Pay everyone one labour voucher an hour

Provide bonuses based on the physical, intellectual or technical difficulty of the work.

Lowest rated jobs are

Mail Clerks & Mail Machine Operators (except postal service) 25.0
Program Directors 30.0
Municipal Clerks 30.0
Food Preparation & Serving Workers 31.6
Maids & Housekeeping Cleaners 31.7
Insurance Policy Processing Clerks 33.3
Hotel, Motel & Resort Desk Clerks 34.4
Food Preparation & Serving Workers (including fast food) 34.4
Telemarketers 34.4
Aircraft Cargo Handling Supervisors 35.0

Does the labour voucher system depend on being able to automate all these jobs very quickly?

...

I don't think all of these jobs would be automated but would definitely be more enjoyable under socialism. For example somebody who prepares & serves food would no longer have to take shit from their chefs or from customers and would be getting payed a livable wage. Furthermore implementing a socialist society would of course not be immediate but a process during which capitalist remains get abolished one after the other.

Communism is a goal, not necessarily a destination. It's a set of ethics.
Even if the total abolition of work is impossible, it's still the goal we should aim for, so that we get a society were we work way less and leisure and frolic more.

Nope, but automation is taking forever under capitalism.

Nobody needs or wants telemarketers.

But beyond that:

I do not see what the problem is.

Why wouldn't they have to take shit from anyone? You don't seem to understand that you can't not have a job in communism so getting fired isn't really a thing. meaning you take supreme levels of shit from everyone or get arrested for not having a job.

Well, of course the solution is that this makes us able to abolish the work of pussy-inspection, delegating it entirely to the realm of leisure and play.

Why wouldn't they have to take shit from anyone? You don't seem to understand that you can't not have a job in communism so getting fired isn't really a thing. meaning you take supreme levels of shit from everyone or get arrested for not having a job.>>1309101

These are all service workers, who have shit pay and very few rights. Most of these jobs won't exist, and the rest will likely be much more pleasant experiences when the workers are paid properly.

Damn, you've singlehandedly defeated us.

...

Is this what Holla Forums thinks communism is? Mate, the point of communism is getting rid of all these shitty make-work jobs.

pay everyone a percentage of the co-operatives output rather than a wage, eventually move to a system where we just give people things.

This. Labour vouchers are so last century.

I thought the point of Communism was to seize the means of production, but thanks for educating me, m9.

KYS

Goods would have to be priced in a more complicated way as well then. But I suppose it solves it for the most part

I thought everybody got to do whatever they wanted.

It might be because of low pay. But then there might be jobs with bad conditions, but where people are paid enough they don't mind, as well

That would be Socialism, dumb nazi shit.

Fam, that's the point of socialism. Communism is what comes after you replace all the jobs with robots.

marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch33.htm

...

Well, then some people are earning more than others, which completely goes against your notion of everyone being equal

Honestly, it sounds like you have a cartoon-caricature interpretation of communism.

Socialism is not everyone being paid the same. What socialists mean by equality is social equality, that there aren't a bunch of people who own all the businesses and factories and then some people who have to work in them.

How does getting benefits from doing a shitty job somehow make people "unequal"?

...

people doing dangerous or exceptionally shitty work get better rewards, they just don't get to own the factories. Incentive isn't a dirty word in socialism regardless of what people think.

1) There would be a finite limit to how much you could work at a particular job. If everyone took the same low energy, pleasant jobs, they'd quick meet quota and stop getting paid.
2) We'd probably give big perks to people who took on high-intensity and/or high-skill jobs.

I'm sorry, what happened to equality? Or have you already decided that some people are more equal than others?

This is how the so called "porky" was created in the first place, some people took greater risks than others in the field of business and came out with a greater sum than those who took the safe route. That's how nature works, and that's how the economy works.

People think you reject that idea, because it seems like the same logic that leads to paying doctors and scientists more money.

equality is a spooked term, it changes definition depending on who you ask. Also, I'm a mutualist, so, there's that, besides, you aren't going to find anyone making a conscious choice to dredge out the clogged sewer lines for the same pay as someone making bread or working construction. Would you? Ask yourself what absolute shit jobs you would do for literally the same pay as someone doing some other kind of not-horrible, not-disgusting labor, then apply that to about 7 billion people.

