[philiphos]

I know that LOL, I'm talking about a second home that i just use to spend my holidays or weekends would that be possible?
Only if you are a party member and jewish.

Actually I think jews have increasingly given up on communism since Stalin betrayed them which is why they don't push the commie gospel any more. They still like central banks though, it doesn't give them total hegemony over the goyim but at least they get unlimited imaginary money with which to freeride off them.

I'm neither a Party member nor a Jew so I guess I'm screwed =\

[Decky]

I know that LOL, I'm talking about a second home that i just use to spend my holidays or weekends would that be possible?

Obviously Dachas didn't exist in the Soviet Union... oh wait.

[Paradigm]

People got holidays in the USSR.

Not only that, but you pretty much couldn't get fired. This meant that while you had an 8-hour workday on paper, in practice people would take time during the day to go to the spa, have a long lunch, and ultimately only do at most 3 or 4 hours of actual work. Now, of course, this is precisely the sort of thing capitalists are quick to point to as a failure of communism, but the system still kind of worked for quite a while, and when it fell, it wasn't because of the work hours. Unfortunately, the Soviets shared the capitalists' fetishization of productivity as an end in itself, and thus were unable to advertise what was possibly one of their greatest achievements: greater leisure time for the workers than they'd ever known.

[RedPillAger]

Nothing's wrong with that. It's what we want. The working class getting the rewards from their own work rather than it going to the idle rich.

Nothing. That's why communism should be supported unlike capitalism where most of the rewards go to some rich bastard who does nothing.

Edit : Dammit, Decky beat me to it.

well, which is it? do you think an individual should be able to keep the fruits of his labor, or should it be distributed to "everyone"? it can't be both.

[Paradigm]

well, which is it? do you think an individual should be able to keep the fruits of his labor, or should it be distributed to "everyone"? it can't be both.

The problem here is your false assumption that the rich are the ones who do all the work, when in fact it is workers who do the work. Hence the name.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

well, which is it? do you think an individual should be able to keep the fruits of his labor, or should it be distributed to "everyone"? it can't be both.

In general, people are denied the fruits of their own labor. The worker does not get a share in the proceeds of his labor. He, or she, works for a wage that barely, if ever, changes if he helps make 50 computers an hour or just 25. More than likely, a factory laborer can't afford (or will have to save up a substantial amount of money, which is difficult to do with the low wages workers generally make in proportion to the profits made off the fruit of his own labor) the product of his own labor.

[RedPillAger]

do you folks avoid answering questions professionally, or are you trying to maintain amateur status?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Both of us answered your question and pointed out that it's hypocritical if you think workers aren't the ones doing the hard work and aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Well sure but the only one marxists fixate on isn't even a problem. If you are narrowly concerned with economic relations then usury surely is the most pernicious problem. What is worse?

It would be an oversimplification to state that one problem is the worst and should be solved first. There are many interlinked issues which may require resolution simultaneously or consecutively, and solving one will affect others. Whatever the hell it is that you're calling "state backed usury" does not exist in a socio-economic vacuum.

[SolarCross]

It would be an oversimplification to state that one problem is the worst and should be solved first. There are many interlinked issues which may require resolution simultaneously or consecutively, and solving one will affect others. Whatever the hell it is that you're calling "state backed usury" does not exist in a socio-economic vacuum.

Okay so you have some excuses for avoiding solving the problem of a clique of magic money printers making everyone debt slaves to them, trashing the quality of life and productivity of 99% of the people in the process because umm maybe there is some unnamed problem somewhere else in the in socio-economic vacuum that might be more important, whatever it is. Gotcha. Whoops I forgot that taking economic advice from someone (a marxist) who wants the entire economy to crash so that everyone can be enslaved to Bolshevism might not be such a good idea.

[The Immortal Goon]

well, which is it? do you think an individual should be able to keep the fruits of his labor, or should it be distributed to "everyone"? it can't be both.

Just to be clear and transparent, my comrades are speaking about capitalism as a system where the bosses get rich while the workers work.

If you're asking about distribution in general, there's again no conflict in socialism. I'd like to point out, again, that we have unimaginable productive power as a species and yet, still, are dependent upon child labor. Why? To make production cheaper while maximizing profit. Surely a system where the production is used for the benefit of the child would be preferable to maximizing the fortunes of the already obscenely wealthy.

