wtf i hate socialism now


Wow, you seem really knowledgeable left theory.

But we are all equally capable. I'd like to see a source proving otherwise.


>Still thinking that everyone should work instead of nobody

Ableism isn't okay.

Oh the poor Holla Forumstard is lost, he thinks communism is based on morality and goodness like his autistic beliefs.

Sorry people work because they want money, and we work together for the mutual profit.

Which is logical

True but it's right in the name. Able. Disability. Not able to do something that other people are commonly able to do. Stop false flagging anyways.

Don't respond to obvious bait.

we should create conditions such that people can achieve "well-being" with little effort, "good life" is relative.


never said that. It's a good motivator for the average of people.

Never said that. But most people when explaining their super cool left ideology will go to the "factory worker" and it's "product", when factories are employ less and less people in modern societies, making the whole analogy flawed.

??? Never said my ideology. Believing in eugenics doesn't immediately makes you want genocide

Obvious to you. Obvious to me. But obvious to the few hundred new people since the reddit fiasco? Letting bait go unbit is exactly what they want. It lets them astroturf easily.

Yes this is stated in Conquest of Bread. You know, an anarcho-commie book, some say "the" anarcho-commie book.

Hardly. Barely anybody really cares about money, only what money can bring them. Being able to cut out that middleman saves time.

You can just swap it out with any other job. We talk of factory workers because it's generic.

You didn't need to.

Well yeah, they care about that thus they care about money.

Communism isnt welfare, we dont give money, someone might give someone stuff for whatever reason but that is his choice and he is working harder for both

I'm quite aware Communism, a system without money, does not have welfare, a system where we give people money.

what's your point?

Still haven't seen how your ideology deals with the fact that there's competition in life. Capitalism allows hierarchical cooperations to arise, which ultimately are more productive.

Yea except it's very unrelatable. You can't swap it easily because not every business is like a factory. The reality is that you use it because when the roots of your ideology took place that was the reality of life. How does your "factory" analogy deals with a start-up company for example? It can't, and debating under it tilts the argument in your favor (making the debate more persuasive), which is the reason you faggots haven't moved past it.

Yes, everyone in the internet that disagrees with you is a nazi

What do you mean by "mutual profit" and how is it measured? How does it compare to the "mutual profit" of other groups?

The only system that gives those things any sort of priority is communism.
Mutual aid you pleb. It's much better than competition. If people desire to compete they can play sports or games. Not fuck about with societies resources, wasting them all on their ego boosting competitions when mutual aid, and cooperation, are just better, and unlike private property, actually happens in nature.

It's quite simple to swap it out actually. All the talk of exploitation does not merely apply to factory workers, it applies even to fast food employees.
Here's how my analogy deals with them. We kill them and socialize "their" company.

Everyone on Holla Forums who advocated eugenics and thinks socialism means "everyone is equally capable" is most likely a nazi.

There's nothing wrong with hierarchy per se. The problem lies with arbitrary authority and imposed hierarchy. If the workers want to elect a boss or foreman or whatever then fine.

I'd like some proof that it's in fact "more productive."

There's nothing wrong with speaking in terms of factory production either since it's still a factor, and being a "start up" doesn't in any way alter the inherent contradictions of capitalism.

You might not be a Nazi but you do sound like a faggot

and how do you measure how much aid should be given to each person?


It's all freely available.

Yup. Porky pigs gotta die. This species exists to perpetuate itself, not serve some rich kid's ego.

Why would they elect the best leader? Why do you think workers have the capabilities to do that? A democratic system would make the best hagglers to raise to the top… Isn't it better a system where the person with authority is more capable in the job? Capitalism gives a way of obtaining such a person (which is not infallible, but it's better than voting imo).

You know there's no proof either way, which is why we argue.

In a start up, the owners worked from the bottom up. Started without capital, only with an idea, and built the company. To the majority of people, the owners/creators are entitled to something more than their employees, because of that. If you start talking about a factory, you already have in your head the idea of the wealthy owner (after all, a factory is a huge investment), which makes people think of the owner as somewhat exploitative. So by talking about factories, you skew the argument towards the exploitative side of capitalism, forgetting the cooperative side.

and there won't be any issues distributing all this freely available goods because?

Because instead of wasting most of the productive force of society on useless crap, and crap designed to break, and gaudy crap for porky, we'd be able to refocus the productive force of society into ensuring the well-being of all. Something that's been possible since the industrial revolution.

Except these managers would have no authority and could be instantly recallable.

Capitalism's way of giving you the "more capable" person for the job is, having them born into wealth, which actually only makes spoiled rich brats with no skills at all.

I don't understand what you are replying to. I suppose it's the managers of a communist-managed factory? No authority and instantly recallable means they are ineffective as leaders.

Well, certainly, a lot of rich people are born in wealth. But a lot are first generational (I remember a source saying something like 80%… cant recall now).

In what way?

It's nowhere near 80%, it's a small minority. Unless all those rich kids decide to give away their massive amounts of capital for no reason.