the mentioned problem, however fanciful, is a discussion that can go places.
You've been given ample chances to speak with substance on real economic problems, man. Why not take em?

That's a laugh. "Offering solutions" you mean the part where starvation ends when we change the way we understand private property? You think that's speaking with substance on real economic problems?

[Kubra]

Oh, probably that about two thirds of said labour is just going to end up in the trash anyways. That's pretty entitling.
If you want to make a moral stand, go right ahead, but it's a discussion that won't go anywhere. Offering solutions to the mentioned problem, however fanciful, is a discussion that can go places.
You've been given ample chances to speak with substance on real economic problems, man. Why not take em?

That's a laugh. "Offering solutions" you mean the part where starvation ends when we change the way we understand private property? You think that's speaking with substance on real economic problems?

One third (two was wrong, what can I say, off the cuff mobile shitpost) of food just getting chucked is, you know, a real economic problem. If changing how we understand private property is how we get that down to a more negligible number, well, then may as well do that.
It is but one avenue to speak concretely, in the distribution and allocation of goods. You know, the economy. If a person is just going to argue morality, well, what's the point? We're just going to differ in ways that can't really be sorted, but pontificate all the way. And as I'm sure you'd agree, ain't much productive about pontification.
So you know, Rakhalia gave a topic. A good topic: food waste. Why waste a good opportunity here? Hell you can even turn this right back on us; folk always wanna talk about low productivity of collective farms in the USSR but everyone always misses the massive food waste in the USSR, which was arguably the bigger problem.

[Australian rePublic]

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.

But you're assuming that everybody would be a good faith actor under communism. People who do shitty jobs deserve the highest praise from everyone because they are heroes. If people are going to demean them for having a shitty job, then they're not good actors. Bad actors will still continue to exist under communism and continue to demean blue collar workers. Not to mention, you still haven't answered the question of why a blue collar worker would chose to do such a job in the first place. Under capitalism, they do so, because, in theory, the financial reward is worth it. What incentives exist under communism?

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.

Again, you are assuming good actors. Have you honestly never had a lazy tradesperson who does the bare minimum and a shitty job? Because here, they're a dime a dozen. It could be even worse under communism because there are no financial incentives to reward good work, nor are there any financial penalties to punish laziness. Further, you can still be corrupt under communism. Sure, in theory, you would be building wires to have redundancy, but in practice, some people would take the extra wire and keep it for themselves/give it to their friends, so that their houses could have redundancy, damn everyone else. I'm not saying it would be common, but it only takes a handful of corrupt individuals to ruin the system for everyone, then we're back where we started. And it's easier to get away with it under communism. It's a lot harder to justify that it costs $20,000,000 to build an electrical network, rather than 15,000,000 tonnes of copper. Legislation solves the redundancy issue, that and state-owned wires (critical infrastructure should be state owned, but even corporation owned, legislate redundancy). Redundancy wouldn't necessarily exist under communism, because people would be too lazy to implement it

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?

My sister and mother are both teachers. They love their jobs. But they stay up till very late at night doing work when someone like me, who is a courier, does his job and comes straight home, forgetting about it to the last shift. Teachers absolutely deserve to earn more money than I do, but communism would prevent them from doing so. The solution to underpaid teachers and nurses isn't communism- it's to pay teachers and nurses more. And again, you have proven my point. Do you know how many times my mum has told me that, (even though she loves her job), if she wasn't too old, she would do an easier job which pays the same? Do you know how many people quit teaching and nursing to do easier jobs which pay the same? Loving your job will only get you so far. If you're not adequately compensated, you will eventually find an easier job where the pay is the same. Yes, some people will remain teachers irrespective of the pay (my sister is probably one of them), but those people are in the minority. And there is already a shortage of teachers and nurses. You might love your teaching job to death, but it gives you less free time than a shelf stacking job (for example). Eventually, you will find that you value free time more than your love of your job and will quit the teaching job to become a shelf stacker (for example), unless you earn more than shelf stackers. Very few will continue to sacrifice their free time without adequate compensation. Love of your job will get you so far when you're up till 1 am doing lesson plans and society (falsely) judges you as having 12 weeks of holidays, without seeing the hard work that you put into your lesson plans in the holidays. And again, you're assuming that everyone is a good actor. There are lazy teachers out there who do the bare minimum, put little to no effort into their work and are the reason why society judges all teachers poorly in the first place. That won't go away under communism.