We can pretend for a moment that that is how a capitalist economy works, but under socialism you would not have the Right ™ to own private property and thus will be unable to accumulate capital.

I doubt we will need to pay intellectually engaging jobs higher wages. And even if we did, what does it matter?

Did you even fucking read what we wrote? Getting paid a few more pesos than the other guy isn't inequality. One guy literally owning the workplace that the other guy works in is inequality.
Most of the people who own shit today didn't take any risks. They were born wealthy and they will die wealthy. If an investment fails, they'll just recoup it somewhere else, and if worst comes to worse, they'll always have their hedge funds. Meanwhile the people who worked for them are left unemployed. If anything, it's the workers taking the bloody risks!

Wouldn't they end up going on golf courses, giving their children better chances in life, and generally being more upper class?

Golf courses are socialized
By playing golf?
Class is not a scale. You are either a capitalist or a worker. Employee or employer. Exploitee or exploiter.

So, difference in pay exists but I'm not allowed to own my own room or bed? Marxism doesn't even make sense on paper.

But see, that contradicts the basic doctrine of "materialism", that everything is malleable and can be morphed to suit your whims. Socialism allows you to morph the laws of economics, Communism allows you to do so with government, dialectics with words and definitions, ect. But the one thing you cant pretend to change is pure, simple biology, so every Communist state has to resort to crushing totalitarianism and genocide in order to keep the population from realizing their potential.

Porky isn't simply someone with more money, porky is someone who owns the MoP.
It's not about having more or less stuff it's about exploitation.

Fucking capitalists

You're cucked, user. Forcing peasants off the land isn't a risk with the state at your back.

Just look at today. There are people who earn twice or thrice as much as what, say, or service worker is making, but that doesn't make them porkies. At most it means they'll own their own home and car.

Pricing can just be based on hours of production time modified by difficulty of production in the same fashion as payment is issued. For example if product A and product B both require 5 hours of labour time to produce, but workers producing product B burn twice as many calories on average than workers for product A (meaning the work is more physically demanding) then product B would be more expensive.

Somehow I'm certain that "pure, simple biology" just happens to exactly reflect and validate your personal ideology and biases.

Golfing time takes some labour from others which not everyone can afford to request.
They hire private tutors for their child.
People can be divided by economic status in more ways than just ownership of the MoP

LE TOOTHBRUSH
Private property = productive forces of society. To name a few: Factories, mines, trucks, roads, windmills and your mom.

Man, we are getting all the memes today. Owning a factory isn't the same as owning your house or your toothbrush. We're against people owning factories, we are definitely for people owning their homes and toothbrushes.
Besides, unless you're very well-off, you probably don't even own your own home. It's either owned by your bank through your mortgage, or you're renting it from someone.

Those that give a shit about golf can maintain their own shitty golf course. Not anyone's job.

well that's why I'm a mutualist and not a communist, also I'm a transhumanist, both things about as materialist as it gets. I'm not going to get into a thing about communism and tankie shit because that's for a different thread, but I don't agree with your conclusion on communism. I can see you haven't read much marx or, well, anything. I highly suggest looking into some socialist materials, there's a pinned topic at the top of the board with a bunch of references.

don't get nitpicky about terms, pay can either be money, work vouchers, chickens, or blowjobs, it's still pay for work done

That's not what private property means. Even our own courts of law admit that private property is something an individual owns, as opposed to public property, which is something a government entity owns. "Personal property" means nothing outside of legal jargon and does not apply to economics.

What if people want to work as golfing caddies?

I'm out.

Good luck comrades. Don't kill yourselves.

You know, I'm starting to understand what Zizek means by ideology. People can't see past Capitalism.

That is what private property means in the Marxist terminology. Also, I see you nicked that one from Wikipedia. Maybe you should have read a little further:

are you seriously bringing the law into this? An establishment which likely won't exist after all is said and done? Personal property would very much be a new part of the law after a workers revolt.

I can't tell if you're a troll anymore, or just random liberal that stumbled into here by mistake and has no idea what he's doing.

