What if people would work for free though?

What if people would work for free though?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Soviet_economic_reform
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c
twitter.com/AnonBabble

You mean like Goyim?

I'm down to give it a shot, what's the worst that can happen right guys? Politcians will work for free too I assume?

Umm no sweetie. We work to pay off loan interes- ... Oi you cheeky cunt

Work for me for free.

No, I mean work to directly help people. Instead of serving masters in a way that brings alienation

Explain socialistic entrepreneurship.

Even commies chimp out and demand 15$/h for pouring covfefe what makes you think they would work for free

You probably come up with an idea and pitch it to people

But every single one of your employees would have to be equal investors, right?

>jew capitalism
>good standard of living

>jew socialism
>terrible standard of living

wow we sure got the more based of the two types of merchant overlords it seems

You first

We call that "slavery", where since you own the people, you don't have to pay them for work.

You just whip them if they don't.

Cooperation. There are several examples of those.
Agricultural communes, most famous of which are Jewish kibbutz. Industrial cooperatives like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Internet itself and most of IT is a result of voluntary labour (C, Linux).

They would lose because a cooperative effort is inferior to a competitive effort.
Why do you ask OP? Feeling a little bit faggot today?

What if you don't have to feed people?

would you suck my dick for free? because it's pretty small, I doubt that you would

Depends on the form of socialism
A system where the employees invest doesn't sound good, because if the business fails you're both unemployed and deeply in debt.

>jew socialism
>terrible standard of living
Compared to what? Socialist parties have usually only taken off in third world countries.
But both the USSR and China greatly improved life expectancy and standard of living when they had socialism, compared to what they had before

Post it for medical purposes. We'll let you know if OP shoud suck it or not.

Nice try, shlomo.

Look at first year University student who just took his ten question sociology quiz on the chapter covering Marx.
>muh alienation
>work for others instead of the bougousie
Congrats, you are a fucking retarded young adult at best

But even for the Kibbutz, the only sorts of collectives that work are ones that require you to be a very skilled labourer in the first place, clearly, they'd have to be exceptions in a Capitalist nation.

>Socialist parties have usually only taken off in third world countries.
2nd world nations are socialist nations. Know your definitions

>A system where the employees invest doesn't sound good, because if the business fails you're both unemployed and deeply in debt.
If they don't invest, I would have absolutely no reason to start a business since starting one would mean losing money for me. And you really don't want to use the USSR as an example of successful socialism.

>because if the business fails you're both unemployed and deeply in debt.
>muh debts
To whom or what?

>if I say 'muh' before something it doesn't matter any more
Wew. But is there not alienation when you are selling your labour power doing something you don't want to do, just to survive?

>to whom or what
The war effort and your allies you raging cock addict.

The investment must come from the state, or 'community bank'. However they work it out

The bank (if that was how it worked)

Well, in a society dominated by socialist principle, useless people would still be a part of unsuccessful communities.

There would still be hired labour, just like slavery was legal until 19th century (and exists in our age just as well), despite not dominating the economy since Renaissance.

The big difference would be, that people wouldn't be able to inherit wealth and capital, and would have severely diminished opportunities to acquire those in parasitic fashion.

So it would be centralized? You really need me to explain to you why this is not a good idea?

im really getting sick of these rape babies constantly pushing their >>mmuhhh communism is ebin XXDD go back to 9gag and whatever shit hole you crawled out of

arbeit macht frei

>people wouldn't be able to inherit wealth and capital
I take it you don't have children nor do you ever plan to reproduce?

You are on Sup Forums. Perhaps you should move to reddit or 8ch. Censorship would ensure you will be in a bubble of comfortable opinions.

Explain why you think it would be a bad idea then
I think it would be better than having investment controlled by capitalists, who use the profit on themselves

Just did some more quick googling, tell me if I'm wrong here, but I found that the Mondragon Corporation pays their labourers minimum wage, the only notable aspect of them is that they pay their managers less than average.

industrialization ended millions of their lives and their quality of life was essentially third world tier anyways, once capitalism came around is when China and Russia actually experienced even a little bit of wealth

I don't have children and I do plan to reproduce. It's sad that you chose to degrade the conversation with adhominem, though.

wrekd

It's just that normally when I talk to socialists they like to pretend they don't support Maoism or Russian Communism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Soviet_economic_reform
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

No one wants to work for free doing the things that keep society going.

...

When you have kids you'll want private property.

Russia still has barely recovered to where it was after the capitalist collapse. Plus it has much more inequality and less social order.

China probably has more wealth due to a high degree of capital inflow. You don't get any capital inflow from capitalist countries under socialism. But if the world were socialist, capital inflow would be entirely controlled by the state, and would flow according to need rather than low taxes etc

I'll tell you right now people in eastern europe are much better off after communism fell. The only people you see wanting to go back are old party members, or the people that had connections to party members.

