Keep seeing socialists argue that starving because you choose not to get a job is basically wage slavery...

Keep seeing socialists argue that starving because you choose not to get a job is basically wage slavery. Need outside thoughts on this one. What do you think?

Other urls found in this thread:

primitivism.com/abolition.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
youtube.com/watch?v=iAMmQdnfPY8
youtu.be/tBs8ccGwbz8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Well, I always thought that if you produce nothing, you deserve nothing. It's simple as that. Let's be real: For you to *feed* yourself, just that, feed, you don't really need much.A minimum wage job will do.
That expression is just a fancy way to try to invalidate your voice, because "slavery" is a power word that people are generally afraid of.

They are evil sinners for not working, it shows their contempt for the world, and their hatred for the creatures of the lord.

“I always thought the man who made the corn should eat the corn."

No man is entitled to the labor of another.

Having someone else work so you don't have to was really popular back in the day. See pic.

It's why the abolitionist movement was started by Quakers. They thought people should work their own land.

The world doesn't' owe you a fucking thing. (On the plus side, you don't owe the world anything as well).

On top of this nearly every modern nation has social programs already in effect to prevent this problem. Even homeless bums who aren't on these programs are fat as fuck because of the amount of charity people give.

Lol everyone worked during the slavery period. I mean the rich landowners didn't do physical labor but slavery or no that has always been true. And they still worked, they just didn't do physical labor.

fpbp

Except most people who aren't suicidal would gladly work productively to feed themselves. What they reject to is laboring for the private capital holder's sake to a degree of exertion an order of magnitude greater than necessary just to be handed a sum of currency with exchange value that only purchases them the bare necessities. It leads them to ask (rightly) just what the hell all that additional labor was for.

To tie it back into slavery, slaves were fed and housed just fine when they worked. That's how they showed they "deserved" their keep in your parlance. But nobody is pretending they were just working for that food and shelter. The lion's share of the value their labor produced was channeled elsewhere.

Workers are the ones who produce something and deserve something, where "something" is all of what they produce. It's those who do nothing but hold capital and siphon off labor value that deserve table scraps (in the gulag.)

The argument is absolute sophistry, completely empty, and basically it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone they are talking to.

It's just communists/leftists demanding free stuff from some kind of Bernie Sanders Utopia.

Hunger pangs are a survival device which nature has built into every living thing, from the ants to us to Elephants.

I have an image for PRECISELY this argument.

You don't need a job to feed yourself. Grow food/farm. Raise livestock. Hunt and fish and forage for food.

Oh you want a McDouble? Well yea, you need a fucking job.

This is stupid. We all have to eat duh. But people have also recognized that the amount of man hours necessary for us to feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves in an industrialized society is less than the amount of time we actually spend working. The majority of our time is spent working for somebody else's sake--somebody who refuses to work himself: the owner.

Ask them if they want to make suicide illegal or what they think about euthanasia.

Got an image for that one too.

Dude this meme is amazing

that's because of capitalism
Wealth should be shared with workers more and not squandered by fatcat directors.
Maybe even taxed to help fund a basic unconditional food wage.

This shits gonna get worse the more we get into our robotic revolution

No, this is based on a fundamental miscalculation. Labor value is calculated as the proceeds after all the shit that boss lists is taken into account. So to say he makes $100 worth of products a day and then claim that the rent and utilities cut into that number is poor math on the part of whoever made this image.

Care to talk about what *you* believe and why, rather than falling back on stale memes?

They're idiots. You still have to work under socialism. If you refuse to work, you get kicked out. If there is nowhere to kick you, you get killed.

It's pretty simple.
>need food, shelter, clothing, water, electricity
>other people have to work to create these things
>they should be my slaves and do it for free, I don't owe them anything in return
seriously, that's how they think. they think they should be given support for free because they don't understand labor.

>starving
when was the last time someone in a western nation starved to death who wasn't lost in the wilderness or afflicted with some weird disease?

So a couple people should work, and the rest of us can eat.

Here's a thought: basic necessities are actually cheap as fuck. You don't need spice for your food, you don't need a house with a lawn, you don't need a car, you don't need a phone, you don't need internet, you don't need new clothes every other year, fuck you don't even need electricity.