The bastion of socialist thought.

Is there no graphic explaining the difference between personal and private property?

Aaaaaaaaand there's another problem. Marxist terminology is leagues and bounds away from actual terminology. Relying on the aforementioned school of "dialectics", it warps words and definitions so that they conform to your biases rather than reality. You can make anything say whatever you want if you're using Marxist terminology, but it doesn't change objective reality.

Ah, my bad, I forgot the Soviet Union was a libertarian paradise and gulags and secret police didn't exist. Silly me. I should have known that the common knowledge that Communist nations rely on brutal oppression to keep their failed ideologies alive was just the result of me being not as equal as the party commissar.

You're bad at this.

is this correct?

Do you think words and their meanings are eternal truths granted by god?

why are you here? What are you trying to accomplish?

Basically to clarify:

Whatisthisidon'teven

He's either trolling or stupid. It could go either way.

Does a sock become a computer just because you say it is?

When a Marxist says "private property" he means something particular, this isn't postmodern language pollution, and it isn't an attempt to deceive you.

People can call it Stacey for all I care, it doesn't matter. All academic circles have their own terminology so people don't have to repeat babby terms like factories and workplaces to other people who have read a fucking book.

The case here is more you crying sophistry when people are calling you out for conflating panties and strings because both are underwear.

REMEMBER TO TAKE ANTIFA ALIVE SO YOU CAN TIE THEN UP IN YOUR BARN, THEN SKIN THEIR LEGS AND MAKE THEM EAT EACH OTHERS SKIN. USE VISE GRIPS TO CRUSH THEIR TEETH WHILE THEY ARE STILL IN THE JAW. THEN USE THE VISE GRIPS TO CRUSH THE JAWBONE ITSELF. TRY TO PULL THE BROKEN JAWBONES OUT OF THEIR SKULL. NOW PACK THEIR EYE SOCKETS WITH THE BONE FRAGMENTS. SUFFOCATE AT LEAST ONE WITH THE LEG SKIN THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED. PULL THE BONES OUT OF THEIR LEG WITH FLIMSY COAT HANGERS, OR AT LEAST LAUGH WHILE TRYING TO AS THE COAT HANGERS WILL JUST DIG AROUND INTO THE EXPOSED MUSCLE

When a normal person says "private property", he means the actual definition. Imagine that, Marxists coming up with newspeak. What a concept!

Yes. We don't believe in that definition.

It's really not. You're being disingenuous here, right?

The fuck you smoking?

Thus proving my point, newspeak

...

You do know that Orwell was a socialist, right?

Key word being "was". He deconverted after he witnessed the horrors Communists perpetrated in Spain, and became a staunch conservative afterwards.

Just by the very fact that you are posting Bordiga I know the solution you suggest will be

"oh we should just do nothing". Honestly you are worse than either fash or liberal, because you actually have the facts, you are just too much of a fucking faggot to do anything with them

Read a fucking book.
Start with Orwell's collected essays and journalism.

...

Right, because the guy who fucking wrote A Homage to Catalonia turned into a staunch conservative. He was against Stalinism.
Read a fucking book.

this is UTTERLY, UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY FABRICATED.

Totally and completely, you are literally living in a fantasy world, he was a democratic socialist till the day he died

brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgeorwe159435.html

brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgeorwe137307.html

you came here just to be an idiot ironically right?

Only, he didn't actually witness any horrors according to HOMAGE to Catalonia, one of his most popular books.

….. or did you think it was just 1984 and Animal Farm?

You are aware of course of his extensive body of essays on socialism, the working class, the state of Britain at the time, the explicitly and rigorously socialist body of work, you are aware of that yes?

You are aware he has never once in his life written anything that was intended to be pro Conservative, in fact quite the opposite.

You are actually in fact autistic as fuck. If you are willing to literally just make up that he was a conservative just to win an argument on the internet. Seriously how pathetic are you?

Why bother arguing about a person who you literally do not have a clue about? What possess you to do that?

Ideology

This, ignore retarded central planners

Good job outing yourself as a retard

You should have a picture of that someone further away in the background. Other than that it is a good description

Dont be a retard and dont use something as counter-productive as labour vouchers.