But that's wrong though.
Poland has done well but other countries haven't, and do want to go back.

White blood cells being unable to out-compete cancer cells doesn't show that cancer cells are better, only that they are better able to spread like a virus. Although, it's interesting that generally worker's cooperatives are more productive, effective, efficient, have better working conditions, are more ecologically and socially conscious, their workers earn more, and have higher job-satisfaction than workers in comparable jobs at capitalist firms. The only thing capitalist firms are better at is spreading, like a virus.

This is an absolutely pointless line of discussion.

I know quite a lot of people who have kids and don't want private property.
And being born with a silver spoon ruins child's character. Wiser millionaires and billionaires disinherit their kids quite voluntarily. Don't forget, that they will be born to cooperative that will provide the living conditions, and entitled to education, infrastructure and medicine.

Their workers' wages are significantly higher and upper management significantly lower than average. Why does it matter?

Their most significant aspect is Democratic organisation and sovereignty of labour.

Nice, it only took tens of millions of lives and the destruction of their traditional cultures to industrialise! Thanks Communism!

You confuse Poland, which was a puppet regime, and Soviet Russia, a sovereign state, where an absolute majority regard the Soviet times positively.

>Their workers' wages are significantly higher
Please show me where it says this, because it's not what I read.
>Their most significant aspect is Democratic organisation and sovereignty of labour.
Cool, how about the whole country votes on which companies they like by buying their products instead.
>I don't want to pass my property down to my children
Either you're a psychopath or you're just stupid.

"Communism kills" has to be the most backwards argument. Corruption kills. Capitalism kills 20 million people a year because of poverty and preventable diseases, but muh profits!!!11

So what's the problem with Russia? Still to centralized, at least now your grocery stores are full.

Look at the 1996 elections. Even Medevev admitted they were rigged, the people wanted communism but got some good ol' 'murican freedom instead.

If you have centralized planning, you don't have a classless society

I hope these stupid mongoloids try it again, nobody better to lose millions of their own population, maybe this time around the commies will shut up for good, but I doubt it.

You missed his point, he's not attacking you.

Why should anyone want to have kids if none of their efforts in life benefit their children? Every creature on earth gives preferential treatment to its offspring, humans are no different.

It happened, but it might not have been necessary, so to speak; the regime was paranoid, perhaps it had good reason to be, being an enemy of all the capitalist world

Gommies tend to throw autistic fits if you imply there's some sort of biology backing our behaviour, so watch out.

That's not a very informed take on alienation. But it sounds like you understand it just as much as why others take up arms against the capitalists to trade nice chains for shit chains

This time we will settle in Poland and deport your asses to Far East. For the Horde!

Try it nigger, just don't look up what happens every time you try to take us on without someone else's help.

>Please show me where it says this, because it's not what I read.
Wikipedia article.
>Cool, how about the whole country votes on which companies they like by buying their products instead.
I assume that abolition of slavery is a perversion of (((free))) market for you as well?

You grab the lightening instead of answering - that means you are wrong.

>tens of millions
Remember 60 gorillions!

Ah yes, I'm sure that Communism would prevent disease and starvation just like it did in Ukraine, China and Cambodia! Wait...

If you want Communism so much, you can start by giving me some of your wealth. I'm poor after all, so naturally those better of must assist me. Shall I send you my details, or will you hoard your wealth like a decadent Capitalist pig?

I have a part-time job as a supervisor of a workforce. About 150 polaks, they're doing the dirty work, so to speak. Poland is doing so well under capitalism, it's amazing! Jobs for everybody! The country is basking in prosperity and progressiveness! Or is that not why I have Polish doctors making more money stacking crates in the Netherland than being a fucking doctor in Poland?

Poland is so badass in eu4, why do they get slapped around so easily irl?

If cooperatives were capable of out-competing traditional business models, you'd see a hell of a lot more than the 20,000 or so that exist in all of continental Noth America. Part of the reason they exist at all is because they largely inhabit monopolized industries such as oil, meaning that they can afford to be inefficient bureaucracies and could still subsist even if they were burning half of their profits. Hardly the socialist utopia you wish it were.

Right, I forgot that when when come out of communism we pass through a transmogrification portal that makes us instantly rich. How about you look up the fact that our economy is growing in every way imaginable, unlike yours, then come back.

Fantastic argument. Really challenged my beliefs, well done.

Your pathetic nation exists in little time gaps when we're in trouble only. Gonna enjoy your tundra soon, polack.

Oh I am definitely not having a terrible time under capitalism. I'd love to change over to another system, but change is slow mate. Not gonna swim against the flow if you can also try to change its course while going with it.

Top kek my goy dudes

>Why should anyone want to have kids if none of their efforts in life benefit their children?

For the same reason why the superrich disinherit their children and donate their wealth.
For the same reason why the children who grow up in opulence and inherit it, turn out to be degenerate and shallow wrecks.

I do not need as much money as I can grab. Neither do you, and it would make your kids into self-indulgent slaves of degenerate pleasures. And the best thing I can leave my descendants is superior society, which is worth more than all the gold in the world.

Procuration of new slaves is forbidden by the Bible and the NAP.
"At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage"
Am I not reading this correctly?
And it's not my fault you can't take bants.

>opressed their orthodox population to make it easy for Russia to expand
>kept retarded independent aristocracy and weak kings in era of absolutism

Incompetent rulers and bad geopolitical location.

There's paranoid, then there's wiping out entire farming communities because they have slightly more farm animals than their neighbours.

Perhaps the Capitalist world would not have been so antagonistic towards the USSR if the regime hadn't called for the global overthrow of their governments?

We've been here for hundreds of years before you, and we'll be here far after you disintegrate into different states.

>What if people would work for free though?
This is why we never should have gotten rid of slavery. Sometimes, you commies make a half-decent point.

I'm not the one who has to prove anything, abbo.
All those commie victim numbers are mere cold war propaganda. Where do they come from? Sometimes it's 20mln, sometimes 100mln, random.

>For the same reason why the superrich disinherit their children and donate their wealth.

Avoid inheritance taxes for the NGO who your children will be board members of?

Ideally people would work for the betterment of mankind. We could accomplish a lot this way, but have you taken a look around lately? we become a cannibalistic society and squabble over petty differences. It is too late to wake up, as we will ALL soon see.

No, it's around 20 000 000 from you guys, around 100 000 000 in total.

Life expectancy grew hugely under communism though

>We've been here for hundreds of years before you
WE WUZ

I think ukranians are so retarded because of your blood. Dindu victim complex and always find new hole to jump into. It shows.

They don't spread because they don't make profits for the owners. Doesn't prove anything. Was not slavery profitable?

It's your choice not to pass things down to your kids, if your confident in the superiority of that then you should have no need to stop me from passing things down to my kids.

>And it's not my fault you can't take bants.
Bants and substance don't mix well.
>Procuration of new slaves is forbidden by the Bible and the NAP.
You are bulshitting and you know it. Slavery was outlawed in the end of 19th century in the Christendom. I won't even talk about NAP.

There is no difference between mandating modern capitalism and mandating mixed/socialist style of economy.

>"At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage"

>Compared to similar jobs at local industries, Mondragon managers' wages are considerably lower (as some companies pay their best paid managers hundreds of times more than the lowest-paid employee of the company)[24] and equivalent for middle management, technical and professional levels. Lower wage levels are on average 13% higher than similar jobs at local businesses.
And, again, why does it matter if some get payed the minimum wage?

What? Poland was founded in the 10th century, Russia was founded in the 16th century. You're welcome for the free history lesson.

It grew hugely under capitalism as well.

Ideology is swell; penicillin is magic.

>It's your choice not to pass things down to your kids, if your confident in the superiority of that then you should have no need to stop me from passing things down to my kids.
The same could be told about hereditary titles. But we moved away from it. Soon, we will make another step to meritocracy, and no, your kids will receive that what they contribute.

Probably faster under communism, and growth under capitalism relied on foreign investment, which is basically borrowing

>Slavery was outlawed in the end of 19th century in the Christendom
It was, Protestants are heathens.
>There is no difference between mandating modern capitalism and mandating mixed/socialist style of economy.
You mean other than the fact that under my system, you're allowed to do everything you want, and under yours I am banned from doing what I want.
>And, again, why does it matter if some get payed the minimum wage?
Because it shows that your concern isn't the well being of workers, and how rich they are, but how rich they are in comparison to other members of society. In other words: youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c

I'm not the one who is advocating for an overthrow of the current system, so yes you do have something to prove.

>all those commie victim numbers are mere cold war propaganda
Source please, this sounds interesting.

Also, perhaps if you lot hadn't tried to wipe out the existence of those you killed/starved then maybe we'd have an exact figure. As it is, we make do with the USSR's population statistics and eyewitness accounts.

Meant to say that actual Christians outlawed Slavery much earlier than Protestants.

>Russia was founded in the 16th century.
Wait. So Poland gets destroyed and remade and you count it as one timeline but Rus get mongoled and suddenly we have to count from the beginning? no fair!

It also grew everywhere else on the planet, massively.

Kievan Rus is a group of shitty tribes, if we want to discuss who's tribes where here first that's a completely different topic.

You still wouldn't know what to produce in what amounts. You'd be inefficient and likely not produce enough basic supplies, so rationing and starving.