How does one debate the "Incentive" argument against communism typically used by ancraps and lolbertards

How does one debate the "Incentive" argument against communism typically used by ancraps and lolbertards

Post-scarcity.

please explain.

this is why you are bullied muke


what do you mean by incentive argument? that no one will want to work if they don't get paid?

Precisely. and that they won't have any work ethic if no incentive to move up.

Is this one of those arguments thats so stupid you just tell them to kill themselves?

socialism: you can develop incentive structures more similar to salaries than wages. over-produce basics and have measured access to luxury goods and more vacation time, paid travel etc..
communism: can only work if onerous labor has been phased out my technology or social incentives have made otherwise onerous work desirable to do voluntarily.

Oh shit! Nobody will work for porky without coercion.

Incentive for what? The fact that they use this term suggests that they know work is coercive and inherently miserable.

the argument you could use is an exploration of incentive based in current time. In my country GPs don't get paid very much yet every year people commit hundreds of thousands of dollars and 8 years of study into becoming doctors. They would make more money as accountants, hedge fund managers, business owners etc… yet they still keep doing it. Ask them what motivates this behaviour (a need to care for others) and challenge the notion that money is a direct motivator for work. Explain that for most people money isn't an end goal just a means for subsistence and having a few comforts. Bring up that a society where people only chose careers for maximising profit everyone would simply study business degrees and many essential services would be left unfulfilled yet somehow they are not. Most people really choose careers on their innermost desire and need to fill a societal role but are actually limited by the terrifying notion of not having the means to live a comfortable life. Ask them if they had any dreams of careers they wanted as children but the realities of the working environment stopped those dreams.

Ask them why the incentive has to be as intense as 'not starving to death' when we have enough to satisfy everyone's basic needs

I was born to code. If the social safety net is withdrawn and I starve to death, I'll be coding till the bitter end. I imagine painters/artists feel the same way.

Fuck your "incentive" framework.

the truth is no one wants to work, there are no ethics involved in this, the idea of self-made man and other petty bourg garbage is just people repressing their hatred towards labour

it is due to this fact that automation must be used to supply basic goods, however we cannot accomplish this due to bourgeoise control of the market, people couldn't do it out of self interest, as there is labour which is in nobody's interest

workers controlling the market and therefore getting less of their value in return is one of the main causes of this, it creates a vicious cycle where you earn a wage, get part of that wage taken by the capitalists and the state, so you need to search for better remuneration, but again, the capitalists and the stae takes some of it away and it all starts over again

lolbergs are already againts state, they realize an authority taking part of their value alienate them, but somehow belive a private entity keeping some of it is ok

the incentive therefore would be not to get your value stolen by the state or by propietors

I agree with this, however i feel the critique should not be just about a "human face" regarding capitalists exploitation, as it's clearly impossible that everyone could pick an easy, well paid job

fix some stuff

holy fuck i need to go to sleep

I agree with you actually I just try to tailor arguments with normies to something easily digested. Most people are not ready to face the harsh truths of capitalist exploitation, it's a good start however for them to consider that choices of labor come from something deeper than a narrow-minded pursuit of capital. it's a much harder battle to get them to accept that even a seemingly fantastic job is still exploitative by nature.

it is imperative that you do, as it's the core tenent, otherwise they will end up in a world of half-truths and won't get anywhere

you can explain how the system is rigged by explaining them how it is impossible for everyone to will their ego applying their labour to whatever they see fit, that therefore actually pointing out one of the flaws of the division of labour

people cannot chose how to spend their life, and thei are forced by a manufactured commodity consumption in order for them to work where no one would want to, which could be easily automated in a better controlled market economy

Sometimes it feels like markets are barely more efficient than people just doing whatever they want at random.

After all, an entire generation of tech workers are doing nothing more than making scam games, or trying to get retards to click on more adverts next to a fake news story.

…and as for physical goods and allocation of non-human resources, it's not as if people want a bunch of shitty spy bots in their house.

If you make them and market them, sure you'll shove a few down some ignorant people's throats, but people already basically rejected watch computers.

State monopoly capitalism sucks at allocation.

Incentives for an employer to cut wages to compete. Incentives for workers to hide efficiency improvements in order to keep their jobs. Because the interests of the employer and employee classes are fundamentally opposed, capitalism incentivizes a huge variety of behaviors that lead to less productivity in the workplace.

There's also the incentive to provide consumers with low-quality goods in order to keep replacing them or force them to replace with crap they don't want. Windows 10, a new iPod with no headphone jack, lightbulbs that last 2000 hours instead of 30 years, etc.

The ultimate incentive is to annihilate the environment, annihilate society, then sell people virtual reality experiences from the comfort of their little cucksheds.

...

I think it's a little more complex than that, because in the first versions of the matrix, the machines tried simulating luxury communism.

Then within the films narrative, the humans rejected this, but they did accept late 20th century capitalism.