When we say keep the fruits of his labor and distribute to everyone, we see no contradiction. From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

[RedPillAger]

Both of us answered your question and pointed out that it's hypocritical if you think workers aren't the ones doing the hard work and aren't entitled to the fruits of their labor.

i'm afraid no one did. it's either given to the individual that did it, or it's given to others. the law of non-contradiction states that both cannot be true. they are saying that both are true.

anyway, i'm able to see that one of the problems several of you are suffering from (besides avoiding answering questions). you're not accounting for who owns the means of production. the equipment, facilities, administration, etc. all cost resources. the employer traded for those resources, and did so at his own risk. the workers did none of this. of course there can be a disparity. even by some of your own words, they did different amounts of work, so they may be paid differently.

also, no one is pointing a gun at the workers' heads to make them take the job. it's a voluntary arrangement between their employer and themselves. if the arrangement isn't satisfactory, the worker doesn't have to take the job, and/or the employer doesn't have to accept the worker.

in your system, someone does point a gun at the owner's head. i'm afraid it's you that are demonstrably hypocritical.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

i'm afraid no one did. it's either given to the individual that did it, or it's given to others. the law of non-contradiction states that both cannot be true. they are saying that both are true.

Both did, actually. You simply didn't like the answer. I'm not sure why you're in a communist subforum asking questions and then oddly saying you weren't answered simply because you don't agree with the ideological content.

anyway, i'm able to see that one of the problems several of you are suffering from (besides avoiding answering questions). you're not accounting for who owns the means of production. the equipment, facilities, administration, etc. all cost resources. the employer traded for those resources, and did so at his own risk. the workers did none of this. of course there can be a disparity. even by some of your own words, they did different amounts of work, so they may be paid differently.

I agree, these are problems most people suffer from. Production, wealth, etc are concentrated into the hands of a small percentage of the population. The basis of Marxist theory accounts for who owns the means of production currently, and what should be done about it. The whole of Marxist theory, and thus communism, is an attempt to address the gross inequalities present in capitalism, and to give the means of production to the hands of the working class, through whose blood and toil the goods come from.

I also completely agree with you that in general, in the present day system of capitalism, it will generally not be someone of the working class who starts up a factory or the like. Pretty much by definition, workers lack the means to compete with the bourgeoisie. The workers, however, are responsible for enriching the bourgeoisie while generally receiving the lowest wages and smallest portion of the profits of their own labor. Let's say a business switched over to a socialist model overnight: not all Marxists might agree with me, but I happen to think that as long as the former owner of that business actually does real work, then some compensation for his efforts in making his fellow workers' employment possible should be made.

also, no one is pointing a gun at the workers' heads to make them take the job. it's a voluntary arrangement between their employer and themselves. if the arrangement isn't satisfactory, the worker doesn't have to take the job, and/or the employer doesn't have to accept the worker.

This is extremely naive for you to think that the working class isn't helpless and pressured to accept wage slavery as their means of making a living. There are few, if any, options available to workers to work for a fair income because the bourgeoisie isn't required to deal fairly. Also I'm -ing at your comment that workers can simply not take a job that's being offered/is available, because we all know the working class is at an advantage for fair choices when it comes to employment.

in your system, someone does point a gun at the owner's head.

Guns are always pointed at the workers. The long history of labor rights consists of actions of violence against laborers by the police and the military throughout the world. Communist and Socialist parties and organizations have typically been targets of state-sanctioned violence and intimidation throughout the last couple centuries as well. People literally gave their lives throughout the last ~ couple centuries to ensure their fellow workers would earn a decent wage and work in better conditions.

i'm afraid it's you that are demonstrably hypocritical.

Please familiarize yourself with PoFo's rules, notably rule 2. It's OK to say someone's views or posts are hypocritical, but it is not acceptable to personally say someone is a hypocrite.

[quetzalcoatl]

Nothing's wrong with that. It's what we want. The working class getting the rewards from their own work rather than it going to the idle rich.

So does that mean workers will be rewarded as a class, or individually on the basis of their efforts? How would the daily life a worker on the factory floor compare in a communist society as a opposed to a capitalist society... let's assume an equal level of industrial development and assume you could set everything up exactly as you'd want it?