No, it doesn't.

You have to keep in mind the context of his works. England was firmly in the grasp of "democratic" socialist policies at the end of the second World War, to openly speak out against them would mean being labeled a political dissident, which means all kinds of trouble. If you read between the lines of nearly all of his post war works, it's plain to see that he's against Communism in all forms.

Perhaps you should read a fucking book. 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, these are all modeled after direct experiences in Communist societies.

Typical moneylessfag response.

Never in my life have I ever heard or read a self-described socialist or communist actually advocate for everybody getting the same renumeration per hour.

That sad, I think something like that could be actually made workable. Suppose how much is to be done in this or that job is planned based on demand, and people are ultimately forced to do the jobs. That's not to say that there is zero probability of your own wish what you want to do affecting what you will do, just that the proportions of person-hours going into this or that task are set by the plan, and these roles must be taken.

Like, slave owners took greater risk than lazy slaves. Hmm.

Keep projecting, faggot

It's more that two free men scavenging in the desert had equal resources, one took a risk and one didn't, a fertile farm is created by irrigation, and the person who didn't take the risk agrees to be a 'slave' to get better access to resources

-
Unless you're talking about differences of birth

They're allegorical narratives about the failures of Stalinism, not communism per se. I can understand why you don't know this since you've never read them.

Jesus advocates for the same compensation for the same work, if that counts. It's the source of the "last shall come first and first shall come last" quote iirc

You guys do realize people would have to be forced to do the crappy jobs, right?
You guys do realize this inevitably lead to an authoritarian style government, right?
You guys do realize it's impossible to have socialism without tyranny, right?

Woah brah woah socialism completely destroyed brb burning all my books

...

What a retard, it's like you've never thought about human nature lmao XDDDDD

nice meme faggot

...

Let's say we are living in socialism with the principle of: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
So all our basic needs are granted (food, shelter, education and so on) as long as we work. Now what awesome benefit would be enough to make anyone choose to unclog the sewers instead of working on something else when your basic needs will be met no matter what?
Am I going to be granted a hot woman to fuck if I choose to clean shit?

I am working as chief officer in lng ships, I know how cargo operations work and I am good at that and organization

Why would I do a boring shitty unfun Job when I can be doing something I am good at and enjoy ?

You do know once you mechanize jobs half the US would be unemployed, right?
You do know there's enough volunteer work done today to cover the hours needed in such a system, right?

Gosh, you don't think, I dunno, we could design our sewers so that in the course of normal operation we wouldn't need people to go in and clean them? Or is that just a utopian socialist fantasy flying in the face of the perfect Capitalist science of shit tubes????

But user we need to avoid using technology just enough so we can exploit the workforce and people and also scare them with the unemployment boogeyman which is also our creation

So we just redesign everything in a way that will make all crappy disappear?
Is this really possible?

...

You find it that weird while finding the fact that technological progress is slow because they need to sell the same iPhone with different number but 5% more efficient with purposely limited life normal?

Capitalism is not about efficiency, it is about inefficiency that they can exploit

Work 2 days a week instead of 3. For example.

...

ALL crappy labor? Probably not. Most crappy labor? Undoubtedly. I'm struck by former descriptions of European cities, like the poem A Description of a City Shower by Jonathan Swift:

Careful Observers may fortel the Hour
(By sure Prognosticks) when to dread a Show'r:
While Rain depends, the pensive Cat gives o'er
Her Frolicks, and pursues her Tail no more.
Returning Home at Night, you'll find the Sink
Strike your offended Sense with double Stink.
If you be wise, then go not far to Dine,
You spend in Coach-hire more than save in Wine.
A coming Show'r your shooting Corns presage,
Old Aches throb, your hollow Tooth will rage.
Sauntring in Coffee-house is Dulman seen;
He damns the Climate, and complains of Spleen.