>starved to death
>starving

These are different...friendo

The difference being your work is to address common needs rather than the pocketbook of a few individuals. It means less work in aggregate.

Only post-leftist freegan lifestyle anarchists reject work in its entirety. Socialists have an issue with who we work for.

Or we can all work, but work less, and still have nice things like spices and telephones!

Lmao, I'm sure the all of the chinks and likes who run the iPhone factories in China say the same thing, paying their workers 25c a day and selling the phones for 800 dollars.

Your Yamaka is showing, Goldberg

Dude it's not like the owner of whatever business you're "enslaved" at does nothing. Your boss may be a dick or some middle-manager who is in fact a waste of resources. But somebody organized the whole company and controls the flow of capital-product-labor. That person does their part as much as the workers do. I'm sorry if the whole world isn't always fair though.

actually made me think

>Labor value
>Calculated
Labor has no objective value, all goods and services are worth what someone is willing to pay for them, nothing more, nothing less.

As to the math being wrong, $100 dollars worth is the market price of the goods the employee is producing, this isn't a flaw in the math. If the man dropped dead one morning, the income of the company would decrease by $100 until a new employee was hired, $75 if you'd prefer to talk net profit.

ok starving then
starving isn't just feeling hungry. getting to the point of starvation requires the body eating all it's reserves of stored fat. it can take weeks or even months of no food. can someone show me when that last happened in a western capitalist nation where the person wasn't lost in the wilderness or afflicted with some weird disease?

Very good, goy. Enjoy pushing that box around a corner for the rest of your life. Just pray for the day when you won't even need sleep!

Just because you're alive doesn't mean that you deserve to be. The world doesn't owe you shit just because you exist.

But the freegans have a point:
primitivism.com/abolition.htm

so i can kill you?

>Communist
>Accusing other people of being jewish
Whatcha doin' rabbi?

Your analogy doesn't scale well beyond a mom & pop tool shop. Most businesses are not owned by an involved founder who handles administrative duties. They're publicly owned by an investor class that literally does nothing productive. They buy and sell each other's shares in ventures and demand that productivity rise in each one, without ever getting so much as a fingernail dirty themselves.

There is a place for administration in socialism. Production logistics don't immediately go out the window when the mode of labor organization changes. But it would be done through the context of a union. The latter leeching investment class would be liquidated entirely of course.

Fuck off. No one is forcing anyone to work. The workers SELL their labor (the "wage" being the payment). They do not take the same risks involved in getting their product to the market and selling it.
If you're bothered that you don't get the product of your labor go be self employed and figure the whole logistics for yourself. You don't want that? Well I guess you'll have to EMPLOY someone to do that (that's the directors job).

>posts retarded, fallacy-riddled memes in place of arguments,>sucking off psychopathic corporate oligarchs that are destroying our country
>n-no but you guys are the jews
Nah.

Daily reminder that lolbertarian autists are almost as destructive to humanity as Marxist liberals are.

>not spoon feeding grown adults is the same as trying to kill them

>people have to eat, therefore full anarcho-capitalism is the only solution. Praise Bezos!

They could always grow their own food.

>Fuck off. No one is forcing anyone to work
Starvation is forcing everyone to work.
>They do not take the same risks involved in getting their product to the market and selling it.
This idiotic view neglects the entire infrastructure put in place by tax dollars that makes transporting and selling said product even possible. Enterprise is a collective effort.

just remind them that Communism is being forced to have a job and still starving.

He's up to nothing

You can try.

And deal with the consequences when you fail.

Or you can go fuck yourselves until you learn to not tell people what to do faggot. I don't want to work less. I want to work a lot to have a Lamborghini, a mansion and a trophy wife. Some lazy cunt not having what to eat is not my problem.

>discussing marxism always ends up in the theoretical realm of would, should, could
>still involves genocide
although I gotta say I kinda like the idea of killing all the bankers

Nah, they're far worse.
Go read what the accelerationists really want, it's basically the entrepreneurial spirit combined with Stalinism.
Ancapistan would just be all of the worst elements of sci-fi horror, just with really shitty architecture.
Heck, now that I think of it, it's what we already have.

>fite me irl

There would probably be consequences when he succeeded because society owes you that much by most of our social contracts.

Except those people don't have a choice, moron.