[RedPillAger]

I also completely agree with you that in general, in the present day system of capitalism, it will generally not be someone of the working class who starts up a factory or the like. Pretty much by definition, workers lack the means to compete with the bourgeoisie. The workers, however, are responsible for enriching the bourgeoisie while generally receiving the lowest wages and smallest portion of the profits of their own labor. Let's say a business switched over to a socialist model overnight: not all Marxists might agree with me, but I happen to think that as long as the former owner of that business actually does real work, then some compensation for his efforts in making his fellow workers' employment possible should be made.

absent non-consensual government, it will be a working class guy. companies become slow and inefficient the larger they become. without government working for them, they would not survive the smaller, fast and free entrepreneurs' competition.

with a government working for them, they're free to grow and continually gain power as the little guy that i think we are both rooting for here is kept down.

Guns are always pointed at the workers. The long history of labor rights consists of actions of violence against laborers by the police and the military throughout the world. Communist and Socialist parties and organizations have typically been targets of state-sanctioned violence and intimidation throughout the last couple centuries as well. People literally gave their lives throughout the last ~ couple centuries to ensure their fellow workers would earn a decent wage and work in better conditions.

here, you admit that government is the problem. yet, you think government is the answer. this, more than anything, is what perplexes me about the collectivist systems. how do you guys resolve that?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

here, you admit that government is the problem. yet, you think government is the answer. this, more than anything, is what perplexes me about the collectivist systems. how do you guys resolve that?

Capitalism is the problem. Thinking government itself is the problem is like being struck in the face by someone and thinking their hand was responsible.

[RedPillAger]

Capitalism is the problem. Thinking government itself is the problem is like being struck in the face by someone and thinking their hand was responsible.

then you have no problem, because capitalism can't exist when a non-consensual government is present.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

then you have no problem,

I don't have a problem with capitalism? Wow, that's news to me and makes total sense.

because capitalism can't exist when a non-consensual government is present.

That makes no coherent sense, but for the sake of entertainment purposes (and I'm sure you mean that in the lolbertarian way I think you mean it), can you elaborate on what you think a consensual/non-consensual government is, considering you actually think capitalism doesn't exist right now because governments aren't "consensual"?

Also, would you mind explaining to me how it benefits me personally, or the entire working class, to not care about our own fair share, and instead to essentially support the ability of the wealthy to acquire more and more wealth and roll back our hard-earned labor rights?

[The Clockwork Rat]

Okay so you have some excuses for avoiding solving the problem of a clique of magic money printers making everyone debt slaves to them, trashing the quality of life and productivity of 99% of the people in the process because umm maybe there is some unnamed problem somewhere else in the in socio-economic vacuum that might be more important, whatever it is. Gotcha. Whoops I forgot that taking economic advice from someone (a marxist) who wants the entire economy to crash so that everyone can be enslaved to Bolshevism might not be such a good idea.

You're not worth my time.

[The Immortal Goon]

So does that mean workers will be rewarded as a class, or individually on the basis of their efforts? How would the daily life a worker on the factory floor compare in a communist society as a opposed to a capitalist society... let's assume an equal level of industrial development and assume you could set everything up exactly as you'd want it?

Any way I want? It would be like the rural water district where my dad lives. The neighbors all have a job they have to do about once a month, or at most weekly. Yearly they elect one of themselves to make sure things run smoothly. Everyone has clean running water.

So I'd go into the factory and do half a shift once a month and catch up with the other lads coming in, and then I'd have a society of abundance.

Or if you really want to let me go crazy, I'll just move to the Federation in Star Trek TNG.

---

Broadly, and this goes for Red Pill as much as anyone, capitalism is a system that works a lot better than feudalism did. Nobody denies that.

But we can do better.

There's this lie, this impression, that a factory owner rolled up his sleeves and invested in a company and him and the workers live in this symbiotic relationship. But the factory owner is a parasite. We all know that in order to make a profit, the worker needs to get paid less than his labor is worth-otherwise there'd be no profit.

So, no matter what, the worker is working more and getting less.

To say that a system, socialism, in which the worker is paid what he is worth is unfair to the worker somehow is strange.

You can test it too. Name a society that was alien to capitalism that immediately benefitted from the introduction of capitalism.

The Indians, who went into spiraling into collapse and famine for hundreds of years?

The Chinese that were the world's oldest existing civilization and still haven't bounced back?

The Native Americans that are all dead?

The Africans?