If you guys hate wageslaves so much why do you not support this man's ideas?
>>29730146
Because everyone is a self-interested weasel and capitalism gives us weasels more weasel room.
He wants me to work
>>29730146
>communism
>work or starve
Yeah, no sorry. Come back when you can automate everything.
Also under communism we have to socialise with other people.
>>29730146
Having owned a complicated business, I can tell you it's absolute fucking shit and a living nightmare I wouldn't wish on anyone.
I'll readily admit that you need a certain amount of money to be happy and I'm not saying "oh we bourgeoisie have it soooo hard :(" but running a business is total ass. You are liable for everything.
>>29730146
Marx believes that work is inherently valuable and in a marxist society everyone must work.
NEETzsche is the true robot philosopher, he even flat out says that work is demeaning and that high culture can only be developed by those who sit idle and don't work.
>>29730369
Bertrand Russell was pretty critical of work too.
>>29730264
you feel shit because your business is not big enough, does bill gates worry about his business at all? Petite bourgeoisie is the working class too, enslaved by banking class
>>29730369
>Marx believes that work is inherently valuable
No, he believed that socially necessary labour time is the basis of exchange value (of which market price is the concrete form) under capitalism. What you describe is an old social democratic belief that Marx explicitly criticised in Critique of the Gotha Programme.
>and in a marxist society everyone must work.
Well firstly, that's "communist society" or "socialist society". But yes, he did believe that people had to work in EVERY society. Not everyone necessarily, since after all it's "from each according to need and to each according to ability" so if you lack the ability you wouldn't have to.
I'm always fascinated by how many, and how strong, the opinions people have on Marx are when it is so clear they have not read a single word that he has witten. It's almost worth reading him JUST to be able to stop people making shit up. And it's not just anti-marxists either; plenty of socialists and self-proclaimed Marxists are just phonies.
>>29730958
What if I just plain don't want to work?
>>29731032
into the reeducation camp you go
>>29731082
no thanks comrade chadimir
>>29731032
Well ideally no one should force you. But ideally the seperation between work and play disappears - with no law of value operational, "work" no longer means being an 8-hour-per-day wagecuck. You have more control over what you do, why you do it, when you do it, how long you do it, how you do it and what happens to the end product. Work becomes an expression of your creativity and humanity - it is something YOU control and do for your own sake.
>"In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for men to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. This fixation of social activity, this consolidation of what we ourselves produce into an objective power above us, growing out of our control, thwarting our expectations, bringing to naught our calculations, is one of the chief factors in historical development up till now. - The German Ideology
This is why some anons claim it is the ultimate NEET ideology. It univerisalises the positive aspects of NEETdom, while abolishing the aliention of the NEET. It makes the ideal of the NEET possible, and not just lies you tell yourseld while whacking it to anime and crying.
communism is shit in practice because all the workers will slack off
In capitalist controlled industry the workers work the socially necessary labor time + labor time required for the capitalist to make a profit. The capitalist extracts some of the labor the worker produces for themselves, this is called surplus value.
In leftist systems workers control industries, so they get to retain all of the value of their work.
If you support capitalists, you are a bootlicker, plain and simple.
Yes, well done, Khrushchev, well done
HOWEVER
>>29731524
>socially necessary labor time + labor time required for the capitalist to make a profit
Nope, the socially necessary labor time is the time needed to produce stuff. That's the TOTAL time. The workers then get paid for some of this time while the capitalists exploit the rest. This is the surplus; it's part of the SNLT and not something that sits on top of it.
But nice try though, breh.
>tfw hate commies
>tfw admire the sheer fucking doggedness they have
>not even America could stop them
>>29731385
Cool, I'll be a fighter pilot, maybe start the day with a little brain surgery. Before bed I could try my hand as a porn star and fuck some roastie up her slippery loose poo gash.
>>29731684
maybe you wouldn't hate commies if you knew what they were about.
people don't become part of an ideology for no reason, there is something in it that appeals to them.
For communists, what appeals to them is getting what they deserve out of their labor. Is it so wrong to not be forced into working more/harder than I should just for someone's profit?
>>29731703
Technically you could. Sounds silly and it would take a shitload of time, but hey they say achieving mastery of something takes 7 years of daily practice. So if that's really what you want and you're willing to put in the time, then why not? You could even do that under capitalism.
Marx's point was that work does not define you, you are not a "fighter pilot" or a "brain surgeon". You are you. You then happen to do some piloting and surgery when there is a need and you are willing and able.
But there will be no "pornography" in glorious communism because that is still exploitation and also commodification of the human body.
>working for money sure sucks huh?
>get this
>what if instead of working for money
>you worked for no money
>am I a genius or what?
>oh yeah and let's kill a metric fuckton of people while we're at it
>>29731786
>But there will be no "pornography" in glorious communism because that is still exploitation and also commodification of the human body.
not my comrade.