Reminder that no one is forcing the capitalist to pay taxes. It is simply a contract whereby the state owns the land and private owners rightfully give their share to their superiors.

A society where everybody grows their own food is incredibly inefficient. It is only through industrialization that we finally have argicultural yields large enough to feed the entire planet. People still die regardless because markets are terrible ways to allocate resources. But Marxism recognizes the roles that industrialization and capitalism play as one stage in the development of a society. Rather than believing the fruits of these systems need to be burned down, they understand that they simply need to be re-purposed for public needs.

They have a police force, given enough time and unpaid tax, they will seize your property.

What are property rights?

except you can't get a job just to feed yourself. I don't know of many places that hire homeless people. So you need to get an apt or something. Maybe you could live in a car/woods and use showers at a gym or something, but you'd also need to be able to wash your clothes. I'm sure there's some other considerations, but you can't just get a job at wendy's and then come closing time sleep outside the front door.

>bankers are a race

What? Taxes skimmed off of business should support the infrastructure that makes that business possible? Say it ain't so!

If no one chose to work everyone would starve within 6 months, actually everyone would probably die of dehydration a lot sooner than that.

Well, you don't have the choice to go and work the land for food if you don't own land. So there is a certain truth to it.

And rightfully so. Because private interest is the only law.
Working out in Houston really well...

While I am very much pro-capitalist there is definitely merit to this point of view. I mean...I suppose the counter-argument could be made that the money "siphoned" is then re-invested into companies that provide value and innovation otherwise impossible. Companies like Space-X come to mind.

Well, the whole 'work or die' thing is by definition what wage slavery is, so they're not wrong.

youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c
This is you morons.

MUH VOLUNTERRY WERK ORDAS!
youtube.com/watch?v=iAMmQdnfPY8

That is a thoroughly retarded non-argument.

>markets are terrible ways to allocate resources. But Marxism....

Lololol kys

>genocide
>the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
You can't kill a bunch of people and then pretend its okay because you're not racist

No argument found, crony corporatist dummy.

It's okay because it's self-defense.
If you're offered the choice to stand with or against the people, and you elect the latter, then you'll have to live with that decision.

(by live I mean die.)

>the_birth_of_gnosticism.png

It doesn't actually matter if min wage is $5 or $500 an hour, the prices of rent, food and every product/service will change to rake in the maximum profit possible. If min wage went up by 100x overnight, the value of $1 would drop by 100x, prices of everything would go up 100x and stock market would go up 100x so everyone is left with the same relative value unless you were saving in a bank account. If you're relatively poor now, you'll stay relatively poor unless you make changes and improve your value.

>If min wage went up by 100x overnight, the value of $1 would drop by 100x, prices of everything would go up 100x
Because min wage labor is the whole base of the economy which everything else is pegged against.

MUH MAHKITS!
Because the government flooding digital coins into facebook is a great benefit to humanity...

>Genocide is self-defense
>Genocide is okay if it's justified

The mental gymnastics marxists go through to justify crimes against humanity is always entertaining. This is a good thread.

>self-defense genocide

>If you build an estate and create farms then hire somebody you have to give somebody half of everything you created because otherwise its unfair :(((
Communists deserve to fucking die

Bad argument as:
Social foos programs already exist in America, guaranteeing cat ladies and basement dwellers a hot raman noodle and some tendies every month - even adjusted by their individual earning (FoodShare). Its even paid for by "wage slaves" through federal and state taxes. Not to mention of course other social programs like churches, food drives, shelters, and handfuls of other handouts that only really need aforementioned cat lady or basement dweller to get off their ass to receive. Cuck socialists never think any thing through. For them its all some glorious revolution for the people, when its just a culling for the self proclaimed enlightened "utopians".

Only place real socialism could happen is the biblical depiction of heaven. Corporeal man can never make it happen, not even with full automation of our jobs, or with universal basic income. It always comes with a cost.

>The government interfering with the market is bad.
And you thing this refutes capitalism?