Mean while the South rising with dabbled Wings,
A Sable Cloud a-thwart the Welkin flings,
That swill'd more Liquor than it could contain,
And like a Drunkard gives it up again.
Brisk Susan whips her Linen from the Rope,
While the first drizzling Show'r is born aslope,
Such is that Sprinkling which some careless Quean
Flirts on you from her Mop, but not so clean.
You fly, invoke the Gods; then turning, stop
To rail; she singing, still whirls on her Mop.
Not yet, the Dust had shun'd th'unequal Strife,
But aided by the Wind, fought still for Life;
And wafted with its Foe by violent Gust,
'Twas doubtful which was Rain, and which was Dust.
Ah! where must needy Poet seek for Aid,
When Dust and Rain at once his Coat invade;
Sole Coat, where Dust cemented by the Rain,
Erects the Nap, and leaves a cloudy Stain.

Now in contiguous Drops the Flood comes down,
Threat'ning with Deloge this Devoted Town.
To Shops in Crouds the dagled Females fly,
Pretend to cheapen Goods, but nothing buy.
The Templer spruce, while ev'ry Spout's a-broach,
Stays till 'tis fair, yet seems to call a Coach.
The tuck'd-up Sempstress walks with hasty Strides,
While Streams run down her oil'd Umbrella's Sides.
Here various Kinds by various Fortunes led,
Commence Acquaintance underneath a Shed.
Triumphant Tories, and desponding Whigs,
Forget their Fewds, and join to save their Wigs.
Box'd in a Chair the Beau impatient sits,
While Spouts run clatt'ring o'er the Roof by Fits;
And ever and user with frightful Din
The Leather sounds, he trembles from within.
So when Troy Chair-men bore the Wooden Steed,
Pregnant with Greeks, impatient to be freed,
(Those Bully Greeks, who, as the Moderns do,
Instead of paying Chair-men, run them thro'.)
Laoco'n struck the Outside with his Spear,
And each imprison'd Hero quak'd for Fear.

Now from all Parts the swelling Kennels flow,
And bear their Trophies with them as they go:
Filth of all Hues and Odours seem to tell
What Streets they sail'd from, by the Sight and Smell.
They, as each Torrent drives, with rapid Force
From Smithfield, or St.Pulchre's shape their Course,
And in huge Confluent join at Snow-Hill Ridge,
Fall from the Conduit prone to Holborn-Bridge.
Sweepings from Butchers Stalls, Dung, Guts, and Blood,
Drown'd Puppies, stinking Sprats, all drench'd in Mud,
Dead Cats and Turnips-Tops come tumbling down the Flood.

If we can figure out ways to not have literal shit and refuse overflowing in the streets, I think we can figure out ways to remove or otherwise ameliorate the need for large parts of unpleasant labor.

Unclogged sewers.

Wall street investors do not produce a commodity nor value

theorwellreader.com/essays/storgaard.html#Chap5

read the conclusion of this, its short.

ivn.us/2014/08/12/forgotten-political-legacy-aldous-huxley/

Do central planners in a Soviet System produce value? I think they do, of a kind.

Wall Street investors direct capital towards the most productive uses, which is a useful function

If by "Soviet system" you mean an actual socialist society (and not the capitalist one that was the USSR), then no, they do not produce value and neither does anyone else. There is no value in a socialist society, only use-value.

I meant a Soviet System like the USSR

Wouldn't entertainment related professions suffer a great deal in a socialist society? Actually would entertainment related professions even exist at all under socialism?

What happens when something a community produces is no longer wanted?
For example a gaming community makes certain types of games, everyone moves there because they are big in gaming education and stay in that community to make games because they love that and share games with all other communities, what happens once people no longer like that game?

exactly

I don't think you really know how investing in Wall Street works m8. First, those that actually do invest in enterprises do so because they're profitable, not because they're the most productive. All you have to do is take a look at the fastest growing stocks over the past decade to see that the most profitable are so because they're getting big stimulus loans, which they use to buy up their stocks, which makes then appear profitable, which they use to get bigger loans, which they use to buy more of their own stocks, etc.

Second, you're ignoring other entire sectors of the finance industry like futures, which are literally just betting on whether or not certain commodities, steel for instance, will appreciate or depreciate in value in the future.

It also leads to bullshit like
mobile.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?pagewanted=all&

Tl;Dr it's more worth it to banks to just sit on resources and watch futures go up and up instead of employing them productively, making things more expensive to you while they get rich.