>>29731703
If you were capable of doing both of those tasks, then why wouldn't you?
>>29731786
So no porn, or any kind of sports, TV or movies allowed because it commoditizes me? What if I don't mind being commodified? My dick is a treasure I want to share with the world. They need me as a porn star.
>>29731864
don't allow dumb tankie scum to represent communists, friendo. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to do those sorts of things. As long as the capital being used to produce your labor is not privatized, you are fine.
>>29730146
Because Karl Marx is often associated with social liberalism as well. Most of 4chan would love communism as long it was reserved for whites only. It's the idea of niggers benefiting from it that ruins it
I wonder what Marx would say about automation?
Because this man had all the right ideas, but better.
>>29731904
but identity politics like that is used to sway people into functioning against their class interest.
>>29731835
Because mean old capitalism said I can't. They said 'meh meh meh, muh experience, muh education, herp derp derp'. Pol pot was right. Intelligence is evil. We should just kill all the smart people, even people who just look smart and wear glasses. They've kept us down long enough. So you know what 557(x^y) 52%456+-2#=?big fucking deal, it's useless information. I know what 2+2 is, they're no better than me.
>>29731974
>capitalism is meritocracy
Except it fucking isn't. Having people do work for you is not working harder. If you want a meritocracy, there are some commies that like that kind of thing. You don't need to be exploited to have it.
>>29730146
if you guys hate chad so much why aren't you communists
no more 80 percent of the women fuck 20 percent of the men kinda shit, it'll be 50:50
>>29731958
Lmao, class interest? Fuck gibsmedats I'd rather join the upper class than be forced into slavery for ebt and the ghetto. Poverty is a choice. Growing up I remember rolling coins with my family to buy bread. We had a hole in the floor of the trailer by the front door. We patched it up by laying a plywood scrap on top. Now I'm living in a midtown apartment, own a car, and never budget, I buy whatever I want. That's because in America you get to pick your lifestyle. I'm glad I had the choice. Let the poor be poor. They chose to be. They won't be any less poor if they force everyone else to live like them. Communism is just tall poppy syndrome taken to the extreme.
>>29731816
Oh you'll still have people fucking and taping it because that's just what humans do, but it won't be for money or mass-produced.
>>29731864
See above. It just becomes not about the money. People will still do stuff they're passionate about, like sports and music and sex.
>>29731908
He actually says quite a bit, since the idea of technical improvement and increased automation is important to his theory of crises. As for FULL automation, his theories explain why it could never happen under capitalism, but under socialism it potentially could.
>>29731933
Oh anon you're sooo edgy and kewl, can I suck your dick for a bit pleeease?
>>29731958
Exactly. Pic related.
Free helicopter rides for all leftists! Get 'em while they're free!
Only 1 (one) free helicopter ride provided per leftist, for sake of egalitarianism. You understand, right?
>>29732077
You have no idea what communism is about.
It's not about "equality". It's about choosing not to have a portion of all the work you do stolen. There is no good reason for capitalists to exist. Workers can start their own industries. Capitalist provide investment capital to start businesses, that's the classic lolbert argument, but there is no reason why workers cant pitch together a portion of the value they produced together to fund new industries.
>>29732014
Management is way harder than just punching a clock. A business owner loses everything if it goes down, he never stops working. The guy working for him is like a cheap whore, contributes minimal value to the world and grabs onto the next juicy dick she sees the second any financial trouble looms ahead. The free market is perfection. Wealth is the only objective good and measure of morality and character. To be human is to compete. We are not equal and that is OK. It only makes sense that the better humans would have better things. They deserve it for being better.
>>29732077
>Went from working poor to working class and thinks he is hot shit
Jesus dude you aren't getting it. It's not about "gibsmedats" or whatever other meme, but about getting the full value of your work. Capitalists are the real "gibsmedats" since they literally do nothing but take from YOU. YOU do the actual work, and you're happy that you have an apartment and not a trailer? Nigga they live in gilded mansions and don't lift a fucken finger because they rob people like you blind. Why let them? Why identify with lazy theives and not hard-working people when you clearly are NOT a lazy thief but a hard-working man?
>>29732104
Is there enough people passionate about putting their arms in elbow deep in poop to keep the toilets working? What about nuclear energy, food distribution, care the sick or disposal of the dead?
>>29732153
Except business owners do not do management, unless you're talking local businesses, and we commies have a name for those: petite-bourgs, basically meaning they contribute some labor and exploit others labor as well. Communists do not have a bone to pick with petite-bourgs, their bone to pick is with bourgs that exploit labor on a massive industrial scale. Nowadays though, most industries are incorporated, which means there isn't even a business owner, no nowadays most businesses are owned by shareholders. Are you telling me shareholders do something? They do not. Businesses have always been run entirely by management (workers), and they still are.
>>29730264
This. This man is correct.
My best friend started his own company not so very long ago and was kind enough to hire me.
Dude works insanely hard and despite all that his business is still likely to fail.
Also, global socialism is retarded. Do you really think the meds, indios, mestizos, negros, arabs, persians indians, abos, and south and east asians are really gonna wanna support your ass?
>>29732137
> le copter ride may may
>>29732153
Calm down, Rothbard, take your meds. Blunt those edges a bit. Come back when you're out of high school and want to learn economics and not engage in market worship for the sake of being cool on the Internet. I mean even most anti-marxist, neoclassical, right-wing economists would laugh at what you're saying. Freakin' Hayek would laugh at you.
>>29731933
edgy mcedge
>>29732151
There's no reason they can't now, yet they don't. I know mechanics making $80k/yr. They don't run factories or open their own shop. They keep going in, punching the clock, then spending money as fast as they get it, then they spend some more than they don't have. One stupid fuck dumped thousands in Snap On tools, tools that do the same shit harbor freight tools do for 10% what snapons cost, then decided to shop paying for his tools and they got repo'd. How do you expect these blue collar retards to start an entire industry when they can't even be trusted to to manage their own tool cart?
>>29732250
Your friend is a petite-bourg, someone that also works while exploiting labor. Your friend's business could have been entirely worker owned, and he could have just been part of management. He is still doing some exploitation, and nothing you said justifies it.
>>29732343
The issue is that leftism is discouraged everywhere due to propaganda, so there are no major organizations where someone like that guy can go to team up with some workers that understand management and start a worker owned business together.
>>29732295
Do I look like I give a shit if some nerd named rothbard or hayek laughs at me? If anything I'd laugh an their stupid sounding names
>>29732232
Good question. Yes I do believe some of those things are works of passion, like caring for the sick and working with nuclear energy.
But not all work is pleasant, clearly. That can be settled in several ways. You can award people in non-monetary ways for volunteering, or set up a jury-like system where some people get randomly selected for civic duty. And so on. There is no one correct way, and I'm sure that in a socialist system we'd see all kinds of solutions to this being tried out in different places.
So what happens with the jobs that nobody wants to do? For how many people does the "separation between work and play disappear" when they scrub toilets, empty septic tanks, press the same handful of buttons at the Metro station to let people through the gates when they have a ticket, etc.?
>>29732350
> there are literally no amount of dicks that I could suck to satiate my insatiable donglust
I AM getting equity, commie fuck. What do you think a stock option is, anyway?
Anyway, he is the one risking his assets and reputation on the success or failure of the firm. I can walk away at any time.
>>29732422
>not mentioning the superior syndicalist way of solving that problem
simply have every issue solved at the local industrial level. If workers want clean toilets in their area, they'll clean them.
>>29732379
How is it discouraged? The evil capitalists keep paying them $80k to trick them from doing any real work?
>>29732459
So he's justified in doing what workers could do because he is taking a risk?
Am I justified in shooting up a school because it is risky?
Worker controlled business won't have the exploitation that is had by him owning the business, so there is no reason for him to be in the picture, period.
>>29732422
Marx never wrote about what to do incentivize people to do unpleasant labor? I can't imagine that he spent his whole life writing books about an ideal fantasy world where the only labor that exists is labor that is genuinely pleasurable and fulfilling for human beings to do. He must have written SOMETHING about scrubbing 19th century portapotties.
>>29732486
Nigger what are you doing right now? You are reciting cold war propaganda. Nothing you are saying right now is original whatsoever. You don't understand communism at all and are just reciting misunderstandings of it.
No thanks, I'm not on board with jewish philosophies, and I am a believer in identity politics. If you don't have an in group, maybe Marxism feels right for you, but its universalism is not for me
>>29732533
remove that "but its"
SILLY MISTAKE
>>29732477
Look at the condition of black neighborhoods. They don't give a fuck and actually seem to enjoy living in filth. Unless we're allowed to wall off communities and exclude others bated on religion, race, language, etc. it will not work. The ones who don't care about clean toilets are the messiest and most antisocial ones.
>>29732509
> So he's justified in doing what workers could do because he is taking a risk?
Yes, you quintuple nigger. He is justified making a profit on the capital he risked losing had the venture gone tits up.
> there is no reason for him to be in the picture
Wrong. He steps out and the business fails. He was never there and the business would have never existed.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>29732533
>jewish
Joke's on you, Engels was a pure blooded german
>>29732583
>Germans
>pure blooded
LOL
>>29732529
One hardly needs to be original to point out the glaring ideological flaws in communism. Instead of a society built on love and justice as seen in capitalism, communism seeks to build on hatred and envy. You fuckers have had many opportunities to try it out. How many failures will it take? I don't know, maybe they just haven't killed enough innocent people yet and we just need a new bloodthirsty dictator.
>>29732569
why would the business fail?
He is playing the role of the guy that provides initial capital and in your delusion he is also playing the role of management.
Initial capital can be provided by a group of workers that collected capital to spare for that sort of thing. The way it works is an existing worker's federation sets aside some capital for the creation of new industries, then when some workers want to start a new industry, they provide the capital for them to do it in in exchange for the workers' membership in the federation.
Also, workers could obviously work as management, as they do in corporations. Corporations have no owner, just stock holders. Management is the workers.
>>29732633
He IS also playing the role of management.
My friend is capital, management, and worker. He does all three.
> Initial capital can be provided by a group of workers that collected capital to spare for that sort of thing.
Which happens WHEN exactly? You have no idea how hard it is to get a group of lone investors together, let alone a scrum of workers.
Believe me, your theories are predicated on a world of 115+ IQ altruistic workers i.e. a total fiction.
>>29732633
Do you even know what a corporation is? I'm in the process of fixing my business and going from sole proprietor to an s-corp. I will be the owner of the corporation, essentially. Corporations are people, but I will hold every position in the corporation. It's basically to give me some tax breaks and offer legal protection from any niggers that would attack me.
>>29732415
>Oh Jesus, Joseph and Mary it's worse than thought
>Ow Lard up high, dis nigga don't even know about the major figures of his own ideology
>Ow my my it's literally like a Marxist not knowing who Marx is
>Poor child is retarded
>Oh Lawd have mercy on this retarded child
>>29732454
See >>29732422
And again, there is no One Solution. We'll try different things and see what works. Lets put it like this: imagine you are living in a socialist utopia. What would make YOU scrub a toilet or empty a septic tank? Not as a career, say you have to do it once a year or once a month. What would make you do it? Except money I mean. Good seats to a sports game or concert, beta-access to a new game, preview of a cool new movie comming out? A shiny medal that the bitches like? You tell me.
>>29732477
Yup this is also a great solution, and actually one that I business I worked for used.
>>29732516
>Marx never wrote about what to do incentivize people to do unpleasant labor?
Not directly, no.
>I can't imagine that he spent his whole life writing books about an ideal fantasy world
Because he didn't. He was a critic of capitalism and wrote like, a handful of paragraphs about what he thought communism would be like. And most of that is vague and talking about what it is not. Marx refused to write "recipes for the cook-shops of the future" as he put it. What Communism will be exactly is to be decided by the people who create it.
>>29732569
>He is justified making a profit on the capital he risked losing
But he only has it to begin with because he exploits workers. You can't save up that kind of money working a wagecuck job.
>>29732569
I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. Providing the initial capital isn't an ability limited to any single person in the company. Most companies these days are initially funded by groups of investors (ex., Y Combinator and other techie start-ups) and even eventually go public and are then funded by the public citizens at large who decide to pay in. Even right now, since you have equity, you are providing some of that capital and take some of the risk.
And any worker or group of workers in a company can help manage it, that's also not limited to any specific individual. In fact, many companies are managed by a board, which is a group of individuals paid to do exactly that.
I mean, none of this stuff is Marxism or Communism or whatever OP supports, I'm just using them as examples as to how your boss's/friend's position in the company isn't actually uniquely tied to him or requires him specifically, and there's no reason to insist it does.
>>29732699
>You can't save up that kind of money working a wagecuck job
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: the communist.
>>29732731
Are you suggesting that one can?
The idea that capitalists have not earned "their" money fair and square but stolen it from the workers is at the heart of Marx's theory of exploitation.
>>29731812
>working for kings sure sucks huh?
>get this
>what if instead of working for kings
>you worked for business owners
>am I a genius or what?
>oh yeah and let's incarcerate a metric fuckton of people for no reason while we're at it
>>29732809
>>29731812
Guyz, show me an ideology that never killed a bunch of people and I'll show you an ideology that never controlled shit.
>>29732699
Oh, I see. That's very vague then and explains why there's been a lot of "what we're doing is Communism" etc. stuff. Well, that's awfully shitty and not too useful then. It's easy to say "without the bourgeois everyone can work as they please and reap the fruits of their labor, the separation between work and play will disappear!" and then duck out when it comes to how you get people to do shitty jobs nobody likes.
>>29732809
>Incarcerate people
Blacks aren't people, you know this
>>29732837
>Blacks aren't people
Neither are anti-communists.
>>29732722
No. I get what he is saying.
I'm perfectly capable of separating the role of capitalist - manager - worker.
I even wrote something of a thesis paper incorporating Marxist economic theory when I was a wide-eyed bearded radical as a post-grad student.
That being said, that shit is not the real world. Those three careful class distinctions have more overlap in the actual business world.
Human beings are hierarchical by nature. We are not equal. We have different abilities and different capacities to take responsibility.
And he who sits at the top of the pyramid should reap its benefits.
I exploit my workers and I see no problem. Why should they reap huge profits from my venture? I've been operating my store for 3 years and am starting to get really great returns. I haven't spent every day of every week for these years working to better the life of some lowly sales kid. If you weren't born with inherent value or the agency to create value, that's your lot in life, and not my problem.
>>29732862
>human beings are hierarchical by nature
remember earlier when you asked what propaganda is used to prevent people from being leftists?
There is literally no reason for you to believe that. You just do.
>>29732878
The point is that leftism should be widely recognized so that your workers could find a place to organize and start a business of their own so they don't have to deal with you taking a portion of their value.
>>29732878
> I haven't spent every day of every week for these years working to better the life of some lowly sales kid.
Plus, the lowly sales kid might not WANT your lot in life!
>>29732896
> There is literally no reason for you to believe that. You just do.
Suck a dick, Commie scum. You don't fucking know me.
It wasn't until I started working when I realized that I DIDN'T WANT to be a capital-holder. I DIDN'T WANT to be a manager.
I say this as somebody who started his career (after graduating) on a management track with responsibilities for other people.
What I do best is working. I AM a worker and when I have the right environment, where I can autistically focus on the kind of work I do well and not have to worry about being responsible for the failure of an enterprise or letting down the people who I am responsible for creating jobs for I feel better in life.
My friend has no problem holding authority. I DO. As do many others, whether they realize it or not. Hence, my friend should reap the rewards of wielding it.
Heavy lies the crown.
>>29732990
>bootlickers have a submission complex and assume everybody does
nobody is surprised.
>>29733026
No. Nobody is surprised that some faggy pseudo intellectual thinks he's God and can just step in and run shit like it requires no talent and that any other person on the planet can do the same.
>>29733052
You are capable of being independent. You don't need someone telling you what to do. All it takes for that to be true is for you to internalize it. You have internalized that you must submit and obey. Only you can change that.
>>29732835
Well not exactly. More like "this system is based on worker control and democracy so I can't just tell you what to do, you guys have to, you know, do what you WANT to do". There are many theoretical suggestions and lots of stuff that's been tried in practice too. Seems to work better than "clear my toilets or we let you and your family starve to death! yeay freedom!".
>>29732896
This is true. "Human nature" is whatever the ruling class benefits the most from it being. A convenient excuse to shut down debate and avoid explaining why we aren't at least TRYING to make the world better.
>>29732990
But he's right. This is not hierarchy you're speaking of, it's literally "from each according to ability". Your ability is best expressed as an ordinary worker, that of your friend as a manager. Why should he be above you or better? Both of you are needed and both of you are working hard, doing what you do best. There is no reason for him to lord over you, or be able to fire you - if he's good at managing and you know that you'll let him manage you and listen to his advice, just like he'll let you do your thing.
>>29733026
Outgroup preference gets you every time. I have relatives that where revolutionaries in El Salvador, and literally had their poor, down-trodden relatives - whom they where trying to help - hold guns to their heads because said relatives loved their oppressors far more than their own blood.
>>29732759
How much do you think it costs to start a business? A shit load can be started for less than $100k, that's an easy sum to wageslave for, 5 years if you wake average salary and have save only 50%. That's hiding it under a mattress too, not even putting it in ETFs like VTI or even the local lending club. Speaking of lending, there's loans to cover any missing capital. Cottage industries are even easier, $5k will get you set up with some top notch shit depending on what you do.
how come some people suffer from religion, nationalism, racism, etc, and others dont?
What causes someone to be a bigot?
Holy fuck are my jimmies rustled by this thread.
The insufferable arrogance of leftists who believe that all human beings are perfectly equal in ability, in intelligence, in managerial capacity.
>>29733113
> You are capable of being independent.
> wheredoyouthinkyouare.gif
Seriously. What the fuck man. Everybody has the ability to just go out there and be self-motivated and self-actualizing?
>>29733122
> Why should he be above you or better?
Because he runs shit. If he doesn't run shit then shit doesn't get run. Then all anybody - capitalists, managers, workers - has is just runny shit.
>>29732990
Isn't the whole point that you CAN just autistically focus on the kind of work you want to do and let others who can/want to manage people do so without either group exploiting another? I don't know why you're assuming that in a worker-controlled company you would have to be the specific worker who does the managing. The whole point is that you can choose to do so or choose not to, whereas now you can't choose at all. You can just choose to do what your boss tells you to do or quit. If your boss-friend said "from now on you're a manager while I run this other store" your only options are to say "yes, I'll do that" or quit and go home and hope you can find another job that happens to let you do what you want.
Working with niggers does a real number on your delusions of equality.
>>29733178
>The insufferable arrogance of leftists who believe that all human beings are perfectly equal in ability, in intelligence, in managerial capacity.
I honestly haven't seen that implied at all.
not a commie btw, I'm the guy who wondered how they get toilet scrubbers to work.
>>29733201
post was for >>29733170
>>29733185
So what happens when every worker chooses to do something different?
>>29733122
>let's slaughter their livestock and fuck their children
>this will surely show them the evils of capitalism
>y u hold gun to my head
>guys come on we is family
>fucking capitalists must have shockholm'd them
>>29733319
kek
lets not pretend that these regimes were run by nice guys though. But what can you expect from a country of mestizos?
>>29733263
I don't know, I'm not a communist/marxist/whatever. I'm this guy. >>29733212
It looks like the answer is "workers need to figure it out". It sounds bad at first, but on a serious look it really is a basic problem every company needs to deal with with or without communism/marxism/whatever.
>>29733263
Its like a stampede equivalent of herding cats. A whole lot of nothing meaningful gets 'accomplished'.
It seems unfair but the truth is IQ is a huge thing. The little people are simply to stupid to take care of even themselves, much less play an active role in society. We need a return to feudalism. The elites know what they're doing. That's why they're called elite. I'm better than mont people. Part of that means sympathy and a reluctance to come to terms with the fact that people are usually bad. My charity can be better focused applying capitalist principles. I give the stupid fucks a carrot and a stick, and the stupid fucks that I like and the carrot and stick aren't helping enough I create charitable institutions or contribute money to preexisting ones.
>>29733416
this. Management solves those kinds of issues, or workers solve it themselves. There is no reason why a commie workplace wouldnt either have management or workers that can solve it themselves.
>>29733439
>the elites need to be in control
>btw i'm an elite
>>29733467
SHUTUP SHUTUP SHUTUP
ITS BETTER THIS WAY
>>29733130
Ah but anon, as soon as you start a business it is no longer "money" you have - you have money-in-circulation, i.e. capital. And why does that tiny sum you start with grow so fast? Because you exploit the labour of others.
Also you still seem confused on the distinction between petite and haute bourgeoisie.
Also the whole thing about capitalism is that upward mobility IS possible, unlike in feudalism. ANYONE can make it, but not EVERYONE can make it. Not everyone can be a business man, some poor schlobs need to work and some will be left without work at all.
It's like setting up a race, rewarding the few winners but then killing the people who finish in the bottom 10%. And when someone tells you how that's kinda fucked up, you just go "well shit, they all had a chance to win, some of 'em where just faster! It's the slow ones own fault they're slow, they could've just run faster and avoided death!" Technically true, at the individual level, but on the whole some will inevitably die no matter what while others are obscenely rewarded. The system as whole is fucked.
>>29733178
Strawman. We are not equal in ability, and hence it is intuitive for some people that we ought to be unequal in rewards as well. But it does not follow logically that difference in ability should been difference in affluence or even right to life and liberty. Is-ought chasm and all that. When Marx states "from each according to ability, to each according to need" he clearly recognises that not all have the same ability. He just rejects the notion that what you get should be tied to your ability - instead you just do your best and get what you need.
>Because he runs shit.
But you do important shit too. Both of your skills are needed. His is about control and we give that more importance, but is it really more important? Do as Marx suggested and imagine what would happen if all - ALL - ordinary workers like you just stopped working even for a single day.
>>29733467
I'm the companyowning friend guy.
I'm NOT elite but I agree with >>29733439
Fucking management makes me want to have a panic attack.
>>29733464
Also, the division between capital-provision and management isn't as finely divided at the level of small business. For massive, publicly-traded corporations . . . well, okay but there still is an inherent critical mass of IQ needed to put the deals together in the first place.
>>29733319
>Lemme just make some shit up while ignoring history, it usually works on 4chan so why not.
>This let me feel edgy and cool on the Internet, like a big boy!
kys
>>29733464
This. The difference being that under Communism the managers would not be above the ordinary workers, but advisors working side-by-side with them to find the best way to run things. I don't know where people get the idea that there is no management under socialism... maybe not management like under capitalism, but every society needs to manage shit and keep stuff in order.
>>29733467
It is rather convenient for me I suppose, but think about it critically. Doesn't it make sense that the best humans are the ones who would make the best decisions? Let a 4 year old pick the diet for a month and watch what happens. After the 5th night of ice cream with donuts for dinner you'll soon see why it's best to leave things to the elite.
You don't even have to take my word for it though. What if we allowed some external force to select for who gains and keeps or loses control? Whoever succeeds is the face of such trials would be the elite. This would also allow good people who somehow cam from bad people to join the good people. Caste societies work, but it just doesn't seem fair to me. Class societies are much better since it's more by merit instead of being entirely on birth.
>>29733546
So don't manage? The only difference for you specifically would be that now if your boss-friend tells you to manage the store while he operates a new one he opened up you can decline and continue to work where you're best suited, whereas now you can either do it or quit and be out of work. Nobody is forcing you to manage a company now or under this hypothetical worker-owned company. However, currently you CAN be forced to manage the company if your boss tells you to.
>politics
>on /r9k/
you're all dead weight on your parents and society so who cares what you lot think anyway
kudos to the basement dwelling-marxist though - it really does take someone special to argue for gommunism on /r9k/ of all places
>>29733525
ARG ARG ARG ARG ARG!
