Holla Forums here, I have a question

Holla Forums here, I have a question.

If full automatization happens, and every human worker is replaced with a robot, then what will be the point of communism?

No workers means no one will be ever more exploited under capitalism.

As a fash, im against it because all humans will be given welfare, which will create even more useless and lazy creatures, but still i wanted to ask about your opinion, leftypol.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fv1j0n-EeM4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Also, pic not related.

It could have the inverse effect, since this is Capitalism we're in, and lead to an enormous unemployment crisis. On top of a lack of consumer trust, and spending. Which again, would hurt the economy. Which has a wide range of consequences.

The only solution would be more and more radicalization of the left.

Full automation is porky shooting themselves in the foot.

Private property gives minority control of the government to those who own said property. Governments around the world barely feign representation now. What do you think it would be like when workers have been completely removed form the productive process?

None expect the fuzzy feeling and power trips for members of vanguard apparatus.

If there are no workers then it's not capitalism

...

There will be still private property, so it will be capitalism.

Yeah, because people on welfare do this.

There will be no more capitalism because there will be no more wage labor. Instead, you'll have a new aristocracy of robot-owners who hold everything needed to produce whatever goods are required by them whilst the general mass of the people is reduced to unemployment and starvation. The former capitalist elite will create a post scarcity utopia for themselves whilst everyone else gets fucked.

full automatization will never happen under capitalism, if it does then working class would have no money to buy goods with forcing a complete collapse of the system. as you say one of the proposed solutions would be simply to introduce a universal basic income, this is a major flaw as it would drive up inflation beyond limits.

But I'm more concerned with your opinion that welfare makes people lazy, how did you come to this conclusion? What is to say that a human free from work does not choose to improve himself rather then creating profits for another man

What would you do in an automated society, user?

The point is to get rid of the private property and make everyone enjoy the fruit of robot labour rather than enable the eternal circlejerk of company owners while the rest fights for scraps. UBI, like all welfare systems, is a meme that will be fucked over sooner or later.

What most of the gyppos do here.

Sit all day and do nothing useful.

Are people on welfare more or less overweight than people who work, on average?

Find that out and you have your answer.

At least you wouldn't be in the way, which sounds more insignificant than it really is.

Cheap food that people on welfare subsist off of is generally shit. It has nothing to do with being physically lazy.

They aren't in an automated society.

You could be part of a genuine, sub dunbar, organic community somewhere. Doesn't that appeal to your """"fash""""" sensibilities?

But I like having my own area that no one can go in without my permission, why would anyone who owns private property go for this? This includes the working class who work themselves to death for 30 years with a mortgage.

Fruit, vegetables and meat are cheap, eating shit food is a choice.

kill yourself redditard

I always find it amusing when internet fascists talk about "the weak"

Who do you think would be? Most of us are college educated or working to be college educated or further.

Holla Forums has no real skills, no real future, no real way of insuring their quality of life in either capitalism or fascism.

And yet blindly and ignorantly they support their own demise.

...

You know nothing about me, then why do you assume I dont have future.
Because of my ideology?
Namefag, please.

...

Private=\=personal property

I'm glad I'm not in your head.

Hahahahahaha, how that cognitive dissonance going?

People have the ability to make decisions, they make bad decisions. Accept it.

Glad you asked. Do you pay people on welfare enough to participate in spciety, or just enough to warehouse them? If people on welfare can't go socialize with people because every commons is now a private business and costs money, they don't have much reason to leave the house and improve themselves, do they.

You don't get everything you like. Deal with it.
/conservatard

Aw hell no, don't go selling the bourgeois = evolved meme. Liberal education is much closer to the problem than the solution. Formal trades education can be dignified and useful.

Who's Porky? And why wouldn't they wind up along with their relatives in a ditch for selling the community out?

Explain how it isn't.

By all means, tell us your life story Holla Forums. Because on your board all of you self proclaim yourselves as NEETs for the most part.

You stereotype others, why be offended when you are fit under the same categorical discrimination?

kys liberal

I wasn't implying that, I was implying Holla Forums doesn't meet their own standards.

When leftist say "private property", they do not think of personal belongings, but of things like companies. After all, you own a company, but rather than treating it like a personal belonging(akin to a toothbrush), you "rent" it to your workers.

Private property is the factory robots personal is your toothbrush, house and all that

The leftists are trying to trick you. They'll tell you you can have ""personal property"", then, when the revolution comes they pull the 'ol Stalin toothbrush switcheroo.

Again, Holla Forums I was saying the standards you set, are not nearly the standards you meet. This is the unwritten rule of the modern fascist.

...

As opposed to Holla Forums, which is honest all the time.

You can always trust a nazi. Honesty is the highest virtue. Hitler would never tell a lie.

Just imagine an ordinary guy, going to a uni, living in an eastern euro shithole.

Also, I see you like everyday here, so i wonder who could be neet here, hmmm. Really makes you think.

Are you such a terrible poster because of having a vagina or because of eating infected dog meat?

...

Actually, under the current system I do. Why would I want that to change if I own a house through hard work? Why shouldn't I fight against it.

Why should anyone have to pay for someone on welfare to live a good life, welfare is a stop gap to prevent people from dying? Don't like not having money to go out? Get a job.

I've also been called a liberal and a conservative in the space of three posts.

So, by your logic, if I have a small business but don't employ anyone (mainly for tax/regulation purposes) is it private property (that you want to take) or personal property?

Yeah, I'm getting that feeling. I built my business and trained a few apprentices at a loss to myself, financially. They can't tell me I have to give control of what I built to the state.

It's 5:40 am user. I'm most active during the witching hours. It's also Saturday.

Both.

Ownership is an opinion.

Yes. Don't let them trip you up with their distinction between private and personal property. It's how the hardcore commie thinks. He's even lying to himself, in his head. You can't trust ==ANYTHING== a commie tells you.

So you're ok with me taking what was your stuff and your dog? Nice.

...

I'd say it's personal as long as you use it personally.

We are not liberals. We are in favour of workers owning the means of production. Workers managing their workplaces. Welfare as it is today is papering over a broken system.

It's not private property Marxist wise untill you 'rent' the MoP out for payment in labour

It would depend on what the business is.

In the sense that it's the assertion of some corncob that we happen to tolerate only because porky's on their side and is better armed.

Managing a business is using it, if the people who manages a multinational corporation then hes using it.

I suppose that applies to factories more than trade jobs. You can't really own the skills l've learned over the years.

As this relates to OP's question, if there are only robots working then there are no workers, therefore owning the means of production doesn't apply there.

If this was 100% the case, you'd have to drop that part of communism.

If the person who owns a business also manages it then he/she is using it.

Therefore by this arbitrary justification of what is personal and what is private, you cannot take some multinational corporations from people.

Honestly, this supposed difference sounds like a way of you taking profitable businesses from productive people while allowing you to keep your own property.

Now for a question, how many of you own your own business? I'm guessing none.

If full automation happens what will be the point of capitalism? You wont have a way to make money so almost everyone will die without welfare except rich Jews.

Definitely.
If you're a self-employed sparky or whatever, and you're still a prole, you're selling your labour, but you'd outside my vulgar Marxist class analysis if you only ever did work for homeowners.

Robots must be managed. If there's strong AI everything is different, humans probably don't matter in that case.

...

...

So are the people using the machines, cleaning the floors and packing the products in such company, yet they are not co-owners. It's even worse in case of absentee ownership.

Congrats on figuring it out.

But you are, unless your business is completely self-financed. You have to take loans to buy the tools you need to do your job, which means that the money you earn goes towards paying back your loan + interest. Capitalists are earning money off you work, which means you're a prole.

I thought you lot think that capitalism is all about class slavery or something? If it was then automation would be avoided at all costs, kind of like what unions and socialists are trying to do?

Whats preventing them from leaving that job and forming a workers cooperative?

In fact, what justification is there for people who work in a company having a right to own part of that company, therefore a portion of the profits, thats never been explained?

Why does being able to pay for the costs of my business upfront give anyone the right to take my stuff from me? This makes no sense.

...

Why does you starting a business give you the right to take my surplus value

It's harder to start a coop than a normal business, and normal businesses usually fail.

Why would anyone agree to work for someone without getting a cut of the workplace?

Nobody wants to take your stuff, you're a self-employed tradesman.
But if you are making your money by exploiting the labour of tradesmen, we think those tradesmen should have an equal share in your business.

Why does your initial investment, which can be measured and compensated for, give you the right to eternally exploit the working class?

Essentially the argument here is between the right to own by the fact of owning vs the right to own by using. Since the first one allows things like absentee ownership rather than going by the idea of "to each according to his contribution", I do not consider it too beneficiary overall.

If he is self-employed and the only worker in the business, then whose surplus value he takes?

I don't know, money?
The fact that the company wouldn't exist if not for them. They're the ones making all the money, the capitalist just own the company.

Being indebted is what makes you a prole, that doesn't mean we suddenly take your stuff once you can afford it yourself. The point of socialism is to make everyone 'self-employed', that is to say you personally own your workplace, and own it collectively if it's more than just you. You're not gonna lose anything. The only people who lose are the bankers and owners of the big companies

Hey, I was trying to be optimistic

obviously under communism unemployed people get paid too.

He seems to be arguing for the whole capitalist system so I'm arguing against it and not his specific situation

People you chose to work for me, you aren't being forced. If you want a portion of the profits of my company then make that part of your contract, if I don't want that then I won't hire you,simple.

People agree to work for their money beforehand and sell their value for what they do.

Then what makes you think a cleaner of a factory worker can run a business if the people who know how to fail most of the time?

Ask them. Virtually everyone does.

I didn't ask what you believe, but why you believe it.

Why does somebody deserve a cut of my business I created from the ground up if I decide to hire someone? They had no say or stake in the business up until that point.

Because I took the risk is making a business which, as we all know, has a high chance of failure. I get to employ people for whatever value we agree their labour is worth, signed and agreed upon with a contract.

People they sign a contract saying they are ok with selling the value of their labour for the price of their salary.

I'm speaking outside of my personal situation and about a hypothetical scenario.

Hence why people chose to work for someone whos already started a business, they agree to it.

The company would also not exist without the capitalist taking the risk of forming the company in the first place.

By that logic the company would not exist without the CONSUMER of those products, should they have a right to own part of that company too, if not then the logic of this is flawed.

Stopped reading there.

Enjoy the gulag you cuck

Walls of text refuting you on a phone will have the occasional mistake. Your post is not a refutation of anything countering your inconsistent ideology based on feelings.

If I was stuck on a cliff, down is death but you and another thousand people say they will drop me a rope but I have to pay $100 for each foot I climb would you say I wasn't forced to pay for your rope but freely chose it because I could have always not chosen yours but one of the other 1000 people who are offering it for a price

The only thing they agreed to is not starving, it is not voluntary. That's like saying a slave agrees to be a slave.
The only people taking a risk are the employees of that company. If his company goes under, he has a million and one safety nets, and probably a bunch of leftover capital. The workers have nothing.
Yes. That's what socialism is. Everyone who takes part in the cycle of production and consumption should share ownership of the means of production. That's the best system for the whole of society.

If the employed workers feel exploited they can always move to work for another business.

But in communism, everyone works for the state and if they feel exploited, oh no, gulag time. Where you want to send the guy who gave up his time and spent efforts so his business could succeed.

You're assuming them selling their labour power is a result of some inherent desire to work for others rather than the fact they need doing that to survive. 6th century European peasants were also "voluntarily" becoming serfs of the latitudinal owners, but that doesn't mean they were all masochists wanting to be bound to a piece of land.

How about you fucking google what communism is before you spout bullshit

You're mistaking communist economic system for socialism/"socialism" under marxist-leninist political system, which is considered shit by the majority of left-wingers anyways

Indentured servants in America sold themselves into slavery instead of going back to Africa, its not without precedent.

Whats stopping someone from agreeing to work for a period of time, saving up some money then getting a business loan? The evil capitalists managed it at some point.

Most companies operate while in constant debt, if a company goes under then the capitalist loses the ability to feed himself.

Ok, if I don't get to make any money, if there are no financial incentives to starting a business but massive risk, why would anyone do it.

Socialism in this way prevents the growth of business, which is incidentally why socialism never seems to become communism.

Utopian ideals mean nothing in reality, people have to work, they agree on a price for their labour. What you hate is the fact that people get cold, become hungry and get sick.

Capitalism gives people an alternative to dying 6th century peasant style.

So, in other words, the problem is you and you're projecting?

You deserve to die.

Why are you bringing utopianism into this? Also you are right capitalism gives people the chance to dye starving on the streets 21 st century hobo style

ideology

That means you're here everyday too.

Yes, capitalism is superior to slavery and feudalism, there is a reason why left-wingers appreciate French Revolution and Lincoln. But we want to go even further.
This thread started from us discussing the impact of the automation. Automation of work allowed things like 8 hour workday(from 14-16 hours, which is a lot) and I don't see how wanting it to be even shorter is utopianism. We're just merely pointing out that capitalists as a class want to maintain the process of automation without things like shortening of workday and so on because muh shekels, which creates the conflict of interest, not too much beyond that.

Oh, so slavery is good. Why am I wasting time with you again?
The fact that most jobs barely earn them enough to live, let alone start a business?
No, most of them inherited their wealth.
And who is giving him a loan? That's right, capitalists, and they lose nothing from the business collapsing. Not to mention the fact that most businesses are owned by investors, who also lose little from the business going under since they already have the fingers in so many pies (and the aforementioned safety nets). The capitalists you're talking about are literally the smallest fishes in the pond, they mean nothing.
People need to eat, people need goods, that's the incentive. People in the community realise they need shoes, so some people start a shoemaker's shop. If they need a lot of shoes, they build a factory.
As for risk, what risk? The risk in a capitalist business is that people don't buy your stuff, or that making the stuff is too expensive. The people made the store because they need it, so there's already demand, and the store isn't gonna collapse because of expenses, because people are gonna do what's needed to keep it running and them supplied with stuff.
How about you go and google socialism and communism and go back to us. Also read the anarchist FAQ, and Kropotkin, and once you're done with that read Marx.

Wagecucks BTFO.

You're just mad that they aren't slaves to capital like you are. Capitalists are the biggest welfare queens.

...

We could enjoy a life of abundance, leisure and self-realization — but you'd rather have people toil their life away or die of hunger than allow them to be "lazy".

This is how retarded Fascists are. Their mindless embrace of the Protestant work ethic is an obstacle on the road towards the abolition of work.

Pls no bully Romania.

That IS Communism you idiot.

I don't even know how such an ideology could come to be in a catholic country.

Nope, OP implied the mode and relationships of production remain the same.

Don't be so harsh on him, comrade, it's not his fault he's retarded

Gee, and Im the retard here.

...

And how will they make profits, enlightened one?

...

Not OP, just wanted to make him look like an idiot.

Really?

Grammar Nazi? On my Holla Forums?