People have a poor perception of teachers and tradespersons because a minority of bad and lazy ones ruin it for everyone else. That won't go away under communism. If anything, it gets worse under communism, because it's harder to quantify the value of XYZ job (it's easier to say that it's going to cost $10,000 to relay the pipes than it is to say that it will require 1 tonne of concrete) and because there are no financial rewards for good actors and financial punishments of bad actors.

I've had a tradesperson who did a shitty job at building a new bathroom in my house. He lamented his shitty job because he had to pay for everything that he did poorly out of his own pocket, and eventually started a slightly better job so he can stop paying from his own pocket as he was self-employed. Under communism, this doesn't happen because no matter how many times you have to realign the pipes because you chose to do a shitty job, it never comes out of your own pocket

If you pay someone $30 per hundred pieces of fruit that they pick, they will strive to pick 2000 pieces of fruit in order to earn $600, but if you don't pay them, they will pick as little fruit as feasible because there's no incentive for them to pick more fruit. They will still do their jobs, but to a lesser degree. Yes, under capitalism, there will still be people who pick 500 pieces of fruit, earn their $150 and go home, but there would be people who strive for 2000 pieces of fruit so they can earn $600. That, or if you want them to pick 2000 pieces of fruit, you have to whip them when they fail to meet their quota, and that's slavery

Again, take slavery for example. Salves did all the societally necessary unpleasant jobs. The jobs that slaves did were (mostly) the most important jobs for society to function. Slaves didn't do out of the goodness of their hearts, they did it because they were bound by whips and chains. Take away the whips and chains, and the slaves wouldn't do the work. And slaves were well fed and well looked after too, as replacing them was expensive. Slavery existed soley because nobody was willing to work for food, shelter and medicine alone, and slavery is horrific. You gave the slaves food, shelter and medicine, and you still had to whip them to do the unpleasant but necessary jobs. Financial incentives are a much better method of encouraging people to do those jobs. "Realign the pipes and earn a higher salary than everyone else" is a much better method than "realign the pipes or I will whip you"

I mean, if you offer two choices- option A- work outside in heat and cold realigning sewer pipes all day every day, or option B- sit in an air-conditioned/heated office answering phone calls all day, then there would be three methods of getting someone to chose'
1. Hope that they choose option A out of the kindness of their hearts because someone has to do it.
2. Pay them more to choose option A over option B
3. Whip them if they choose option B over option A
I still don't have a good explanation as to how scenario 1 would work and scenario 1 is what your version of communism is based on.

TL;DR- You're assuming that people are good actors, when many of them aren't. Don't get me wrong- many people are good actors, but the bad actors ruin it for everyone

[Australian rePublic]

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.

You don't have to risk anyone's life if they're adequately trained. Also, my dad has sleep apnoea and he requires an electric powered sleep apnoea machine so that he can breathe properly at night. If you have a fridge full of food, one night without electricity could ruin everything in the fridge. If it effects enough people, then there is a shortage of food as everyone tries to replace the contents of their fridge. You can't give everyone a generator, if it were practical, it would have been done already. And I could go on and on listing niche issues. All the niche issues would add up to affect a significant proportion of the population. Also, you're assuming that the rain will stop by morning. That's not necessarily the case. Once, we had a period where it didn't stop raining for like a whole 20 minutes in an entire 48 hour period. 20 minutes isn't enough time to solve a big issue such as a power failure. And that 20 minutes could occur at either day or night, so you might still have to work overnight. Just because a power outage at 3 am would affect fewer people it doesn't mean that no body would be affected.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

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

---

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.

You don't have to risk anyone's life if they're adequately trained. Also, my dad has sleep apnoea and he requires an electric powered sleep apnoea machine so that he can breathe properly at night. If you have a fridge full of food, one night without electricity could ruin everything in the fridge. If it effects enough people, then there is a shortage of food as everyone tries to replace the contents of their fridge. You can't give everyone a generator, if it were practical, it would have been done already. And I could go on and on listing niche issues. All the niche issues would add up to affect a significant proportion of the population. Also, you're assuming that the rain will stop by morning. That's not necessarily the case. Once, we had a period where it didn't stop raining for like a whole 20 minutes in an entire 48 hour period. 20 minutes isn't enough time to solve a big issue such as a power failure. And that 20 minutes could occur at either day or night, so you might still have to work overnight. Just because a power outage at 3 am would affect fewer people it doesn't mean that no body would be affected.

Adequately trained... okay, so instead of still undoubtedly risking somebody's life just to turn the power back on, why not- you know, just *wait* until the storm's passed? Like Ifreann said if there were places that undoubtedly needed that power, they would have backup generators. And again, most of the time these power outages during storms are only for a few hours, maybe one or two- that's.. certainly not anywhere near the amount of time i would take to completely ruin the contents of your fridge. Also there are foodstuffs that don't have to be refrigerated. I.... don't know how you didn't think of that.
Giving everyone a generator isn't impractical- the problem is affordability. It's usually $9,000 to install a generator- for reference the median income in America is $31,133 so that's 29% out of your annual income just for a generator. The average American spends around $122 for electricity bills, so just installing a generator has costs equivalent to 6 years worth of electricity bills. Why bother spending over a quarter of your annual income when you can just keep paying your bills, which will undoubtedly be less of a burden on your bank account?
It didn't stop raining for like... a whole 20... what are you trying to say here? Reading this is giving me a stroke but I presume that you mean that the rain stopped for a good 20 minutes. Yes, 20 minutes is not long enough to get the problem fixed, but that doesn't mean that they're just gonna not try to work on it. I don't know what sort of things go down in Australia but when there's an opportunity to fix the power, they are going to take it, even if little work gets done.

Also, if your dad is that much at risk without his machine when he sleeps, then- here's a shocker: just have him, not sleep? He'll certainly miss 2 or 3 hours of sleep, but if he's at that much risk waking up cranky in the morning is far better to the alternative.

[Australian rePublic]

You don't have to risk anyone's life if they're adequately trained. Also, my dad has sleep apnoea and he requires an electric powered sleep apnoea machine so that he can breathe properly at night. If you have a fridge full of food, one night without electricity could ruin everything in the fridge. If it effects enough people, then there is a shortage of food as everyone tries to replace the contents of their fridge. You can't give everyone a generator, if it were practical, it would have been done already. And I could go on and on listing niche issues. All the niche issues would add up to affect a significant proportion of the population. Also, you're assuming that the rain will stop by morning. That's not necessarily the case. Once, we had a period where it didn't stop raining for like a whole 20 minutes in an entire 48 hour period. 20 minutes isn't enough time to solve a big issue such as a power failure. And that 20 minutes could occur at either day or night, so you might still have to work overnight. Just because a power outage at 3 am would affect fewer people it doesn't mean that no body would be affected.

Adequately trained... okay, so instead of still undoubtedly risking somebody's life just to turn the power back on, why not- you know, just *wait* until the storm's passed? Like Ifreann said if there were places that undoubtedly needed that power, they would have backup generators. And again, most of the time these power outages during storms are only for a few hours, maybe one or two- that's.. certainly not anywhere near the amount of time i would take to completely ruin the contents of your fridge. Also there are foodstuffs that don't have to be refrigerated. I.... don't know how you didn't think of that.

What? Rice, pasta and canned goods? Jeez. Maybe people could hoard those items because of lack of perishability, like they did during Covid. Also, how do you plan to cook those during a power outage?

[qoute]
Giving everyone a generator isn't impractical- the problem is affordability. It's usually $9,000 to install a generator- for reference the median income in America is $31,133 so that's 29% out of your annual income just for a generator. The average American spends around $122 for electricity bills, so just installing a generator has costs equivalent to 6 years worth of electricity bills. Why bother spending over a quarter of your annual income when you can just keep paying your bills, which will undoubtedly be less of a burden on your bank account?[/quote]
Fair. But then, do you know why they're so expensive? Supply and demand, and because they're complicated to build. Either way, how would you propose giving one to everyone under communism. There would be a shortage of generators. If it were easy for everyone to have a generator, they would be cheap, just like mobile phones and TVs are.

It didn't stop raining for like... a whole 20... what are you trying to say here? Reading this is giving me a stroke but I presume that you mean that the rain stopped for a good 20 minutes. Yes, 20 minutes is not long enough to get the problem fixed, but that doesn't mean that they're just gonna not try to work on it. I don't know what sort of things go down in Australia but when there's an opportunity to fix the power, they are going to take it, even if little work gets done.

Nope, 20 minutes all up- sometimes it 5 minutes, sometimes it was 2 minutes, etc. My point here is that if there is only a 20 minute window in 48 hours in which you can fix the electricity, the electricity isn't going to get fixed.

Also, if your dad is that much at risk without his machine when he sleeps, then- here's a shocker: just have him, not sleep? He'll certainly miss 2 or 3 hours of sleep, but if he's at that much risk waking up cranky in the morning is far better to the alternative.

Wait what? You know nothing about sleep apnoea do you? He has medical conditions which require him sleep more than most other people and the consequences for not doing so aren't "waking up cranky". To even suggest that shows how ignorant you are and how you know nothing about people with medical issues.

[American Legionaries]

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

---

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.

You don't have to risk anyone's life if they're adequately trained. Also, my dad has sleep apnoea and he requires an electric powered sleep apnoea machine so that he can breathe properly at night. If you have a fridge full of food, one night without electricity could ruin everything in the fridge. If it effects enough people, then there is a shortage of food as everyone tries to replace the contents of their fridge. You can't give everyone a generator, if it were practical, it would have been done already. And I could go on and on listing niche issues. All the niche issues would add up to affect a significant proportion of the population. Also, you're assuming that the rain will stop by morning. That's not necessarily the case. Once, we had a period where it didn't stop raining for like a whole 20 minutes in an entire 48 hour period. 20 minutes isn't enough time to solve a big issue such as a power failure. And that 20 minutes could occur at either day or night, so you might still have to work overnight. Just because a power outage at 3 am would affect fewer people it doesn't mean that no body would be affected.

There really is little point in engaging with people who will insist that readily observable things (like utility workers restoring utilities in storms) don't occur, even when the conversation was started by someone who was relating an actual life experience to them.

[Redwood Ridge]

You don't have to risk anyone's life if they're adequately trained. Also, my dad has sleep apnoea and he requires an electric powered sleep apnoea machine so that he can breathe properly at night. If you have a fridge full of food, one night without electricity could ruin everything in the fridge. If it effects enough people, then there is a shortage of food as everyone tries to replace the contents of their fridge. You can't give everyone a generator, if it were practical, it would have been done already. And I could go on and on listing niche issues. All the niche issues would add up to affect a significant proportion of the population. Also, you're assuming that the rain will stop by morning. That's not necessarily the case. Once, we had a period where it didn't stop raining for like a whole 20 minutes in an entire 48 hour period. 20 minutes isn't enough time to solve a big issue such as a power failure. And that 20 minutes could occur at either day or night, so you might still have to work overnight. Just because a power outage at 3 am would affect fewer people it doesn't mean that no body would be affected.

There really is little point in engaging with people who will insist that readily observable things (like utility workers restoring utilities in storms) don't occur, even when the conversation was started by someone who was relating an actual life experience to them.

There are no bad tactics for these people, only bad targets. They could honestly care less about the livelihoods of the working class, as long as people who've worked harder than them and are successful are dragged down to their level.

[Australian rePublic]

There really is little point in engaging with people who will insist that readily observable things (like utility workers restoring utilities in storms) don't occur, even when the conversation was started by someone who was relating an actual life experience to them.

There are no bad tactics for these people, only bad targets. They could honestly care less about the livelihoods of the working class, as long as people who've worked harder than them and are successful are dragged down to their level.

I do care about the working class, that's why I want them to get adequately compensated for it. You work hard, you get paid well