They produce something else? All the resources used to make games can be used to make other things, and I don't see entertainment going out of style soon

There's no reason why they couldn't exist, but without the need for profit or Life rent you can spend all your free time just making or playing games of you wanted to.

The whole point of doing any of this is to eliminate onerous work and laboring for others so that people are free to do the things they want to do, like making video games.

Profitable, I mean.

What if the designers want to keep making them though? Will they be able to or will resources be given to someone else because the demand of a product is elsewhere

There really shouldn't be anything stopping them, but it's going to depend on where they are and what the needs of their community is and how they decide to allocate socially necessary labor.

To be honest though I'm not even sure what game production would look like under a socialist system. With intellectual property out of the picture, I would imagine something more akin to the modding scene rather than big production studios, but that's just me.

That's still not beneficial in any real way.

That's not even how labor vouchers work, ffs

And what about jobs that aren't crap but require lots of effort and dedication, what benefit would be given to doctors that would make people want to be a doctor? Just working one less day in a week doesn't seem like something worth the all effort to become a doctor. Or do we have to wait until robot doctors or something like that become a thing to have socialism?

You don't think it's beneficial to make sure productive assets are being used in a profitable way?

By removing the wealth restrictions to medical education we could greatly expand the pool of possible doctors, and without the economic burdens they incur through medical school they similarly won't be beholden to large prescription companies or other special interests, or at least more resilient. So doctors will actually be able to perform medicine again, rather than just being mouthpieces and dispenseries for big pharma, among other things.

But if all they care about is material benefit then fuck them anyway.

I think somebody said that

Can be automated
I honestly do not know what that is
Can be automated
Can be automated
Can be automated / would be greatly reduced in Socialism
Does not exist under Socialism
Can be automated / would be greatly reduced in Socialism
Once again, can be automated
Would no exist under Socialism
Can be automated

Literally no one becomes a doctor because of money, and those who do are terrible at their job anyway. Same with engineers.

The satisfaction of saving lives.

Why would I? The prices of stock goes up, some CEO gets an even bigger bonus, and meanwhile my wages continue to stagnate as prices continue to rise in the middle the most 'profitable' period in history. Profit only means something if you're at the top, because in real economic terms 'profitability' means only two things: fuck and all.

Because if something is profitable it means the value of the outputs exceeds the value of the inputs.

So your economic plan is to abolish the economy and have robots
Wow why didn't I think of that lol

And where does the difference come from?

It just is

Value of inputs is X
Value of outputs is Y

Yeah, and? How is that useful in any way?

O boy

Name a vital job that is both incredibly labor intensive and extremely necessary for society's survival.

Giving birth

It's magic?

...

I suppose it means the cost of doing something is exceeded by the benefit

No. But I don't know what I'm supposed to answer.
Price of the green apple is 5 cents. Price of the red apple is 4 cents. Where does the difference come from? I can only guess

...

What do a green apple, a red apple and every single commodity in the world have in common, so that we can compare them?

M8, just because something is profitable doesn't make it beneficial. See: The Belgian Congo, among any other of an infinite list of examples.

Different apple varieties require different methods of culture.

"Abolish the economy" is impossible. Apart from that, yes, that's the plan. Singularity will happen in about 20-30 years.

I was just meming with him, you fuggin retard.

...

...

Why would fancy technology ever be put towards building the singularity? How does that serve the rulling class?

Sometimes the ruling class while behaving in their class interest do things which inadvertently benefit the proletariat.

There is no fucking "singularity".

Labor voucher pay includes the difficulty in acquiring personnel for that position.

"Sometimes things happen"

Ok then, so let's see

I don't see how socialism can happen anytime soon. And by "soon" I mean ever.

Please try to understand, newfriend, instead of being so invested in proving it wrong.

It's not about having to automate these things, but that they will be automated because they suck. With the worker in charge of his workplace, he will be much more invested and free to make it a more pleasant experience.
I don't know how each commune or socialist state is going to organize. Whether the state will decide which labour is worth more money, or the workers' councils of a >shitty job< go on strike untill the commune provides them with benefits or decide they can do it themselves.
The key thing is worker control.

Do you like cleaning dishes?

People become doctors because they genuinely want to save lives. Cuba has some of the best healthcare in the world and they're doctors aren't even that well paid. Automation is already taking jobs, right now and is predicted to take a huge chunk of jobs in the future. The only difference is that socialists want to take the automated productive process, aka the means of production others have been talking of, and put it towards the use of the entirety of society and do stuff like reduce work hours and automate shitty jobs instead of our current society where everything is produced for profit and people just become unemployed and those left still left in the workforce are worked even harder than before

you're one dumb fuck, you know that?

he said pleasant not peasant, m8. You have misread

But wouldn't automation create unemployment under socialism just the same?
Let's say my profession gets automated, wouldn't I be fucked the same way I am under capitalism? From what I read your basic needs only get covered if you work. If my work is gone what the hell am I supposed to do?

Some other work.

Actually, you're going to reap benefits from a FALC society regardless if you're working. A socialist society will see that its members have their needs met.

Not an argument.

But then what's stopping everybody from just becoming a NEETs and society going down hill as a consequence?

labor voucher = dollar?

The point of socialism is to create unemployment I suppose, but it's not the same sort of unemployment as capitalism. Capitalist unemployment means you starve to death on the street if you aren't provided some other means of survival. Socialist unemployment means you're now free to pursue the things you actually want to do and to live your life the way you want to live it (ideally speaking, not to say that it's a free-for-all).

I'm not sure what your profession is, so I hope you'll excuse the simple example of dishwashing. I used to work in a restaurant, and washing dishes alone would have been a full day for a score of men or more if it was done entirely manually. With the dishwashing machine though it's able to be managed by one or two workers at a time.

Under capitalism technological advancement is a problem for the worker, because all the labor saved by novel devices translates to fewer opportunities to sell one's labor. This benefits predominantly the capitalist because it saves on his expenses, increasing his profits.

Under socialism, with all your necessaries guaranteed, less people cleaning dishes means more people involved presumably in some other activity, whatever that might be.

It would depend on what's necessary to ensure those necessary resources. If you're in an unindustrialized region where human labor is required to produce food, then it's not unreasonable to deny food to those that aren't contributing in some way or another.

But we aren't living in the 19th century any more and it's possible to automate things like food production to a greater or lesser extent. With modern farming techniques, the huge teams of agricultural workers necessary in bygone times are no longer so.

To use a real world example, Mondragon is a worker-owned cooperative in Spain. They allocate resources so that if, for example, sales of washing machines go down and there's no longer a need for 100 workers on the production line, those workers are reallocated to other areas of the company, with necessary salary adjustments and training provided by the company. This has been decided by the workers themselves, who collectively make decisions like these across the company.

Ideally the answer is "whatever you want." One of the major threads woven through the history of socialism is the idea that unnecessary labor should be eliminated in favor of elective labor. This doesn't just mean jobs like under capitalism, but any number of human activities. The theory is that society as a whole is enriched when people are freed to do what they're interested in rather than what they're forced to do for the profit of another. You want musicians free to make music, artists free to make art, designers free to design, programmers free to program. We see hints of this kind of thing already. The internet is full of all sorts of projects done by people simply for the satisfaction of doing it. The internet runs on this kind of labor in fact.

So that would really be a question you would have to answer. If you don't have to work any more, what do you want to do instead? If you're a professional, I would imagine you've acquired some kind of skills that you could apply for your own sake. Or if you really don't enjoy it, what would you rather learn instead? Your commune might not need farmers any more, but what if they need electricians? Mathematicians? Astronomers? Or is there some other project you've had in mind for a while instead?

That's the hole point m8e, what work do you want to do?

Among other things, the fact that NEETdom is a result of extreme alienation and social exclusion that wouldn't be present or at least would be vastly diminished under communism. For another, it's hard to do absolutely nothing for extended periods of time, especially when all you do is passively consume, which would be impossible if everyone "just became a NEET."

But I don't think such fantastic problems are anything to be concerned about, if only because FALGSC is likely to come about only after you and I are long dead.

No.

The capitalist increases automation to increase his profits, but eventually it will just bring prices down

That's true, yeah