What do you think of Communism

[Australian rePublic]

I mean it makes sense that he's confused. I'd be too if I asked someone how communism deals with unpleasant jobs and they said "we can make those jobs less unpleasant" when their actual answer is "communal/social incentives".

I’ve pointed out several times now that a significant part of why unpleasant jobs are the way they are is because of how our economy creates them - such as by making janitors work 40 hours a week on night shifts for minimum wage. You can make the function they perform of ‘keeping spaces clean and hygienic’ much less unpleasant by reallocating tasks and improving working conditions. The same principle applies to most other unpleasant jobs. You can’t get rid of all unpleasant work, but you can mitigate it.

Right, and I already addressed that, and why it's a terrible idea, but you seem to ignore that. And also, no, some unpleasant jobs can't be mitigated. No matter what you do, sewer work will still be unpleasant and would not be done without some kind of incentive. Do you realise how much training it takes to be qualified to do sewer work? Who in their right mind would do that kind of training and that kind of work without an incentive?

[Australian rePublic]

Right, so you mean to tell me you've never worked a day in your life, but you've seen people work in sewers and thought "Golly Gee, I wouldn't mind doing it day-in-day-out, but I wanna get paid for it, only if I could do it for free". Yea sure pal, and I'm the Pope's sister-in-law

I'm not telling you anything. You're here telling all of us that you saw some workmen digging up pipes one time and based on that you've decided that their job is the worst possible thing in society, just non-stop misery that no one in their right mind would want to do without being paid.

I don't need to have done it know how unpleasant it is. I am perfectly capable of understanding how unpleasant bobbing around in shit is without needing to have done it myself. It's fucking common sense

I am NOT a truck driver

You're a courier, I assume you aren't transporting things around on foot.

Nope, I just use my car

[Australian rePublic]

I mean it makes sense that he's confused. I'd be too if I asked someone how communism deals with unpleasant jobs and they said "we can make those jobs less unpleasant" when their actual answer is "communal/social incentives".

I’ve pointed out several times now that a significant part of why unpleasant jobs are the way they are is because of how our economy creates them - such as by making janitors work 40 hours a week on night shifts for minimum wage. You can make the function they perform of ‘keeping spaces clean and hygienic’ much less unpleasant by reallocating tasks and improving working conditions. The same principle applies to most other unpleasant jobs. You can’t get rid of all unpleasant work, but you can mitigate it.

Yes, and I've already addressed it, pointed it out how stupid it is, and no matter how much you mitigate the unpleasantness, it's still extremely unpleasant and requires an incentive to be done. Even if you remove the social situation around it, (which contributes very little to the unpleasantness itself), it doesn't change the fact that you're still bobbing around in shit all day. You still haven't answered why anyone would do it beyond "it'll make them look like a hero" and some bullshit about social interactions, both of which are completely moronic answers, I pointed why those are completely moronic and your only response to that is "but it can be better" and when I ask "Okay, how can it be better?", you provide the same moronic answer. Leading us down this idiotic cycle of you just repeating the same moronic answer. Your ability to repeat moronic answers doesn't make them any less moronic. Now if you have some answer as to why anyone would do sewer work without resorting to some kind of verbal diarrhoea about social accolades, then I'm interested, but if your answer is social accolades, then I'll continue to ridicule that answer for how moronic it is. And removing social stigma won't make it any less unpleasant

[Umeria]

You still haven't answered why anyone would do it beyond "it'll make them look like a hero" and some bullshit about social interactions, both of which are completely moronic answers, I pointed why those are completely moronic and your only response to that is "but it can be better" and when I ask "Okay, how can it be better?", you provide the same moronic answer. Leading us down this idiotic cycle of you just repeating the same moronic answer. Your ability to repeat moronic answers doesn't make them any less moronic

The idea is that if everyone's material needs are met, things like relationships and social status would become more important factors in people's decision making. So you'd be doing your job for that instead of paying the bills.