DUDE, it's NOT like that at all. Please, my man. I get the rhetoric and I have a hard time formulating a coherent argument against it but you are just WRONG, my man.
It's not about whether my work is needed or not - it definitely is and I'm a fucking monster at my job - it's about how systems WORK.
You cannot have a democratic military unit. You cannot have (in most instances) a democratic office. You need hierarchy.
So okay, you say that the distinction is about management and not WHO directs the process but WHO gets the proceeds thereof.
Fine.
But the problem is that when you take away the rewards of management then you DISINCENTIVIZE MANAGEMENT.
>>29733634
> hypothetical worker-owned
That's just what it is. Hypothetical.
The problem I get with the self-described Marxists (not everybody, I know) is that they want to throw out all organic structures in society.
Hierarchy has existed for thousands of years. It is necessary and good. When you make the argument that you fundamentally want to change the system, you are tearing out something that is at the core of our identity as a people.
And substituting what in its place? A fucking utopian society that has failed every time it has been tried, which when coupled with a globalist agenda means the destruction of everything that makes a nation a nation.
Goddamn communists.
Right-wing death squads cannot come soon enough.
>>29733690
I'm probably not the same commie that you were referring to, but to be honest lad, I see a lot of repressed class consciousness on /r9k/ and that is what motivates me to advocate communism here.
>>29733745
But why do you feel like you need to lick boots?
Why? Do you know that there are people out there that don't feel the same way as you? I bet that if you wanted to, you could easily change your bootlicking attitude into an attitude about co-operating with people and helping them with areas they struggle with in exchange for them helping you in areas that you struggle in.
>>29733745
Nobody's getting rid of hierarchy, just making it so that people in different positions of the hierarchy can't exploit or harm people in other positions via the hierarchy itself. I feel like you're obsessing over something nobody has insisted on and has even been corrected multiple times in the thread itself. Managers can still exist. Managers will just also be workers, just workers who work alongside other workers and manage them without being separate from them.
>>29733751
>repressed class consciousness
i think the issues us robots face have more to do with basic human interaction rather than class warfare my friend
>>29733745
>complain about the failure and destruction communism causes
>"Right-wing death squads"
>>29733815
Will libertarian socialists aka anarchists want to get rid of hierarchy, but that doesn't mean they want to rid themselves of management or military organization, it just means that the power distribution will be lateral. The bureaucratic and organizational segments of the workforce ought have as much representation as the other types of workers.
>>29733614
You forget one thing: in capitalism the only "merit" by which a capitalist is judged is ability to maximise profit. That's it. Does efficient management, innovation and creative marketing do that? Yup. Does externalising costs on communites, wrecking the environment and breaking laws do that too? Sure does.
And what is the point of it all? To maximise profit. But what is the point of maximising profit? To re-invest it so that we can maximise profit. There is no real goal apart from that, just an endless cycle of accumulation - and there is nothing of value or importance apart from the process of accumulation.
These are your overlords, your "elite". They are not more just, more wise, more kind, more intelligent, more creative or more anything. They can just accumulate more profit through a combination of innovation and evil. Are these truly the right guys for the job? They sure are if are only goal with this whole "society" thing is to - you guessed it - maximise profit. But if we as a civilization have other goals and aspirations, they are not fitting for the job.
Your mistake is assuming that being "elite" in one thing makes you a good ruler for all of society. You would never suggest that elite football players rule the world, but yet you suggest that elite accumulators of profit do so? Why? There is no reason other than that accumulation of profit is held in high regard in a capitalist society because that's what a capitalist society is based on. Seen sometimes as a moral or even religious duty.
>>29733787
>But why do you feel like you need to lick boots?
Honestly?
Because I want somebody to take care of me.
I'm a robot and I do certain things well. I like it when I am given specific tasks that have a finite dimension. I like it when my responsibilities are limited. I like to know my place in this world.
Having a defined role in my company, where I'm making money for my friend (boss) who in turn takes care of me makes me feel like a million dollars. Honestly.
> I bet that if you wanted to, you could easily change your bootlicking attitude into an attitude about co-operating with people and helping them with areas they struggle with in exchange for them helping you in areas that you struggle in.
But I don't WANT to do that. Sure, I'll help somebody if they need me to - I have an intern and I love the goofy dude like crazy and have taken a super active role in helping him learn more about what it is we do - but I don't like having a wide space in which I can fuck up.
>>29733840
> RWDS kill Marxists.
> Marxists kill societies.
Which is the lesser evil?
>>29733815
> you're obsessing over something nobody has insisted on
But that's not how it works on the ground level.
Sure, the big C Capitalists generally source their capital in such a way where it is divorced from management BUT that's not how it works on the smaller levels (which make up most of the employment arrangements in this country by the way). In those cases, the capitalists ARE the managers and by taking that away from them you fuck up the entire system.
I don't give a shit about the companies that get so huge where the management is divorced from the capital. In that case, fuck 'em. Fuck the investor class. BUT that is not how it is in most cases.
And Marxists want to destroy the whole system. Not just the investor class assholes.
>>29733745
Hierarchy need not be undemocratic. Or against socialism. It's about getting rid of unjust, unnecessary and involuntary hierarchy. You and your friend can decide before hand that, given that management is his strong side, you will defer to his judgement in most reasonable cases (you might diagree if he wants to fire you or have you do something dangerous but for most ordinary work you'll just follow his lead). Like social anarchist Bakunin once said:
>"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker"
There is no reason that, in the matter on management, a reasonable man defer to the authority of the manager. As long as this is a voluntary deferement.
Nor is there any reason to take away rewards for management, no more than to take them away from 'normal' work. The only point is that the rewards need not be higher than yours. Why would they be? Would people manage worse if they had less rewards? Is finiancial incentive the only motivator for better preformance? These are not rhetorical questions, but scientific ones, and it turns out science has a clear answer: No. That's not how motivation works. No debate about it. Counterintuitive, yes, but nonetheless so. Here's a fun little video briefly explaining it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc>>29733970
>>29733970
>Because I want somebody to take care of me.
Not everyone wants or needs that. You can't base an entire society for billions of people on your personal needs to be led by the hand. If you really need that shit, we can arrange for a babysitter for you under socialism.
>>29733970
There is literally no reason you could not continue to work as you are in another society. The only difference, which has been mentioned multiple times, is that right now your boss can force you to work in a way you DON'T like, and this doesn't have to be the case.
>>29734016
>get to be in charge of some bootlicker as my work
holy shit I need this. that sounds hilarious.
>>29734016
> Not everyone wants or needs that.
The wife takes care of the children. The husband takes care of the wife. The company takes care of the husband. The boss takes care of the company. The community takes care of the boss. The rulers take care of the community. The Church takes care of the rulers. And God takes care of His Church.
At every level a different ability. At every level a different capacity. And at every level a different responsibility.
This is how it is and how it has been.
This psychopathic egalitarianism disturbs me in how inorganic it is and how it evidences a pathological egotism in a large part of society.
caplitalism is not the problem, globalism is.
once we started outsourcing our jobs the following happened
>lower prices because chinks do everything for less than minimum wage
>less jobs on the market so less people buying things, which results in even less jobs since more places are being shut down
>even the jobs that are here are occupied by job immigrants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8xT_afGr-c
>>29732350
>your friend's business could have been entirely worker owned
No, it couldn't. "Worker-owned" is chaos and means everyone sits around and smokes pot and collects a paycheck. Only 5% of the population gives enough of a shit to do what needs to be done and they end up as management whipping the proles into order.
>>29730146
Because not everyone is equal therefore people can't be treated equally.
Also greed
Also all halfway-communist (socialist) states have collapsed
>>29734229
Worker co-ops are a thing that exist, and they are very successful. Look it up.
>>29734258
State capitalism isn't socialism though. In all the Stalin-esque totalitarian regimes, the workers didnt control industry, the state did. The state became the new bourgeoisie.
You should read animal farm if you havnt already, it accurately portrays that stalinism is pretty much exactly the same as feudalism it replaced.
>>29734279
Hugely successful.
Look at how many high-recognizable organizations are on this list.
smdh
>>29734353
Also, note that this shit only works with high-IQ, low time preference (mostly) White people.
>>29730146
because Henry George is better.
>eliminate wage slavery with basic income funded by taxation on the unimproved value of land.
>people will still wind up working for a more than minimal existence, but the extent to which they do is reduced, bullshit unproductive jobs will disappear in a world where the laborer holds the cards
>>29730146
>all value is produced by labor
>from each according to his ability
Marxism just turns wage slavery into slavery slavery
>>29730958
>No, he believed that socially necessary labour time is the basis of exchange value (of which market price is the concrete form) under capitalism.
which is wrong, it is the sum of land, labor, and capital. the worker does of course sell labor but the worker is not the only producer of value.
>But yes, he did believe that people had to work in EVERY society.
yeah, but minimization of work is not going to be encouraged by a society which eliminates incentive and the price mechanism for the development of capital.
>>29734432
Well low iq people seem to be flocking to anti-worker positions, so that's probably why. The places being a majority white is mostly due to society pushing different values on people of different races, and it just so happens whites are more likely to discover pro-worker ideologies.
Also, co-ops in the United States are not very recognizable simply because they are small businesses. There are not many people in the untied states that care about this kind of stuff, so it's hard to start a big co-op, but big co-ops do exist. Spain has mondragon, it's a really influential agricultural worker's federation.
>>29734353
>Little Grill Collective
what the fuck https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Grill_Collective
>http://lilgrill.com/
HELP
