Socialist dilemma

If everyone is equal, who's gonna clean toilets? Checkmate, leftists

You.

you

No u

i would, whats wrong with working

You clean your own toilet, don't you? Clearing is t an inherrently insufferable job, and it's something anybody can choose to do, and even enjoy. The difference in a socialist system would be that you aren't at the very bottom of the corporate ladder, doing an objectively hard job but getting screwed out of a fair wage.

I'm gonna clean your pipes

I was mostly speaking about public toilets. Nobody wants to do this unpleasant work, lol.

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

The one who cleans the toilet best.

the chad hungarian model citizen

But it's the lowest paying job.

I think you're wrong. People can enjoy work that envolve dirty environments. And because it's such an useful job, in an economy based more on need than profit, it would likely be valued and rewarded far above what cleaners can expect in a capitalist society now.

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

toilet cleaner gets the salary he deserves (as per his needs).

you take your public army into Poland and make them do it.

I would. Spray water everywhere, detergent, scrub, spray again, mop, put scented flowers, done. Sometimes would put spycams in womens washroom or men urinals to earn extra online.

I would not.. would you?

everyone does their share of work. What a dystopia, right?

hmm so you mean jobs that are more needed will be rewarded better?
almost sounds like a market based system to me

I prefer public wc in my country, thank you.

that was from your country, thank you.

It is somewhat similar. The difference is that the driving factor isn't supply and demand, which only caters to those who have the economic power to turn their "need" into demand.

what is the difference between "need" and "demand"?

As I said, demand requires not only that people need something or could use something, but that they are willing and able to pay for something. The price of a commodity is calculated by what people are willing to pay, and what the sellers are willing to accept. Need is a natural thing, based on a commoditys use-value and a human's acces to it.

if two people want the same thing in a moneyless society, how do you measure whose need is greater?

>no water faucets
>no dividers
Nice try, flag. We have standards on how the loo should be build. Probably an old abandoned toilet of 80s artifact if thats indeed from my country.

Based on if one already has it or if one has it in a larger ammount. If neither already has it, then their need is equal.

You figure out who has been a more loyal member of the party of course. Then you just kill the other guy.

if can have same wage doing that than ppl doing some construction i would do that job tBh

Robots
Checkmate conserved retards

What do you do if need is equal?

Meantime AS a reply to

>he doesn't poo in the sea
I thought russians were a superpower?

>Make self-cleaning toilets
>Use it on public places

Equal need is given equal resources. I can see what you're getting at. The point of a teatnt system is not to be introduced in a society of scarcity. Superabundance as a result of mass automation is part of the build up to it, meaning a situation where there aren't enough resources to give to twon people would not occur. You might well view that as unrealistic, but understand that most if not all of the worlds resources that are not entirely luxurious and meant to be rare are already produced on such a scale, or can be produced on such a scale that there is enough to go around. Like food, which is produced in large enough quantities to feed billions of the worlds starving population, but is not put towards that purpose because of the nature of a capitalist system, and is instead thrown away.

Servitors of course

t. social-techocrat

Socialists aren't capable of inventing anything.

based ivan

Bump

Robots

Nope.

so communism is a concept that only works in a post-scarcity society?

Well, that's a bit oversimplified. Part of the the cause of communism is creating a post-scarcity society. It is a requirement in the same way that communism only works in a post-industrial society.

so should we stick to capitalism until we reach the post-scarcity level?

Machines, but for that we need technological advancement, an impossibility in a socialist/communist society due to lack of competition

And who are you to decide what's good or bad for me, legit curious?

yes

Wont we still have the Polish for such tasks. They arent even human anyways.

Why? Many real scientists work for their vocation, not for money.

I don't know who you are. But as far as what I've said goes, my reasoning for thinking that I can hold opinions on how society can be improved, that comes from me being a member of society. Not the same one as yours though, so you don't really factor into it, being from South America. I do still have opinions about it, but being that I'm not a part of that country, it's not really something I can "decide" on. Nor is it here, really. I just support ideas that I share with others, in the hope that society as a whole will hear and embrace them.

No, I don't think that is possible. Capitalism wouldn't allow for sufficient levels of automation and productivity to get us to that point. Not until the capitalistic mode of production is phased out in favour of a socialist one could we expect to reach resource abundance.

this is the probably only and also most important part why it fails every single time

because "we" know better whats good for you

Can you elaborate on that? I don't understand what mean

Indians can't into loo

If you get a PROPER wage and not the one set by thirdworld immigrants that'd be a job like any other. Especially good for students looking for some simple shit to pay the fees.

I think I have greater needs than 99% of the population though and I'm going to downplay my toilet cleaning ability

How do you expect a socialist economy, which by definition, is not incentivized by anything to be more competitive/innovative than a capitalist one?

I thought it's the other way around. Capitalism -> technology is welcomed to increase productivity even at the cost of employees and socialism -> worker's unions will fight against technology and new companies cutting employees

I disagree. Capitalism hinders large scale adoption and usage of automation and technology in order to not leave large swathes of the population unemployed. Workers unions do fight against automation, because they exist within a capitalist system, and so automation would serve to push workers out of work and leave them with nothing. In socialism technologies can be used to their full potential, as socialist production systems do not revolve around private owners seeking profit.

>a socialist economy, which by definition, is not incentivized by anything
Come again?

...

Why it's always third worldlers cucked by murrikans the ones that fall form neoliberal memes?

I'm not a neoliberal

pay decent salary for this job