[Australian rePublic]

You still haven't answered why anyone would do it beyond "it'll make them look like a hero" and some bullshit about social interactions, both of which are completely moronic answers, I pointed why those are completely moronic and your only response to that is "but it can be better" and when I ask "Okay, how can it be better?", you provide the same moronic answer. Leading us down this idiotic cycle of you just repeating the same moronic answer. Your ability to repeat moronic answers doesn't make them any less moronic

The idea is that if everyone's material needs are met, things like relationships and social status would become more important factors in people's decision making. So you'd be doing your job for that instead of paying the bills.

And it's completely idiotic to suggest that anybody would bob around in shit for some illusion of social status. No matter how many times I try to explain why that is stupid, that answer nonetheless just keeps getting repeated, and doesn't get any less stupid with nauseating repetition

[Umeria]

The idea is that if everyone's material needs are met, things like relationships and social status would become more important factors in people's decision making. So you'd be doing your job for that instead of paying the bills.

And it's completely idiotic to suggest that anybody would bob around in shit for some illusion of social status. No matter how many times I try to explain why that is stupid, that answer nonetheless just keeps getting repeated, and doesn't get any less stupid with nauseating repetition

Have you explained it? Sounds like you're just taking it as absurd on its face. That only works when people agree with you.

[Australian rePublic]

And it's completely idiotic to suggest that anybody would bob around in shit for some illusion of social status. No matter how many times I try to explain why that is stupid, that answer nonetheless just keeps getting repeated, and doesn't get any less stupid with nauseating repetition

Have you explained it? Sounds like you're just taking it as absurd on its face. That only works when people agree with you.

Bobing through shit to do sewer is something that requires lots of experience. It's also extremely unpleasent. You're the one who's suggesting that people would do extremely unpleasent work for social accolades. In fact, you're the one who's suggesting that aocial accolades would even exist in the firat place. Extraordinary claims require extrodinary proof. Therefore the burdon of proof is on you to prove it. Considering that there are no social accolades now for doing sewer work, the burdon of proof is on you to prove that would poof into existence in the first place under communism, let alone that anyone would work in sewers because of it. And I'm not talking out my arse here. Actual sewer workers in this thread have said that they wouldn't do it if there was no momatery incentive and that social accolades aren't enough. Just like the burdon of proof is on me to prove that there is an invisible dragon in my garage, the burdon of proof is on you to prove social accoldes are enough to encourage sewer work. Until that is achieved, your answer will remain stupid

[Ifreann]

I'm not telling you anything. You're here telling all of us that you saw some workmen digging up pipes one time and based on that you've decided that their job is the worst possible thing in society, just non-stop misery that no one in their right mind would want to do without being paid.

I don't need to have done it know how unpleasant it is. I am perfectly capable of understanding how unpleasant bobbing around in shit is without needing to have done it myself. It's fucking common sense

And yet you continue to act like anyone who thinks differently can't possibly have a real working class job. So you think both that this is obvious common sense stuff that you don't need any special insight to know, and also something that people can't understand if they have an "airy-fairy" job.

[Umeria]

Have you explained it? Sounds like you're just taking it as absurd on its face. That only works when people agree with you.

Bobing through shit to do sewer is something that requires lots of experience. It's also extremely unpleasent. You're the one who's suggesting that people would do extremely unpleasent work for social accolades. In fact, you're the one who's suggesting that aocial accolades would even exist in the firat place. Extraordinary claims require extrodinary proof. Therefore the burdon of proof is on you to prove it. Considering that there are no social accolades now for doing sewer work, the burdon of proof is on you to prove that would poof into existence in the first place under communism, let alone that anyone would work in sewers because of it. And I'm not talking out my arse here. Actual sewer workers in this thread have said that they wouldn't do it if there was no momatery incentive and that social accolades aren't enough. Just like the burdon of proof is on me to prove that there is an invisible dragon in my garage, the burdon of proof is on you to prove social accoldes are enough to encourage sewer work. Until that is achieved, your answer will remain stupid

I mean if you ask me, there's no need for it to poof into existence. You can just have a government and distribute benefits that way. But this violates the sacred anarchic tenet according to some people.

I think a good way to test whether incentives other than material needs would work is to introduce it gradually. For example, right now someone who loses their job faces homelessness if they can't pay the rent. Let's say we guaranteed housing to everyone - would people still go to work without the incentive to stay off the streets? Continue down the chain.

[Ifreann]

Bobing through shit to do sewer is something that requires lots of experience. It's also extremely unpleasent. You're the one who's suggesting that people would do extremely unpleasent work for social accolades. In fact, you're the one who's suggesting that aocial accolades would even exist in the firat place. Extraordinary claims require extrodinary proof. Therefore the burdon of proof is on you to prove it. Considering that there are no social accolades now for doing sewer work, the burdon of proof is on you to prove that would poof into existence in the first place under communism, let alone that anyone would work in sewers because of it. And I'm not talking out my arse here. Actual sewer workers in this thread have said that they wouldn't do it if there was no momatery incentive and that social accolades aren't enough. Just like the burdon of proof is on me to prove that there is an invisible dragon in my garage, the burdon of proof is on you to prove social accoldes are enough to encourage sewer work. Until that is achieved, your answer will remain stupid

I mean if you ask me, there's no need for it to poof into existence. You can just have a government and distribute benefits that way. But this violates the sacred anarchic tenet according to some people.

I think a good way to test whether incentives other than material needs would work is to introduce it gradually. For example, right now someone who loses their job faces homelessness if they can't pay the rent. Let's say we guaranteed housing to everyone - would people still go to work without the incentive to stay off the streets? Continue down the chain.

That's not really something we need to speculate about, though. People own their own house and yet have a job.

[Australian rePublic]

I don't need to have done it know how unpleasant it is. I am perfectly capable of understanding how unpleasant bobbing around in shit is without needing to have done it myself. It's fucking common sense

And yet you continue to act like anyone who thinks differently can't possibly have a real working class job. So you think both that this is obvious common sense stuff that you don't need any special insight to know, and also something that people can't understand if they have an "airy-fairy" job.

Prove me wrong. Go down into the sewers and tell me something pleasent about it. Go on, do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Also, what do you do for a living? If you don't do an airy-fairy job for a living, why are you so affraid to tell me what you actually do? Why do I assume that you do an airy-fairy job? Because if you didn't, you would tell me what you actually do for a living then keep banging on about why I am wrong to assume that you do. Well if you don't do an airy-fairy job, then what do you do? If you didn't do an airy-fairy job, you wouldn't be screaming "my job's not airy-fairy, you'd tell me what you actually did. Actions speak louder than words. If you don't do an airy-fairy job, what do you actually do?

Go down into a sewer and tell me how pleasent it is. If you think that "it's not that unoleasent" go and fucking do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Until then, don't assume that it's not unpleasent. You're making the extraordinary claim that bobbing in shit isn't unpleasent in and of itself. Extraordianry claims require extraordinary proof. Prove it and go into a sewer yourself. Otherwise, admit you're a hypocrite.

And if you are a hypocrite, why would I take a single word you say seriously?

And in either case, I made seven or so points about everything else that's wrong with communism, why are you clasping about this one? Were the other six points that I made impossible for you to argue against.

[Umeria]

I mean if you ask me, there's no need for it to poof into existence. You can just have a government and distribute benefits that way. But this violates the sacred anarchic tenet according to some people.

I think a good way to test whether incentives other than material needs would work is to introduce it gradually. For example, right now someone who loses their job faces homelessness if they can't pay the rent. Let's say we guaranteed housing to everyone - would people still go to work without the incentive to stay off the streets? Continue down the chain.

That's not really something we need to speculate about, though. People own their own house and yet have a job.

The test would be whether it works it all circumstances.

[Niewe Suid Afrika]

me no like

[Australian rePublic]

Bobing through shit to do sewer is something that requires lots of experience. It's also extremely unpleasent. You're the one who's suggesting that people would do extremely unpleasent work for social accolades. In fact, you're the one who's suggesting that aocial accolades would even exist in the firat place. Extraordinary claims require extrodinary proof. Therefore the burdon of proof is on you to prove it. Considering that there are no social accolades now for doing sewer work, the burdon of proof is on you to prove that would poof into existence in the first place under communism, let alone that anyone would work in sewers because of it. And I'm not talking out my arse here. Actual sewer workers in this thread have said that they wouldn't do it if there was no momatery incentive and that social accolades aren't enough. Just like the burdon of proof is on me to prove that there is an invisible dragon in my garage, the burdon of proof is on you to prove social accoldes are enough to encourage sewer work. Until that is achieved, your answer will remain stupid

I mean if you ask me, there's no need for it to poof into existence. You can just have a government and distribute benefits that way. But this violates the sacred anarchic tenet according to some people.

I think a good way to test whether incentives other than material needs would work is to introduce it gradually. For example, right now someone who loses their job faces homelessness if they can't pay the rent. Let's say we guaranteed housing to everyone - would people still go to work without the incentive to stay off the streets? Continue down the chain.

I didn't say that people wouldn't work, I said that they wouldn't do unpleasent jobs. Driving a truck, for example, or working in an office as administrator is very different to bobbing through shit in a sewer pipe or dangling from electrical wires at 3 am in the rain due to blackouts. Whether or not people would work is very different to whether or not they would do something extremely unpleasent. Unfortunately, soclety cannot operate without those unpleasent jobs. Unless everyone were to start pissing, changing tampons and shitting in the streets, we'll always need sewer workers. And what your experiement has described is capitalism with a universal basic income, something that I actually support. And in order for a UBI to work, salaries have to be equal to or exceed that which you receieve on the UBI. Or have the UBI pay out the balance. And that's not really something you can experiment with long term. Your experiement could last maybe a year or two, tops (and even that's pushing it), but eventually, you run out of resources. If you're going to run an experiment like that, it would need to be very well planned and ensure that there are enough resources to get you through it

[Ifreann]

And yet you continue to act like anyone who thinks differently can't possibly have a real working class job. So you think both that this is obvious common sense stuff that you don't need any special insight to know, and also something that people can't understand if they have an "airy-fairy" job.

Prove me wrong. Go down into the sewers and tell me something pleasent about it. Go on, do it. Put your money where your mouth is.

What are you talking about? When did I ever say it was pleasant? I just don't agree with your belief that no one would ever do this, no matter how badly their community needs it done, no matter that they would be in control of the conditions of their job, not for any reason, ever, except cash money.

Also, what do you do for a living? If you don't do an airy-fairy job for a living, why are you so affraid to tell me what you actually do?

I'm not telling you what I do for a living because it's funny to watch you so desperately want to dismiss any dissenting opinions on the grounds of someone's job without actually knowing what their job is.

Why do I assume that you do an airy-fairy job? Because if you didn't, you would tell me what you actually do for a living then keep banging on about why I am wrong to assume that you do. Well if you don't do an airy-fairy job, then what do you do? If you didn't do an airy-fairy job, you wouldn't be screaming "my job's not airy-fairy, you'd tell me what you actually did. Actions speak louder than words. If you don't do an airy-fairy job, what do you actually do?

I'm not banging on about my job at all. I have not made any appeal to knowledge or experience gained from my job. You're the one who won't shut up about how people are wrong because of their jobs even though you don't know what their jobs are.

Go down into a sewer and tell me how pleasent it is. If you think that "it's not that unoleasent" go and fucking do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Until then, don't assume that it's not unpleasent. You're making the extraordinary claim that bobbing in shit isn't unpleasent in and of itself. Extraordianry claims require extraordinary proof. Proove it and go into a sewer yourself. Otherwise, admit you're a hypocrite.

I have never made any such claim.

And in either case, I made seven or so points about everything else that's wrong with communism, why are you clasping about this one? Were the other six points that I made impossible for you to argue against.

The thread's not all about you.

[Umeria]

I mean if you ask me, there's no need for it to poof into existence. You can just have a government and distribute benefits that way. But this violates the sacred anarchic tenet according to some people.

I think a good way to test whether incentives other than material needs would work is to introduce it gradually. For example, right now someone who loses their job faces homelessness if they can't pay the rent. Let's say we guaranteed housing to everyone - would people still go to work without the incentive to stay off the streets? Continue down the chain.

I didn't say that people wouldn't work, I said that they wouldn't do unpleasent jobs. Driving a truck, for example, or working in an office as administrator is very different to bobbing through shit in a sewer pipe or dangling from electrical wires at 3 am in the rain due to blackouts. Whether or not people would work is very different to whether or not they would do something extremely unpleasent. Unfortunately, soclety cannot operate without those unpleasent jobs. Unless everyone were to start pissing, changing tampons and shitting in the streets, we'll always need sewer workers. And what your experiement has described is capitalism with a universal basic income, something that I actually support. And in order for a UBI to work, salaries have to be equal to or exceed that which you receieve on the UBI. Or have the UBI pay out the balance. And that's not really something you can experiment with long term. Your experiement could last maybe a year or two, tops (and even that's pushing it), but eventually, you run out of resources. If you're going to run an experiment like that, it would need to be very well planned and ensure that there are enough resources to get you through it

How is guaranteed housing a UBI? There's no income involved. It's welfare. The term you're looking for is welfare.

The experiment already has been run for many aspects of life. Take public schools for example. By guaranteeing education to all children, we eliminate one incentive for working - having enough money to be able to send your kids to school. We have not run out of resources doing this.

[Australian rePublic]

Prove me wrong. Go down into the sewers and tell me something pleasent about it. Go on, do it. Put your money where your mouth is.

What are you talking about? When did I ever say it was pleasant? I just don't agree with your belief that no one would ever do this, no matter how badly their community needs it done, no matter that they would be in control of the conditions of their job, not for any reason, ever, except cash money.

So without cash money, why would they do it? I'm still waiting for that answer

Also, what do you do for a living? If you don't do an airy-fairy job for a living, why are you so affraid to tell me what you actually do?

I'm not telling you what I do for a living because it's funny to watch you so desperately want to dismiss any dissenting opinions on the grounds of someone's job without actually knowing what their job is.

The word salad of a coward who knows he's wrong

Why do I assume that you do an airy-fairy job? Because if you didn't, you would tell me what you actually do for a living then keep banging on about why I am wrong to assume that you do. Well if you don't do an airy-fairy job, then what do you do? If you didn't do an airy-fairy job, you wouldn't be screaming "my job's not airy-fairy, you'd tell me what you actually did. Actions speak louder than words. If you don't do an airy-fairy job, what do you actually do?

I'm not banging on about my job at all. I have not made any appeal to knowledge or experience gained from my job. You're the one who won't shut up about how people are wrong because of their jobs even though you don't know what their jobs are.

Word saald of a coward

Go down into a sewer and tell me how pleasent it is. If you think that "it's not that unoleasent" go and fucking do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Until then, don't assume that it's not unpleasent. You're making the extraordinary claim that bobbing in shit isn't unpleasent in and of itself. Extraordianry claims require extraordinary proof. Proove it and go into a sewer yourself. Otherwise, admit you're a hypocrite.

I have never made any such claim.

Then how would you incentivise them to do that work? And in either case, you are defending Nilokeras who was making such a claim. Forgive me for thinking that you agreed with him/her.

~

And in either case, I made seven or so points about everything else that's wrong with communism, why are you clasping about this one? Were the other six points that I made impossible for you to argue against.

The thread's not all about you.

[/quote]
Then why are you spending so much time trying to defend tbis one point that I am making? Pathetic excuse? And also, no, none of my points, they're all about communism. I am discussing communism, the topic of discussion in this thread. If you're not willing to discuss any of my other reasons why communism sucks and only try to run this one into the ground, then you're not really interested in the topic at hand, rather than you are suggesting that people would do sewer work for free. By your own logic, this thread isn't about whether or not people would do sewer work for free, and yet, here you are discussing that, at nauisum. I have discussed why communism sucks from multiple angles, and yet you're only focusing on this one. Pathetic excuse. You're now resoeting to pathetic excuses as to why you're unable to prove me wrong

[Australian rePublic]

I didn't say that people wouldn't work, I said that they wouldn't do unpleasent jobs. Driving a truck, for example, or working in an office as administrator is very different to bobbing through shit in a sewer pipe or dangling from electrical wires at 3 am in the rain due to blackouts. Whether or not people would work is very different to whether or not they would do something extremely unpleasent. Unfortunately, soclety cannot operate without those unpleasent jobs. Unless everyone were to start pissing, changing tampons and shitting in the streets, we'll always need sewer workers. And what your experiement has described is capitalism with a universal basic income, something that I actually support. And in order for a UBI to work, salaries have to be equal to or exceed that which you receieve on the UBI. Or have the UBI pay out the balance. And that's not really something you can experiment with long term. Your experiement could last maybe a year or two, tops (and even that's pushing it), but eventually, you run out of resources. If you're going to run an experiment like that, it would need to be very well planned and ensure that there are enough resources to get you through it

How is guaranteed housing a UBI? There's no income involved. It's welfare. The term you're looking for is welfare.

The experiment already has been run for many aspects of life. Take public schools for example. By guaranteeing education to all children, we eliminate one incentive for working - having enough money to be able to send your kids to school. We have not run out of resources doing this.

Yes and I sjpport welfare too.

[Australian rePublic]

Prove me wrong. Go down into the sewers and tell me something pleasent about it. Go on, do it. Put your money where your mouth is.

What are you talking about? When did I ever say it was pleasant? I just don't agree with your belief that no one would ever do this, no matter how badly their community needs it done, no matter that they would be in control of the conditions of their job, not for any reason, ever, except cash money.

Also, what do you do for a living? If you don't do an airy-fairy job for a living, why are you so affraid to tell me what you actually do?

I'm not telling you what I do for a living because it's funny to watch you so desperately want to dismiss any dissenting opinions on the grounds of someone's job without actually knowing what their job is.

Why do I assume that you do an airy-fairy job? Because if you didn't, you would tell me what you actually do for a living then keep banging on about why I am wrong to assume that you do. Well if you don't do an airy-fairy job, then what do you do? If you didn't do an airy-fairy job, you wouldn't be screaming "my job's not airy-fairy, you'd tell me what you actually did. Actions speak louder than words. If you don't do an airy-fairy job, what do you actually do?

I'm not banging on about my job at all. I have not made any appeal to knowledge or experience gained from my job. You're the one who won't shut up about how people are wrong because of their jobs even though you don't know what their jobs are.

Go down into a sewer and tell me how pleasent it is. If you think that "it's not that unoleasent" go and fucking do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Until then, don't assume that it's not unpleasent. You're making the extraordinary claim that bobbing in shit isn't unpleasent in and of itself. Extraordianry claims require extraordinary proof. Proove it and go into a sewer yourself. Otherwise, admit you're a hypocrite.

I have never made any such claim.

And in either case, I made seven or so points about everything else that's wrong with communism, why are you clasping about this one? Were the other six points that I made impossible for you to argue against.

The thread's not all about you.

Well, let's put your money where your mouth is. Let's test if social accolades are worth bobbing through shit. Go to your local hardware store, buy a pair of high duty disposable gloves. Then go to your backyard. Find a sewer pipe with a screw top opening, unscrew it and film yourself playing with the sewerage for 15 mimutes. If you film only your hands which are covered in gloves, I'll have no method whatsoever of identifying you nor knowing what you look like. Once the fifteen minutes have passed, I'll film myself apllauding you. Then you can tell me whether or not my applause is worth it

[Haganham]

You still haven't answered why anyone would do it beyond "it'll make them look like a hero" and some bullshit about social interactions, both of which are completely moronic answers, I pointed why those are completely moronic and your only response to that is "but it can be better" and when I ask "Okay, how can it be better?", you provide the same moronic answer. Leading us down this idiotic cycle of you just repeating the same moronic answer. Your ability to repeat moronic answers doesn't make them any less moronic

The idea is that if everyone's material needs are met, things like relationships and social status would become more important factors in people's decision making. So you'd be doing your job for that instead of paying the bills.

Thing is, essential work like cleaning sewers doesn't carry any relationships or social status. It's done because it pays well. If you eliminate the need to work for material needs then suddenly everyone wants to do stuff that carries social status, which isn't very productive work.

[Ifreann]

What are you talking about? When did I ever say it was pleasant? I just don't agree with your belief that no one would ever do this, no matter how badly their community needs it done, no matter that they would be in control of the conditions of their job, not for any reason, ever, except cash money.

So without cash money, why would they do it? I'm still waiting for that answer

Probably because they know it needs doing and can do it on their own terms and make it as bearable as possible.

I'm not telling you what I do for a living because it's funny to watch you so desperately want to dismiss any dissenting opinions on the grounds of someone's job without actually knowing what their job is.

The word salad of a coward who knows he's wrong

How can I be wrong about what my own job is?

I'm not banging on about my job at all. I have not made any appeal to knowledge or experience gained from my job. You're the one who won't shut up about how people are wrong because of their jobs even though you don't know what their jobs are.

Word saald of a coward

See? This is funny.

I have never made any such claim.

Then how would you incentivise them to do that work? And in either case, you are defending Nilokeras who was making such a claim. Forgive me for thinking that you agreed with him/her.

I don't think people would actually need any special effort made to incentivise them to maintain their local sewer system. Certainly working on sewer systems is probably pretty nasty at times, but do you know what's probably a lot fucking worse? Living in a town without a functioning sewer system.

~

The thread's not all about you.

Then why are you spending so much time trying to defend tbis one point that I am making? Pathetic excuse?

I believe that this particular tangent started with someone else's post. I'm just responding to the posts in this thread as and when I feel like I have something to say in response to them.

And also, no, none of my points, they're all about communism. I am discussing communism, the topic of discussion in this thread. If you're not willing to discuss any of my other reasons why communism sucks and only try to run this one into the ground, then you're not really interested in the topic at hand, rather than you are suggesting that people would do sewer work for free. By your own logic, this thread isn't about whether or not people would do sewer work for free, and yet, here you are discussing that, at nauisum. I have discussed why communism sucks from multiple angles, and yet you're only focusing on this one. Pathetic excuse. You're now resoeting to pathetic excuses as to why you're unable to prove me wrong

I don't know what other reasons you're talking about. I probably didn't read whatever post you mentioned them in, or maybe I wasn't bothered to respond to the whole thing. Maybe don't get too worked up about it.

[Umeria]

The idea is that if everyone's material needs are met, things like relationships and social status would become more important factors in people's decision making. So you'd be doing your job for that instead of paying the bills.

Thing is, essential work like cleaning sewers doesn't carry any relationships or social status. It's done because it pays well. If you eliminate the need to work for material needs then suddenly everyone wants to do stuff that carries social status, which isn't very productive work.

They don't carry social status now. The proposal involves changing that.

[Elwher]

Thing is, essential work like cleaning sewers doesn't carry any relationships or social status. It's done because it pays well. If you eliminate the need to work for material needs then suddenly everyone wants to do stuff that carries social status, which isn't very productive work.

They don't carry social status now. The proposal involves changing that.

And how do you get people to change from "You smell bad from the sewers" to "Oh, you're such a hero for going down there"?

[Umeria]

They don't carry social status now. The proposal involves changing that.

And how do you get people to change from "You smell bad from the sewers" to "Oh, you're such a hero for going down there"?

Military veterans get various privileges and holidays in their name, you could do something like that.

[Ifreann]

What are you talking about? When did I ever say it was pleasant? I just don't agree with your belief that no one would ever do this, no matter how badly their community needs it done, no matter that they would be in control of the conditions of their job, not for any reason, ever, except cash money.


I'm not telling you what I do for a living because it's funny to watch you so desperately want to dismiss any dissenting opinions on the grounds of someone's job without actually knowing what their job is.


I'm not banging on about my job at all. I have not made any appeal to knowledge or experience gained from my job. You're the one who won't shut up about how people are wrong because of their jobs even though you don't know what their jobs are.


I have never made any such claim.


The thread's not all about you.

Well, let's put your money where your mouth is. Let's test if social accolades are worth bobbing through shit. Go to your local hardware store, buy a pair of high duty disposable gloves. Then go to your backyard. Find a sewer pipe with a screw top opening, unscrew it and film yourself playing with the sewerage for 15 mimutes. If you film only your hands which are covered in gloves, I'll have no method whatsoever of identifying you nor knowing what you look like. Once the fifteen minutes have passed, I'll film myself apllauding you. Then you can tell me whether or not my applause is worth it

You have got to do a better job differentiating the people you are talking to, because I never said a damn thing about social accolades. But since you bring it up, you've just been calling me a coward and pretty clearly don't think that I should even be allowed to have opinions about the economy and society, so suffice it to say that I do not value your opinion of me.