>markets are terrible ways to allocate resources
>BUT WHAT WE NEED IS A CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY WHICH IS BASICLY PERFECT
Communists deserve to fucking die

By that definition, wage slaves don't exist in the real world, because there is no capitalist country on the planet where you would starve as a result of not working. Any country where you would starve is communist (China) or some third world shithole

Markets are a system of external government controls. Capitalism was nothing more than an origin story for people to participate in globalist governance.
It literally says so in the founding documents, 'Your private interest is only for the growth of the state's private interests.' They thought that this was the best way to control people in an ever-expanding system. And it worked for a while. Heck, some people still believe in the nonsense.

North Korea literally adapted free markets in ways for these purposes because they kept starving to death from mismanagement.

Leftypol can't into economics or management.

Yet in practice it becomes the opposite since a person in capitalism can accumulate the wealth to rival nations while socialism/communism is the worst idea working for global kikery that ever existed. You commie faggots unironically think we should socialize everything for the useless and lazy niggers of the world.

8 million people died in the Great Depression. 10 million or more die every year from poverty.
In the richest nations there is an offsetting mechanism to avoid overt poverty because it destroys the myth - but people suffer poverty in different ways. For example, the over million deaths a year from hospital accidents and diseases, or the spiritual poverty which causes people to slowly kill themselves.
It's the worst system in human history.

Sounds like a totally good and fair system not prone to any form of corruption.

I mean even if it wasn't, who would know - either you're with the people or you're an unfortunate collateral statistic for the history book when the "real socialism nobody tried before" collapses and people eat each other to survive.

Go live in NK then.
Communism is so great and capitalism is so terrible and yet nobody fucking stops trying to escape communism rather than the other way around.

What are you talking about? Private interest decreases as markets grow and become monopolies? Makes no sense.
And critiquing capitalism doesn't make someone a commie. There are criticisms from all ideologies, capitalism/liberalism included. And that's because it is a shit system that doesn't even work on paper. At least communism works in theory.

>'Your private interest is only for the growth of the state's private interests.'
What in the sam heck are you supposed to be quoting?

This is what a market is: A market is one of the many varieties of systems, institutions, procedures, social relations and infrastructures whereby parties engage in exchange.
There's no government mentioned there.

I'm not a commie for criticising a shitty system. Why don't you go live in your teenage laissez-faire utopia?
Also, enjoy watching the collapse of capitalism. It'll make socialist collapse look like a walk in the park.

If an employee is not satisfied with the terms of employment, he is free to take it up with his employer and attempt to renegotiate the contract of employment.
If the employer is unwilling to cooperate, the employee can exert his influence by removing his labor from the equation, by finding a new employer or striking.
If one employees strike is of no concern to the employer, that employee may try to convince his fellow employees that it is in their best interest to strike.
If he cannot convince his fellows, it may be time for him to reflect on what a little bitch he has been.

>Why don't you go live in your teenage laissez-faire utopia?
Already in it, commietard. Get the fuck out.

Adam Smith.
How do these institutions (which were all built by states, by the way) supposed to engage in free exchange if the state doesn't uphold the laws and borders?

*are these

You're using "slavery" as a power word here as described in the post you're replying to.

Slaves back then, and in various 3rd world shitholes today, are there to labor or die. They had no
participation or access to the society at large.

Modern wage slaves do. It's much reduced, obviously, when compared to the elite. But they have the
general safety of the nation around them. People eduated and raised generally not to randomly attack
people or steal or murder etc. Roads. Access to cheap tech, like the internet. Clothing, cheap food etc.

Stop making these false comparisons to make communism look better. Communism is pure shit that
only serves to enrich and empower a, arguably, different set of political elites over the economic elites.

There is zero social mobility in communism. While capitalism does allow talented individuals to rise,
and maintains a baseline social participation for those lower down the ladder. Well above that
of those living in communist countries.

Why the fuck are you still using your evil capitalist internet and not off living in a commune you worthless retarded cunt? This is why nobody takes you stupid hypocritical cunts seriously, you do not live by anything you believe in. You live off the care your parents give you from the benefit they receive within this system.

>the manufacturer is also the distributor
O I am laffin

Why aren't you living in Zimbabwe? Why don't you follow the laws of the free market in your arguments? Why do you insist on emplying communist/fascist methods while shouting 'MUH LIBERTE!'?
Here's what Best Koreans think of your shit ideology:
youtu.be/tBs8ccGwbz8

If that's not enough, go read your first book.

>just what the hell all that additional labor was for

see pic related. I can see why you're an English not an Economics teacher