Incentive in Socialism

because you're alienated from your work, if you weren't alienated you will like your job

There is no entrepreneurship in socialism, things get done because people wants them not because somebody decided to profit from those wants.

We have this thread all the time.

What about them?

MIG29 is still in use
SU 17 is still in use

Even if we're talking about general weapons, the AK-47, AK-74 etc. are still the most popular guns in the WORLD!

I mean what the fuck, out of all complaints, you decide to say the USSR didn't have a good enough "worth ethic"? You realise it was a semi-feudal economy 30 years before it achieved space flight right?

OH at an auto parts plant, while an employee watches their supervisor examine a marginal part as they're coming out of the press:
"Are you gonna buy one of these anytime soon?"
"Heh, no."
"Pack it."
Without the muh privileges granted to capitalists, the answer from the employee would more likely be yes. I thought y'all loved private property?

To read such blatant bantzcrap serves me right for coming back to this fake-as honeypot.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Even Marx himself said that capitalism rapidly accelerates human development. Again, you do this tactic where you just point out the flaws of capitalism which I don't object to but you aren't really giving me an alternative.

Sure, but then again what are you actually suggesting?

It's an anectode on how low incentive was widespread in Marxist-Leninists countries. Meanwhile you have giving me zero evidence of anything.

Alienation is already a pretty vague term within the Marxist jargon which doesn't really empirically suggest anything on how to provide incentives outsides of some metaphysical analysis similar to praexology. Commies have their alienation and AnCaps have their praexology. Both times it's a cheap cop-out to cobble together the inconsistencies in your ideology.

People sometimes don't like to work at all. You may be able to have scientists and such working because of their passion about the subject (I don't deny some of the scientific advancements of the USSR, even if most of them are just hijacked from Germany) but an economy isn't just fancy lab coats, it's a bottom-up structure where you need healthy incentives in the most basic fields of work. A chemist will gladly work for free because he loves the subject, but have fun with convincing a worker at an assembly line.

No you don't. Stop lying.

My point is that in the areas where the USSR was the most socialist, work was the most stale and unproductive. Only where you had constant government pressure and funding the results turned out to be good. You revel in achievements which where exactly caused by adopting capitalist/corporatist/fascist policies, not socialist ones. This isn't wrong, it's just not very socialist of you.

Private property doesn't have an inherent value in itself. We believe that that everything belongs to the tribe living on the very soil property rights exists. Private property should be put in line with the welfare of the people. It's a tool for organization and allocation.

you posted this without monetary incentive

I already addressed this. It gives me pleasure. Work which needs to be done isn't always enjoyable.

Apperently in commie land work is some sort of amusement park ride if it wasn't for ebul gabbitalists. Has any of you ever worked in a cooperative? Where you democratically decide on how to fix the vermin problem in the ten year old pipes? Yeah, totally deletes the "alienation".

Holla Forums gets at least 2 threads a week along the line of hurr if nobody gets paid no body has incentive to do anything so if you don't have a boss and get paid a wage all you would ever do is sit on your ass

A good first step would be to socialize finance, so that things that are actually important get invested in.

...

I'd like to claim I provided a little more than hurr durr. In socialism there are no wages. One of the biggest criticisms of Holla Forums towards the USSR is the existence of wages. You literally use the capitalist remnants of the USSR as an argument in this thread, while in another thread some Leftcom would bash the USSR for keeping exactly those.

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

I 100% agree. Fascists advocate this since the very beginning of their existence.

????????

Communism requires reshaping society so people still want to work hard despite no monetary reward. That should work fine for jobs plenty of people enjoy (science, art, cooking (not fast food), gardening; science has this already, some positions barely pay better and add a lot of work but people still take them because of the prestige boost), but I have no idea how that could possibly work for jobs nobody really likes but that need doing anyway. No, robots can't do all those jobs. Despite being able to assemble cars way better than our hands could ever hope to, robots are still far from able to do many "simple" tasks like cleaning a flight of stairs without falling, killing everyone on the way down and bursting into flames.
The Soviets tried to make up for it with something similar to Napoleon's perhaps made-up quote of "give me enough medals and I can win any war". I don't think it worked that well outside the battlefield, but they do try to gamefy everything nowadays so maybe the Soviets were simply ahead of their time. I still don't think that'd work for the really boring jobs, and personally I hate gamefication.

Posting isn't work. You, I and everyone else (except spooks, they do get paid) post for their own entertainment. The moment you have something more entertaining to do you stop posting.
(not OP)

Hitler massively privatized industry, and Mussolini essentially put corporations in charge of the legislature.

Why couldn't you just build the stair cleaning mechanism into the stairs?

Socialism means putting the workers in control. When this is the case, automation means more pleasure time and less labor put towards things like fast food, cleaning, sanitation, ect.

Industry isn't finance. If you claim that Hitler didn't nationalize the banking system you are intellectually dishonest.

Privatization under Hitler was done under the prerogative of the welfare of the people. It was private property the way it is currently in burger like muh freedoms and shit. As I said before, it doesn't have any inherent value, it's a tool for organization and allocation. Are you claiming that a bourgeois owner of a factory would get away with doing harm to the nation under fascism? No, he wouldn't. In capitalist liberal USA he would. That's the difference.

*It wasn't private property

Fascism cared a lot about the free time of workers and restricting work hours, see Kraft durch Freude. This isn't really a problem.

Despite him being a socdem he makes valid points regarding the inefficiencies of capitalism and the benefits of a centrally-planned system.

Anyway, I'm laughing at this shit-show, which involves socdems who want muh racial interest versus socdems who want muh best-guess proletarian interest. It's like WW2 all over again.

This is next level naivete and idealism.

Then name a single private owner of means of production in fascism who was actively doing harm to the nation with impunity. The ones who didn't agree with Hitler left the country and the ones who stayed used their best effort to help.

This isn't idealism. A combination of "spooks", such as national identity, social rewards and profit motive evidently provides the best incentive. You know what's idealism? To believe people work for free or for no distinguishable reward once you overcame some abstract idea about alienation. This isn't a strawman, I look at the replies in this thread.

When Star Trek becomes real, you and your children's children will dead since hundreds of years.

Fascism and liberalism are two sides of the same coin. The power relations are approximately the same.

Kindly distinguish between the nation (i.e. the people and their interrelations) and the state (i.e. the necessarily more or less parasitic structure that exchanges the people's labor abroad on their behalf in the state's own interest). As we can see in the burgerland today, they aren't nearly synonymous and their interests do not remotely coincide.

I flew over this but it seems to completely ignore the differences in quality which are tied to the work incentive. Sure the Soviets had a good formal productive output during the collectivization and industrialization, but how was the quality of their work? How many factories had long shutdowns because of shitty equipment?

Compare a Trabbi to a BMW sportscar. Sure you can say "the GDR had cars just like in capitalism" but holy shit those cars were crap

>socdems who want muh best-guess proletarian interest.
Also rich coming from a leftcom. Real socialists stand principally for proletarian democracy.

Regardless, Cockshott is right about the law of value still existing under socialism. You can't accept his positive idea of central planning without this.

Nobody outside of the Marxist circlejerk seriously believes this. In neoliberal corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do. In fascist corporatism, the state tells the corporations what to do. The power relations in fascism are very different from what you'd call a bourgeois state.

Just no. Even Leninists admit that the state is first and foremost a tool which can be used for good and bad.

It's funny how everybody on Holla Forums would call me an idealist yet they try to argue that work incentives can be enforced through some vague assumption of overcoming entirely abstract concepts while completely discarding that the profit motive is the materialist reason for as to why people work.

How is this not sheer idealism? How is this aligning with your materialist ideology?

Staunch Marxists are wrong, though the religious focus on the profit motive is a wicked thing and really needs some reform. Reform would be easier if we were smaller communities rather than a massive continent-spanning nation of mostly nothing, so I think reform is needed on the issue of of top-down government. Automation is not to the point where if it were seized by the proletariat, it would sustain an economy and we would have an ideal fully automated gay space communist society. Services are still required that cannot be provided by AI or automation. That is coming soon, and incentive will be a thing of the past. I can see an AI becoming 'conscious' and self-improving in the next couple of decades. Might be able to design useful automation techniques that humans wouldn't easily think of, but could easily construct. We just have to make sure the initial programmers of such an AI are ideology-free.

So are you saying the success of your ideology relies on literal Skynet or technological singularity in a very hypothetical scenario?

They can't harm what doesn't exist. Workers strikes were suppressed in Italy and Germany, Mussolini was consistently in the capitalists' pocket, and oversaw massive increases in unemployment, inflation and wage cuts.

If we are still on the fascist example, yes, they proved to be an excellent motive for nearly destroying all of continental europe.

How do you explain child rearing then? Or writing or art or open source programming? The fact is, there are other motives besides the profit motive. And, in regards to alienation, we experience alienation all the time. Most people don't work at what they'd like to work at. They just do it for that paycheck at the end of the month.

Yes, though without the depressing defeatist ideology of your post. As far as I'm concerned, the singularity is imminent and no reactionary babble is going to stop it, though I think when they see how nice it is, they'll shut up for once.

*yawn* Yeah yeah I know spooks and such. You know, just because an idea is an abstract concept doesn't mean that it material manifestations aren't. You can cry "SPOOKS" all the way you want when the inquisition ties you to the stake.

The same way capitalist subversion will be fought if it hurts the welfare of the nation, communist subversion will be fought as well. Puny argument, workers had a very, very good life under Hitler.

Mussolini was never able to obtain that sort of collective unity the NSDAP did in Germany. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with his theory. Careful with that line of arguing, it might backfire at you when someone holds Marxist theory up the standards of when it has been tried to apply it.

It's not like they got declared war upon by the entire world. Two can play at that game. "look at the Bolsheviks, they managed to drench Russia into one of the bloodiest civil wars!"

Yes, for fucks sake, this is exactly why socialism has a problem with work incentives. We are back at point one.

If there is something like a technological singularity (even though reading the Wikipedia article alone points out how there is so much wrong with this idea) it won't just BTFO "reactionaries". It would alter the entire humanity in an irreversible way.

You really like to nitpick at now-insignificant things. You really aren't any better than a communist who says the "not real communism" thing as a defense unironically, and you're just as annoying.

I for one bow down to my robot overlords and will be uploading my mind into the mainframe as soon as it's cheap and safe.

I didn't derail the thread. I was asking about work incentive under socialism and somehow everybody rather wanted to talk about fascism instead. I didn't mean to be annoying I merely defended myself, even though I never intended to debate fascism here - would be fruitless anyway.

It would be literally the same reason as under capitalism, only you get the full benefit of your labor instead of porky taking a chunk. The simple fact that you're working for yourself rather than for someone else is a huge incentive.

I don't. I won't cuck myself like that. Even though an AI might overpower me, even though an AI might outsmart me, I'm proud of my individuality and the mind and body which I was given by nature. I'd rather just die.

This is the literal definition of idealism. The bizarre idea that the real world is made from ideas and not the other way around.

And it would be the state or the church which does so, two very real things/organizations. However, people have all sorts of strange illusions about these institutions. That only makes them more dangerous, not less. In the same way a madman's ambiguous and obscure logic makes him more of a threat to those around him.

You won't have to fight capitalist subversion when capitalists already control the state.

And I'm sure the slaves in the roman empire had it better than slaves elsewhere, hmm?

Yes. """"""theory"""""

Whatever you may think of the communist bloc, it was far more successful when compared to fascism. And it's not like you had any actual theory beyond muh feels to being with.

Oh I'm sure german and italian expansionism had nothing to do with that. It was all the anglo and slav menace trying to keep the proud aryans down. The Bolsheviks didn't even start the civil war.

Most of those jobs are unnecessary to begin with. If we start treating them like a social problem, and deal with them, we can automate them and move on. In the interim, Marx fully admits that there will have to be a system where people get out in proportion to what they put in.

How would that concretely look like? In an industrial society, multiple people work in a place with specialization, producing a gear is useless unless you have the machine you insert it into. The way I understand it, socialism means collective ownership of the entirety of the proletariat which means goods will be allocated for the welfare of society, which means you gotta come up with a concept that emulates the "full benefit" of one's labor. And guess what? That's entirely subjective. But wages do reflect someone's contribution most of the times.

…and what did the Third Reich do? No Volkswagens for the people at all; they went to the military. Surely a pair of feet is quicker than a car, right?

So much for strength through joy.

Congratulations, you've almost formulated an XY problem. If it's incentive you want, then do something material. The narrative of 'national interest' only encourages people to work harder for the ends of a power structure up top; it also acts as if the interests of such a power structure are the same as the proletarians. One has to bend proletarian will out of proletarian desperation out of wanton consumerism, spectral sentiment or economic scarcity, the latter two of which were precisely part of what happened during the 1929-34 period in Germany and also in the USSR.

One cannot reject the USSR and support the NS system in Germany simultaneously.

What, so some people don't like working? Also, have you heard about gamification? Neolibs will probably use it soon.

see pic mong

Your system only guaranteed pre-Depression standards of living thanks to Keynesian policy and a reform of the currency (which died anyway due to the MEFO bills).

Unironically read Dauvé

You read just like a straw-man of Stirner. Why don't you want to be empowered by something which would be of use to you and serve you even in the aim of becoming an hero

it's time to go back

Did the Soviets provide that many work incentives during the Brezhnev era when AFAIK stagnation is widely regarded by MLs to have begun? There were huge differentials under Stalin.

Indeed, people are going on and on about revisionist history and just stroking their ideological cocks, really, but that doesn't mean you should start doing that too. Russian communism failed because of famine, totalitarian government and war. Most communism fails because of famine, totalitarian government and war. The guys in charge are not paying the clouds to not rain though. It's nobody's fault that natural disasters like droughts occur. The Cold War was a concerted effort by the imperialist capitalist economies, and was identical in its motive to the Iraq War and the Vietnam War: to bring foreign nations to their knees, starve them out and make them suck our dicks and be 'democracies'. It failed, instead we collapsed the world economy and made it more dangerous to live on Earth than ever in history, and Russia still has all of their nukes, and the socialist republics we very violently opposed still exist, and they prove that they still exist by being proud of still existing in the face of capitalist imperialism that tried to destroy them. They aren't living in misery, they believe themselves to be heroes.

That's depressing. Are you reincarnated from some Amish twat?

Not saying it was communism, but "it wasn't real communism" is not detailed enough.

Capitalism is just an idea. According to Marx, we would have reached the stage towards socialism already a long time ago. Yet it sustains itself pretty well. And that's all because of what Marx would call the superstructure. I was criticizing the Stirner retardation to just call something a spook to make it go away. Even if we would agree that the nation is a spook, it's manifestations aren't. If the becoming of a nation is caused by material conditions (I'd argue the desire for a tribe to form a coherent unit is part of the material conditions) doesn't imply that it's less of spook - if I'm understanding Stirner correctly.

Daddy I'm so oppressed

No you

Fascism was destroyed through warfare. The Eastern Bloc collapsed on itself.

Fuck off, Germany didn't even regain the entirety of what was lost after WWI. A communist denies that Anglo-Saxon liberal imperialism exists. Like pottery.

Just because some jobs are unnecessary doesn't mean that all jobs are unnecessary.

Not becoming a literal Borg drone means I'm Amish? Are you incapable of seeing the difference between turning on a light bulb and becoming a light bulb yourself?

Spooks have no manifestations, only reactions. This is why SJWs are also reactionaries.

If the simulation of waking reality is identical in every possible way, but could be altered just by thought, which I suppose would alter the coding of my personal experience, I would be quite happy living indefinitely in a computer. Talk about a blue pill, but that's heaven, and as long as my real body is not needed and can be disposed of, and the substrates of my consciousness can be entirely converted to a computer system, I wouldn't be worried about some external abusive and exploitative robotic "desert of the real". That's where The Matrix went wrong with the Matrix concept, I think.

Volkswagen were top quality cars. All I'm reading is butthurt. They went to the military because they were at fucking war. Are you that dense?

You just try to deviate from the problem I asked about because you have no real answer. I never said to reward people with idealistic shit. I argued for a combination of a monetary profit motive combined with patriotism to spice it up. Material base and superstructure, if you ever heard of that. But good job only quoting half of my sentence. Here is the thing you claim to be such a staunch materialist but your solutions are not based in material reality.

Did Hitler have a penthouse in St. Tropez?

As if you know what proletarians want. The interests of proletarians are fair wages, having a family, living in a beautiful country with strong values. This will trigger you extremely. But this is reality.

Because you are a Leftcom you claim that the USSR was capitalism. It's like I'm saying that chicken nuggets and a salat ate both food. Ergo they are both the same thing and you cannot reject one but eat the other.

Implying that's bad lmao

Please don't assimilate me, Borg Queen. What's your fucking problem with me defining what I want for my personal life? If I would install a cybernetic arm to myself, I might be 10 times stronger, but do I want that? Fuck no. I value my own flesh and blood and it's not your concern.

Have you watched the Black Mirror episode San Junipero?

Don't get triggered when transhumanists question you about your reasons for not wanting in on literally the best thing that could happen to humankind. Personally I think it sounds egoistic and narcissistic and I think that you need Buddha.

Can I ask why you support fascism?

Sure im mostly influenced by Georges Sorel and I'm thinking we are steering towards a catastrophe and are in urgent need of rejuvenation. I don't believe Marxism has the answer because of its a priori reasoning.

I don't want to be forced into something which value is highly subjective. You can build your transhumanist hivemind but I'd not like to be part of it.

Have you considered anarchism?

I'm actually sympathetic to some forms of national syndialism like the Falange but I think it's too idealistic to think that we could build an anarchist society in the 21st century.

But you are still a shill for capitalism

heh that makes sense since a criticism of anarcho-syndicalism from oth6er anachists is that it shares an uncomfortable amount of qualities with fascism

What is too idealistic about anarchism? Are you familiar with Rojava, and if so, what do you think are the fatal flaws of Rojava's system?

So you prefer a different kind of single-party totalitarian government, which is one of the reasons Marxist countries fail to flourish? Sounds pretty silly to me. Why not just forge your own ideology instead of reactionarily subscribing to one of the worst?

Your preconceived notions of a simulated reality and mind upload are rather odd. I have never once thought about it the way you are thinking about it, and I never would think about it that way because that is not something I am interested in either. I can assure you, one of the core tenets of the creation of this kind of system would involve retaining an individual sense of self, otherwise it would be pointless and more along the lines of Neon Genesis Evangelion's Human Instrumentality Project where everyone is essentially dead and egoless, but they're 'one'.

And what, you are a shill for mass immigration and cultural subversion? See, I can play the same game.

I don't believe capitalists should have all the power. I believe we should use the capitalists to provide welfare for the tribe. Similar to what China does since Deng, but with different cultural notions and no sweatshops.

That's not fascism, that's "national socialism", but actually doing what the name says, rather than Hitlerism.

That's literally how fascism came about, transcending the dogmatic autism of both capitalism and communism.

Also, have you watched Black Mirror?

I don't watch TV, but I read the Wikipedia article on that episode. Sounds cool, probably won't watch it though.

I'm not a 100% apologist of Hitler. Hitler is used for memes. We can take from his approach what worked, nonetheless.

"National socialism" is identical to "socialism in one country", aka Stalinism. Something good could come of it if it didn't resort to political assassination, isolationism and genocide. Economies and trade are global. Without global trade, a bad famine could wipe out a large swath of a country's population. Nationalism and globalism are not mutually exclusive and only extremists feel this way.

Except private property does exist under Not Socialism, individual incentives are rewarded, and the culture is entirely different.

I'm pretty sure you can tell that I do care about stuff like culture and don't discard it as a spook. And no, I don't want shit like the Proletkult.

Globalism puts the interest of rootless Jewish cosmopolitan above the welfare of the nation (see free trade agreements). Nationalism takes matters in its own hands by forcing global trade and capital to serve the interests of the county with tariffs.

Who owns the means of production in Not Socialism? Who decides which labor is worth which incentive? Stalinism and Not Socialism are both militaristic hero worship cults. I think nazis could be good if they stopped rallying around annoying manchildren ranting on stages about thoroughly unappealing isolationist ideas. Again, globalism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive. This is a rational take from a devil's advocate who doesn't believe in any conspiracies.

Lol, so the Jew conspiracy is the only thing standing between your mind and a rational understanding of why global trade is a good thing. Okay user, with that I must take my leave. It's really been a gas.

What I just wrote about Jews wasn't conspirative and Marx and literally every left-wing intellectual said the same fucking shit. Not my problem that you aren't allowed to speak your mind anymore because of muh gorillions.

It was proletarian para-capitalism; it did nothing to remove wage labour and stagnated as a result of several planning failures at the hands of bureaucrats. Even Grover Furr admits that Stalin's efforts to bring about a more democratic USSR failed. Pic related; no ML semantic sleight of hand can change the real results of a movement unless they didn't really try to establish proletarian socialism.

Projection much? If you don't directly serve the volk and pretend to act in what you believe to be their 'general interest' then you are simply justifying your own aims over theirs.

Ideology for ideology's sake, you say? In that case, let us make like the Satanist Ancap Nazbols with Posadist post-Spinozan characteristics; it's what people want anyway given the increasing nihilistic tendencies everywhere. Sources? My personal intuition and various anecdotes; are you telling me that you don't lurk as much as I do?

I don't care what their values are; I'd much rather leave them with a system which allows them to further whatever causes they have for mutual benefit.

No, I'm just saying that you glorify the NSDAP's actions too much.

Of course, but they still had the same 'I'm acting in your interest' line and associated power arrangement existed, regardless of its particular permutations. Nick Land was right about you being ethno-Bolsheviks.

Class-collaborationism won't give you the choice. Be weak if you want but ensure that you have a way out of your submission in case your preferences change. That being said, I'll make the Borg Queen look like a fucking Randian.

You're sounding just like a staunch liberal conservative who thinks that everyone here is a liberal. The ends of the bourgeois class as a whole are different from the ends of a few individuals; they want power.

social democracy has never been tried

Sure, at least wages won't decrease as much and there's power-based benefits to devolution but it's practically Zionism with Aryan characteristics or simply those of whatever social group you try to put there.

What of the Jews who stand against Zionism?

What is it that you get from it? Power? A particular kind of satisfaction?

SUPPLY AND DEMAND ECONOMICS

It's like you don't know what a labour market is, Bernie.

I spoke my exact belief. Jews are not trying to control your life by importing pineapples. Don't project your insecurities about being a Nazi in a post-isolationist world onto me.

I don't know about you, but I like pineapples, bananas and mangoes. Global trade has actual positive health benefits. Bernie campaigned on the fallacy that manufacturing can be resurrected in the United States. I think the government should take responsibility for our rampant technological progress and get the people who lost their manufacturing jobs because of a modernizing global economy back into work, and make it good work, because as the former producers for this country, they deserve it more than most. There's not a shortage of jobs, it's just that nobody is sacking up and starting some public works projects and programs to get these people who lost their jobs back into work.

Military and Volk are not mutually exclusive in their interest, especially when a connection between the two is webbed through conspriction. Check your premises.

No you edgelord. Anthropology and psychoanalysis both imply that we are attracted to some sort of objective beauty and that we are tribal. We are primates.

You are a Leftcom. I'm more scared of MLs.

A class isn't a hivemind. Your entire ideology rests upon the absurd assumption that some abstract relations to production, disregarding the cultural milieu, are somehow defining what this very specifically selected group of people want.

Social Democracy has proven itself impotent within the machinations and restrictions of liberal plutocratic democracy. Social Democracy can only work if it's liberated through Fascism.

Are Aryans trying to move into a region which is already inhabited by other people? Are Aryans leeching off a superpower to deliver them nukes to keep said other people in check?

t. STEMfag. Your fedora is showing.

I wish they would. But no, Jews are part of financial industry which doesn't produce any value instead of parasitic economic relations and force interracial porn on the pornhub frontpage even though I never watched it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Why do you treat jews like they're a monolithic entity?

Come on, man. And I wish you wouldn't say that stuff about Jews. It's really sad what some people believe today. The internet is not a reliable source of information when ideology is involved, and the stuff you are saying about Jews is pure ideology. If you slashed that one bit of detached craziness from your personality, you would be an appealing person to be around.

Because they are cosmopolitans since the Roman Empire, they don't have a homeland so they base their entire identity on global tribalism, trying to leech of the Goyim as much as possible. If you go to Japan, how high is the chance that people speak Japanese? Wow don't tread the Japanese as some monolithic entity. History has hardcoded stuff into the Jewish identity which spawns over borders.

You won't find Bernie saying negative things about Israel.

Assassin's Creed is fiction, user. Identity is not coded into DNA that determines ethnicity.

It's perpetuated through the values you are brought up with. Tribal idenitiy however does leave remnants in your genetic memory, not specific ones, but they do exist. You'd probably react in a very specific way to a neanderthal because of thousands of years of experience humans lived side by side with them which has a trace in your genetic memory.

Other than that, I'm not a racist. I share Mussolinis view on race.

It's like you people assume jews have some sort of "essence" that transcends time and space.

Class is not hivemind in the literal sense, but I definetily think that it's preferable to collaborate with people who are in a disadvantaged position like me, rather than collaborating with people who only share my skin color and nothing else. I don't think that you really believe that there is some kind metaphysical bond between members of race when one of them works 10 hours a day, lives in a small apartment, eats instant noodles instead of any kind of proper and healthy food and struggles with debt, and the other one snorts coke and fucks bitches all day long thanks to daddy's money which came from exploiting the working class.

That video only applies to non-physical repetitive labor, you still need to offer monetary rewards to people doing construction, if only for the people that aren't planning the job. But engineers are the ones that plan the job, so yeah, anything manual labor or that just requires repeated memorized actions(most jobs) that you can break down into steps, that you could have a robot do them, you still need to offer people money.
Unless of course someone makes a robot capable of doing the same things physically as humans and someone else breaks down what the job entails into steps, and tells the machine to do those things.

...

I found that a bit fishy. As in replication crisis fishy.
The video doesn't give source so I had to make do with random googling, anyway in this metanalysis
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.562.7214&rep=rep1&type=pdf
table 6 gives a 20% increase in performance in cognitive work with higher rewards.
I'm a bit confused because in table 2 they give a monetary vs non-monetary distinction (what do they use elsewhere?, it doesn't say) but monetary rewards were more effective anyway.
To be fair it might just be bad reporting and not bad science, whatever.

It's like nazifags have no self-awareness at all

The bum never held a job. What the hell would he know?

1.He was a journalist
2.argument not found

My mistake; I misintepreted that and argued against free trade. However, regardless of their being no job shortages, wage prices still decrease AFAIK.

Who enacted the laws behind conscription? Those who were elected by a desperate proletariat through a libdem system whose flaws allowed them to consolidate their rule? Those who spewed ideology everywhere?

pic related

Even if you say that this isn't applicable, you're not posting any sources of your own.

People often associate and disassociate from tribes- wait, hold up:

MEFO BILLS

It's okay as long as people within some social abstraction are doing it to members of their own group, right? People with similar economic interests will act in similar ways. Do the Zionists complain about their anti-imperialist measures when they wish to defend and expand Israel?

The rash aims of the fascist bourgeois led to such a collapse. If they were solely focussed upon value extraction, then ultraliberal democracy would be best for them. Utility for the bourgeois lies within liberalism; fascism is a temporary compromise.

put it best. Go back to your CIA honeypot Stormfront, Herr Snownigger.

E D G Y
D
G
Y

Even given DNA, epigenetics exist. So does neuroplasticity.

…and who's been manipulating them? No, it was all organic!

For your sake, this had better be a self-aware spoof.

Like I said, the bum never held a job.

Are you retarded? It's more of a job than anything Rand, Friedman, or Rothbard ever had. He was a European correspondent for the New York Tribune.

Being a journalist, labor organizer, activist and author are all jobs. And everything while being chased by Prussia throughout Europe.

This is all you Lefties do. Journalism, community organization, "education," social sciences etc. Then you dictate how the true working class–the labor class–should live. Then you wonder why you're completely at odds with them and why they hate you. Get a real fucking job and see how we live, you parasitic bums. We're the backbone of civilization. You're the leech. The working class hates you for a reason.

But it's capitalism that dictates how workers should live.

What about the hundreds of millions of supporters of proletarian movements through history?

That is literally capitalism and what capitalists do. And again, "we", all I see is a LARPing snowflake pretending to be a "real worker" and browsing leftypol to yell at leftists.

...

Oh and
Tell that to Rojava

Ask yourself how a typical capitalist company does this. The answer is: with all the typical mechanism employed by a centralized, hierarchical bureaucracy, because this is how companies currently function. It is perfectly conceivable communism will replicate this (these kind of structures have proven to be really good for creating loads of goods, winning wars, etc. after all), with the critical difference being that no-one will be forced to work only to meet their base material needs, and that there will be no class of non-working "owners" extracting surplus value. Or, perhaps more egalitarian structures will dominate. That's not the central issue to me. What it is all about is implementing a system where a base level of needs is met, and where no surplus is expropriated from those who work beyond that needed to ensure that the former is achieved.

Under communism, everyone will always have their base-level needs met, but the leftover after that is achieved will be kept by whoever truly realized it, which will automatically incentivize productivity and efficiency. The more efficient you are, the more you end up with above the base level. But, you will never be able to put said gathered value "to work" as capital that generates income without work from your part.

So yeah, you might end up with people who can do a lot of conspicuous consumption and fly a gold plated spaceship. But they will have gotten that from doing a job that other people really, really valued. And not from happening to sit on the accumulated dead labour of previous generations, or from extracting rents from some kind of (artificial) monopoly, or from swindling others.

Why do people keep confusing communism with some kind of absolute equality?

The people who were genocided and oppressed you mean?
Then get off your ass, stop writing little pop-culture critiques, and get a real fucking job.

Hello liberal, how are you doing today.
If we are leeches, why would be want to abolish this nice system where we don't have to do anything?

All you do is critique with no experience. You speak on the inner city from the suburb. You speak on the war from your classroom. You speak on factory condition from your air conditioned office. You're filth. Your critiques are worthless. They're ineffectual and regressive. You are leeches off the productivity of the working class in that your pathetic existence wouldn't be possible without the working class. Your comfy little life of sitting on your ass and critiquing things you couldn't even begin to comprehend, all the while using those critiques as a means to alter the very reality of those people whose lives you feign understanding of. You're scum. You are the enemy of the working class.

still waiting for any arguments, all your posts so far have been namecalling and baseless assumptions

Either you know what my argument is and you know I'm right, or you're too stupid to deduce the argument that's there.

quality posting

That is precious. Where to hell are you located?
I am living on a modern farm. We are small so we aren't like any of the mega farms. It combines the responsibility of the business owner with the work or the labourer. You have to work every day without exception. If you want a vacation you have to hire someone to do the work for you. Which we can't do because we don't have the money to do that. You have to deal with all kinds of people. Banks keep pressuring you to expand to keep the money coming. The government keeps checking on all kinds of standards, with penalties if you fuck up. We even had to deal with the police because of conflicting laws in this bureaucratic shithole. Milking cows is practically factory work. You spend 5 hours a day standing between the shit and piss of cows while applying milking machines. The rest is spent feeding them and fixing equipment that breaks every so often. You need farmland otherwise the government will fuck you in the ass. So you have to maintain that as well. Which requires, even more, work and large machines. And the best of all, politicians always cut our profits first. While China is outperforming with cheaper labour and pressuring us. At the same time, all taxes go to the large cities, not a single penny goes to us. Our internet is still in early 2000's conditions. Our roads have more potholes than you can count. And public transport has been removed in our area.
So no, I am not a city liberal. All I want is to get rid of production for exchange-value and return to production for use-value, yet not having to live like a peasant in the process. And only communism is advocating for such. Are you sure that you aren't the one glorifying current working conditions?

If we are able make a living by writing critiques (I'm pretty sure that 99% of us don't but whatever), than that means that we are doing something right because some people are willing to pay for it. At least in the context of this system.

I thought it was our job to say that

Meanwhile the University professors and their students, as well as social critics, assorted academics and intellectuals etc. who nearly all preach some form of Socialism or Communism, put their full weight behind the expansion of government and the theft of your productivity that makes your life so difficult now. The real world outcome of socialism and communism, every time. It's always led by so-called "intellectuals" and other assorted pampered filth who speak from positions of comfort with zero real world experience of the conditions which they speak about, as they warp our realities to suit their moralistic desires. Funny how you praise Marx when he's the enemy of everything you stand for.

It's not difficult to sell moralism to a bunch of ignorant suburbanite children who have zero real world experience and who grew up in relative comfort. That's what all of these Leftist intellectuals, social critics, journalists etc. do. They just manipulate the ignorant and the young. That's not exactly a productive "right." That's a regressive "right." There's a reason why people call you regressive. Real world working class peoples coined this term for you. Not some paper pushing comfy journalist sitting at a desk making six figures for pushing propaganda.

Let me guess. You never actually read Marx? What do you think communism is? With farmland and cattle we own, we could produce enough to feed ourselves. But because we couldn't own this without a loan, we are stuck producing exchange-value so that we can pay off our loan and get food on the table. These are all things Marx explains. Workers have no means of production. The only reason small-time farmers have means of production is because bankers lend them to us. We don't get to decide what we do with them. And if we do we get fined, and possibly thrown of our property if we "go too far". These are all conditions of capitalism. And I don't care if "them city folk" don't understand Marx or communism. All they preach is a different capitalism, which has nothing to do with Marx. You can't just say, Marx wasn't a worker, therefore, his analysis is wrong. Nor that people calling themselves Marxists are actual Marxists. I understand what it means, and that is enough for me to be a communist. And what is the alternative? Nazis don't care either. They also want capitalism with a fascist face. Libertarians don't understand that the alienating labour process and the expansion of production still happen under free market capitalism. Socdems are capitalists on anti-depressants. Liberals are just plain retarded. It is either semi-ironical Pol Pot or regular communism for me.

You type like you're legitimately mentally ill

A guy who never worked a day in his life is going to explain this to me?
No, they preach Socialism, and in doing so the same real world effect that you always see in a society drifting toward socialism takes effect–centralization of government and the worsening of living standards for the population.

TL;DR: sour grapes.

yep he hasn't

marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/dictatorship.htm

Then Ricardo and Smith and every other intellectual never "worked" a day in their lives either, and they taught people everything about capitalism during generations. You couldn't sound like a more generic conservative if you tried.

"Intellectuals" don't live in the real world. They draw up their little ideations for how we should live, according to them, and then deluded fools buy into it. Anyone every attempting to bring these delusions to fruition inevitably creates an atmosphere where government is able to usurp total power. It happens every time.

When I want to know how a factory functions best, I'll go the floor manager and the workers, not some University intellectual.

Oh fuck off, the only jobs I've ever had have been shitty menial labour, including a warehouse where i had to work 8 to 10 hours shifts in fucking 45°C temperatures, while earning shit pay that barely covers the ever increasing cost of housing. Stop projecting your own lifestyle onto other people, you petite bourgeois liberal parasite.

I understand that reading too much makes your brain hurt. So I will keep it simple.
1. Marx's analysis is not hypothetical theories based on algebra. He went to a lot of different factories, watched to labour process, talked to workers and economists.

2. You can not understand macroscopic economics by only looking at the labour process. It also requires an understanding of the market and how money circulates. How much we get in wages, what we can buy with wages, how prices of production change exchange values. How rent is connected to to the mode of production. These were all things Marx went out to see for himself. A worker can't do this. Which means that you can't create a critique of capitalism without some freedom from being a worker.

3. You have no philosophical understanding. You argue based on emotions and incomplete knowledge. You don't understand dialectics or the difference between the particular and the universal. Without these a proper analysis or difficult. Intellectuals have their uses. You just need to understand when and for what they are to be used.

4. Socialism isn't about taxation. And you still haven't given me an ideology which solves my predicament about use-value and exchange-calue.

5. You still haven't told me if you read Marx.

6. Being a prole isn't an excuse for being unlearned. I can attest to that.

There's that LARPing rhetoric that people stopped using a century ago.
Also I'm not projecting. I'm a carpenter. I speak from experience, unlike a Leftist.

"Intellectuals" should not exist. There is no place for an "intellectual." The propagation of secondhand knowledge as fact leads to problems. