Are socialists/communists mainly just people that don't want to work?

Are socialists/communists mainly just people that don't want to work?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/FaCHBmGWcBc?t=40s
youtu.be/qFi01lm8RvY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense)#Soviet_Union
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Refusing to work is the ultimate redpill.

And why *would* people be willing to work in a socialist/communist society?

Do you mean the formulators of communist theory or do you mean college kids?

Cuz college kids are just intellectually lazy with a bunch of pent up emotion they don't know how to deal with.

I am a Communist, I do have a full-time job.

But I am not the typical college Communist though.

If you can't take care of yourself when you're not working full time, you might be a degenerate.

Sure if your goal is to destroy the human race

They are people angry that people who are rich as fuck inherit that wealth and power from their daddies most of the time.

They are peasants angry at the nobles.

is this your version

>destroy the system

FTFY

youtu.be/FaCHBmGWcBc?t=40s

I always wondered, do you guys shit in fields too?

I am not a "social democrat" no. The Scandinavian countries are all Capitalistic, just with a strong government and regulations.

Nice fake info graphic btw, good that you have edited out the name of the person (Mikkel). Yes, I have seen it before. And it's not written by a Danish person.

you can't deny those tax rates tbqhwyf, I didn't crop anything though

it's actually the easiest thing to understand if you don't think about it for more than a minute

>how are we going to make the world a better place?
>there's a government that makes sure everybody is okay!

it's less instantly intuitive that economics is not about people having "jobs" but a society having a dynamic system to allocate resources

you have to understand the idea that people have incentives, and that you can't just legislate that everybody will contribute to society.

you have to actually look at history, and at the outside world. venezuela is tanking because of Hugo Chavez? Deng Xiaoping's market reforms lifted millions out of poverty, but they're hitting a bottleneck because of lingering state control? politicians in brazil were illegally taking money from the state-owned oil company?

not to mention socialism's recurring atrocities

>Two different monitors

fucking triggered

Yes, we have high taxation, and since I don't know how Denmark operates good enough, I can't say more than that this is written by someone that 1. Is not Danish 2. Thought that Mikkel is a female name, and "Nissen" is a last name (it means Santa Claus), so obviously do not know a lot about Denmark.

And what you can't deny is that the Scandinavian countries are one of the best countries to live in. Despite the shitty weather and "nothing" happening here.

But again, I am not a "Social Democrat" (Scandinavia isn't even social democratic).

On what grounds do you distinguish between capital and other kinds of property? Why does capital somehow have different rules?

You mean having money, and owning property?

No private property in Marxism is not about owning your own house or clothes etc. It's about that production should not be private, but owned and run by the workers.

That's what I'm asking. Why is capital not allowed to be privately owned? What makes this kind of property special, whereas your own car or bed is ok to own privately?

Because in my view, collecting property and objects is a human need. Many animals do it.
And you having a pair of socks you have made yourself is not exactly exploiting anyone?

Quite the opposite, it is just that we would like useful jobs.

>And why *would* people be willing to work in a socialist/communist society?
To stay in it

like higher paying or the job itself?

not an argument, doesn't even make sense

So go and get one then.

job itself
>doesn't even make sense
maybe not to drones

there are little to none in capitalistic country

The thing about communists is that they are manchildren. They haven't grown up. It's not that they hate work, they hate responsibility and independence. It scares them.

They want to live forever stuck mooching off their parents.
They want the big powerful government to cuddle them and take care of everything while giving them allowance like their parents did.

It makes perfect sense that kids like communism. They already live in small scale communism.
Examine the family from the perspective of a kid. A kid doesn't have to work, the kid is taken care of, there's people working and giving the kid money, giving the kid anything it needs for free. They buy the kid shit and give the kid money. This is what communists want society to be like. They haven't yet realized that they can't mooch off their parents forever. It's why when people get a job they stop being communists. You thought ''get a job, commie'' was just a meme. It's not. If you get a job this parents/child dynamic is gone. Once they don't rely on free stuff and hand outs, once they know where the money comes from they're no longer communists.

In a communist society everyone works. A lot.

Wrong, I am a Communist, I got a job (good paying on too). Still a Communist.

Basically, yes.

Yes, you're a manchild.

Not at all. Your argument is?

They are delusional about human nature. They think if we just teach everyone to be friendly and hardworking, it will work. Look how they push the racial equality, the numbers just don't match, same with gender equality. They don't think things through, because they blame everything on bad people, on racists, sexists, homophobes, bigots and and and...
Socialism can never work. Communism can never work.

That you have infantile beliefs not founded in logic, but in feelings that relate to your childhood or the childhood you wish you had.

If you don't work, you won't get any money/housing either.

Which is something that you just assume, because you think Communists think like this.

Does not make it a true statement. Because it's not.

I don't care why you personally are a communist.
If I make a general statement saying that feminists are fat ugly women with daddy issues and you come out saying ''but I am a skinny MALE feminist without daddy issues!!!!!!''.
I don't care and it doesn't disprove the general statement.

You're simply some other form of a basket case. If I had one good look at you I'd instantly figure out what your mental problem is that attracts you to one of the worst ideologies that have ever existed.

Scandinavia has always been a great place to live regardless of politics, Sweden has low taxes and free markets not too long ago

You said;
"The thing about communists is that they are manchildren."

So you meant so say that many (or the majority?) of them are manchildren? As a Communist, having been with other Communists, I can say that there are no more manchildren among this group than other groups.

It does disprove your general statement, because you said that Communist are something. Not that some, or many or the majority, but that they are. It was a factually wrong statement.

that probably has a lot to do with it.

So what do you work? Who decides what job you do? If you can decide it, you will become a professional artist, producing 1 bad drawing everyday and having fun the rest of the day. If your state decides it for you, it has to make the decision somewhere. The people can't vote on every single job and who gets it. A government will take care of it. And they will force you into bad conditions. People complain about wage slavery, but the competition in a capitalist society guarantees that good workers can get a better paying, not so dangerous job. Good workers are a valuable resource. But if the state has the power, there is no competition, the state doesn't have to fight with others for the good workers, it doesn't have to provide better pay or benefits.

You are a manchild though. That's why you're a communist. It takes an infantile mind to hold infantile beliefs.
You simply stating that you're not a manchild doesn't mean anything. That's like me saying that I am a KKK member, but I am not racist.

Could you explain why you are a communist?

Autism and gibsmedats

Scandinavia became a great place to live with the increasing power of the Social Democratic parties/more power to the working class.

We are not steadily becoming a worse place to live, with increasing inequality.

>So what do you work? (why?)
Social status. "Communist" countries do not lack educated and good doctors, scientists or other high-skilled jobs.

Who decides it? I guess you educate yourself to be something, if it's an overflow, only the best ones will get the jobs and the others have to re-educate themselves.

The competition would still be based on skill. If the country needs 1000 doctors, the 1000 best doctors will become doctors.

fuck off with these semantics, you're either being disingenuous or you're literally autistic.

if you say "a group is X", it's implied that there might be some exceptions but that X is the overwhelming trend. this is how the english language works.

yeah but I want to hear it in his own words.

you're just making shit up, Scandinavia has been an expensive vacation spot and highly touted area for a good century now, the welfare state is destroying the wealth they once had

Yes, they would rather see themselves equals in chains than freeman both wealthy and poor.

Not really.

There are active socialists and communists, but they're just political activists. All they like to do is engage in mental exercises (debating politics to ad nauseum for example) maybe be a writer for some online news site or some shit. But the issue to this is that this type of work doesn't promote anything of value. The only way to have a living like this would be to have a large government that supports your life style.

It saddens me to say this, but I barely know any self identified socialist or communist who produces anything of value. All they do is conduct mental exercises on gender identity and the meaning of socialism, aka nothing of value if being produced.

So I can just fail to become a doctor, rocket scientist and such over and over again? skipping classes sounds great. Better than reeducating myself to be a factory worker.
I mean, you can't let students starve, so that would be a legit way of skipping work and just benefiting. Or is there something like a government that controls things? I mean, there has to be some test to see who's the best doctor! Doctors won't just play rock paper scissors.

all capital is ultimately owned by the federal reserve in this ''capitalist'' system so whats the difference?

>What makes this kind of property special, whereas your own car or bed is ok to own privately?
The tools to make things are collectively owned. The things made are your own. How is that hard to understand?

there are just as many wage cuck manchildren and business owner man children. Ending the master slave relationship and achieving a worker owner society (socialism) is not infantile. its Gods work.

socialism and communism are 20th century ideologies. what exists today is something that takes the class war frame and makes it about dumb millennial shit like micro aggressions and birth control.

you sound retarded. if you willingly take a wage in exchange for your lowly, uneducated labour, then it's not slavery.

>many wage cuck manchildren and business owner man children
Yes, and they're usually left leaning, socialists and communists.

This is just rhetoric. If a man doesn't take any job, a man doesn't eat. His options are limited. Employers are well aware. There's no frontier. The barrier to entry of starting a business is high, as is the risk of failure. It's a very large cage. But it's still a cage.

Ok Mr. Romanov

He said that I am a Manchild, because I am a Communist. Just read his post. He says that to be a Communist, you have to be a manchild. I'm aware that you can say that "a group is X" and imply that there are exceptions. Mr. Romanov does not think that.

No thanks.

I am from Norway. I know Norwegian history a lot better than you do. British/French/German workers all had it better than us before the Working class (with the Worker unions and Labour party) gaining more power. You are the one that is making shit up lol, I am 100% sure I know more about Norway than you do.

George Washington was a Vampire.

Would you do that? :)

Intentionally fail your classes, just to be a full-time student? Also theoretically it could be possible to have a cap. If you fail too much, you will have to take a low-skilled job, which the government will decide.

IMBECILE.

Youre thinking of laissez faire capitalists.

Okay, how do new businesses start? I mean, you have to take a huge loan to set up a restaurant and only hit a break-even point after years. being a "master" comes at a huge risk.

no they are just retarded and brainwashed. I dont want to work either but im not a socialist or a communist.

I'm willing to work, I just don't like working for some rich faggot who thinks he's better than me. Anyone who defends the rich, who isn't rich himself, is a pathetic cuck. I fully support meritocracy because I know my abilities as well as my limits, which I am fine with.

you sound like a huge faggot cuck

> Would you do that? :)
Well, yes, I'm a capitalist, I only do what's in my self interest. And I think there will be a shortage of low-skilled workers, so the government will force people to do those jobs. I mean, jobs are there to be done, not for people to have. I'm well aware of corruption in capitalist society and I think the bureaucrats will help each other getting their families the good jobs, while the rest of the people will be at a disadvantage.

the "cage" you're talking about is the universal fact of life that you have to expend energy and time to reap resources for survival.
this you cannot escape. whether you're chucking spears at your dinner or swinging a hammer for the dollar that will buy your dinner.

if a workers' union or whatever takes charge of your entire country, you'll still have the privileged administrative class and those lowly labourers. the "slave" relationship will still exist.

You work to get money. If you want to be your own boss, take a loan and build a business, otherwise you don't have the abilities to be a leader and you have to be a follower, simple as that.

>The Scandinavian countries are all Capitalistic, just with a strong government and regulations.

Then they aren't capitalistic. There is no free market if the government regulates everything.

Good goy

>I'm willing to work, I just don't like working for some rich faggot who thinks he's better than me.

so what'll you do, go pick berries to sustain yourself? if someone has the resources to pay you so you can shitpost on Sup Forums at night then they really are better than you.

>And I think there will be a shortage of low-skilled workers
Not if the government - or rather the higher education institutions have caps. Only the best can have the high-skilled jobs. The ones that work hard will get these jobs, and the status that follows. There was no shortage in the USSR or China or Cuba or any other self-proclaimed Communist or Socialist state that I know of.

Yes, both the USSR and China turned bureaucratic where a new bureaucratic class arrived and replaced the previous Capitalist classes.

It's indeed an ideological problem for us Communists, how to prevent a new ruling class to emerge. But it's not like Capitalism is a new system. Feudalism lasted a lot longer and several revolutions led to the world we have today in the Western World.

Every system manipulates the selfish greed in human beings, its why none of them work.

Small businesses carry more risk for the individual and they face a steep climb to succeed. Also, a large problem I have is that the government is essentially owned by business interests. There are few politicians who aren't wealthy and many of them are interconnected somehow. This is not how a republic should function. Politicians should represent the will of their constituents.

t. kaczynski

From Wiki: "Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit".

The government used to build houses and do operate some companies, but the companies still worked and works to create profit (Statoil, Telenor, Electricity providers etc.).

What definition of Capitalism do you think are the the most accurate?

I'm a loser and I don't expect you or anyone to agree with me. I've given up on my own life a long time ago, for other reaons. Doesn't mean I don't see the broken and unjust society in which we live for what it is.

I don't want to pick berries, no, but if I was a Wal Mart employee, I would feel nothing but disgust to hear that I don't deserve a higher wage because I am "lazy" from some fat fuck who is getting paid six figures to pass legislation that punishes me.

>Are socialists/communists mainly just people that don't want to work?
Yes
Communism is an ideology created to justify inherent laziness. Communists don't work.

Civilization subverts the law of the jungle. Humans are pro-social. They wanted to make life easier. The fact that it's difficult to get by in developed countries, that there's so much youth unemployment... it's a sign that something's wrong. Playing a game of musical chairs and being left out doesn't make you lazy, it makes you unfortunate. Just look the statistics, the youth don't buy cars, or houses, they aren't marrying or having children. Why? It's money. It's all money. If they had it, they'd be reaching all these normal milestones of adulthood.

Sup Forums is always saying that people don't want to justify their existence. I think that's cynical. They absolutely do. But the socio-economic systems that are failing more and more people, continue lurching forward through sheer inertia. It's stifling. There may as well be dragons lying atop all the treasures that allow and provide for opportunity.

>that picture
This is why it fails.
It runs out of other people's money.
It also makes people not want to work, because you don't get to keep what you earned. You work hard so a lazy person can live like a king. It's inherently unfair.

Well, there may not have been a shortage of doctors or farmers, but there was a shortage of food. People starved.

> The ones that work hard will get these jobs, and the status that follows.
Not if the bureaucrats manage it. Look, big family businesses are passed down to their offspring, not the best worker in the company. The Walton family will pass their empire down to their sons and daughters. If they put family over merit, bureaucrats will do the same thing. I mean, the president doesn't pick his cabinet based on merit, he picks people that agree with him on certain issues.

I think the best arguments against capitalism is that the ones with capital rules, but the capital is split up more than in other systems.

>angry that people who are rich as fuck inherit that wealth and power from their daddies
If a human decides to create another human (via cloning or reproduction), why does it matter if they give their money to that new human?
If you earned your money, why does it matter who you give it to?

youtu.be/qFi01lm8RvY

this is what leftists want?!?

Well, think about how the corporations make it harder for new businesses to grow and you will see that giving the state power to control the market is not in the interest of the consumer. I agree, crony capitalism or corporatism is a huge problem. I think we people have to take measures to hold politicians accountable and in check. Bribing is a huge problem!

Ameriburgers spend the money on military, not kids college, it's still "other peoples money"

most of them are

that's not wrong, but how does communism fix it? there's other, very obvious things that could be addressed within our system rather than having to massacre everyone currently in charge. globalism is the real thief of our generation, as local labour loses to cheaper 3rd worlders and corporations betray their countries to reduce costs.

>Shortage of food
There had always been a shortage, the Communists ended it.

People (at a large scale) still starve in today's world, 99 years after the Russian revolution. WHO I think, estimate that about 1 billion people suffer from malnutrition (according to some organizations, 50 million in the US (!)). And that is just food - lack of education, health care, clean water, proper housing etc.

And yes, I agree that it's an ideological problem, with a new ruling class emerging; "Red bureaucrats". I don't think it's worse than in Capitalist societies (where wealth is inherited). But it's a problem, and it's anti-Communistic. Yet it happened in the USSR and China.

I think the best argument pro-Capitalism is that people think that they are free. It's actually a legit argument. If people feel free, they are happier. I don't think people in today's Russia are happier than they were in the 70s and early 80s though.

And I have read several statements from Germans that lived in Eastern-Germany that said that people were happier before. It might just be nostalgia though.

But just as Capitalism and Liberalism had it's Bonaparte, Communism have had too. We have never seen a Communist revolution in a developed country.

>We have never seen a Communist revolution in a developed country.

because people in developed (capitalist) countries are more or less content and don't need to resort to violent revolution

I like working. It makes me feel like I have accomplished something but that's probably my German blood in me. Also, money is nice to have.

> 50 million in the US
that's because these people fall under the poverty line, no one starves to death in the US.

> And I have read several statements from Germans that lived in Eastern-Germany that said that people were happier before. It might just be nostalgia though.
They built a wall to keep their people in. I trust the people that vote with their feet. The immigration speaks volumes. They had some nostalgia for products, but the horrors of Stasi and poverty were far bigger problems.

>massacre everyone currently in charge
The catharsis alone would make a lot of people feel better. And well-being is good, yes? A backfire to thwart a wildfire.

Joking aside, in Soviet Russia, guaranteed employment was a right. Maybe some of it was make-work, but so what. Better than breaking windows. Better than NEETs.

It's an ideology that attempts to exploit the (incorrect) belief that all people have inherent, equal worth. The basic idea is that everyone should be able to have the same living standards and level of happiness, whether you're a nuclear engineer, or a doctor, or a coal miner, or a school teacher, or a philosopher, or a fast food worker, or a literal retard who can't form complete sentences. It's a warped interpretation of the expression "all men are equal".

While this sounds great on paper and gives you pleasant butterflies in your tummy, it's completely contradictory to reality and human nature. The retard or the fast food worker simply does not have the same worth to others as the doctor or the engineer. People deserve equal treatment under the law and equal opportunities, but they are not equal in ability, willingness, or intelligence, and are therefore not equal in worth. Some people have more ability and/or willingness to produce worth than others, and are thus inherently better people. Socialists are the inferiors who see these people exuding this worth that they themselves can't or don't want to spend effort generating, and thus seek to steal it from those who do.

Nah for the most part they're minimum wage drudges who don't understand that minimum wage jobs are supposed to be a temporary step on a career path not their entire future

Yes, content because they are bribed with imperialist goods. Say a Norwegian worker does not produce or work as hard as the Chinese that made that Iphone (that he thinks is so important to be happy), or the African miner that slaved for the metal in it.

I guess some do starve to death (Children with drug-addicted parents or homeless people etc.), but they are malnourished.

But that's just the US. Look at the rest of the world.

>bribed with imperialist goods
like having food, shelter and safety? what a dumb way to look at the world. it's you revolutionary ideologues who fight the civil war and then are culled by your own after you serve your purpose.

I think that Norwegian people should provide for our self. Canadians should provide for themselves, Germans provide for themselves and other people provide for themselves. Not steal from other countries.

If you don't care about people working at the cost of their health and well-being, I understand that you think my world view is dumb.

employment in the USSR wasn't a "right", they didn't look at things like that. if you didn't go into specific education after high school, or failed a year of your chosen education, you just went to the army or to do general labour.

you could not be outside on a weekday during working hours without a special permission paper. you even went to jail if you refused to work at all:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_(social_offense)#Soviet_Union

> Look at the rest of the world.
I think the wealth isn't just there. it has to be produced. The Asian world is growing faster than ever under capitalism, food is the fucking best product ever. You don't need to spend millions in advertisement, you don't need to improve quality that much, people want to eat and the more they eat the more they breed. The factories down there improve working conditions and infrastructure more and more. I would love to provide the African people with food, but they live in a politically unstable country and the risk of getting shot or having my shop and farms burned down is too high.

2/10 would not bang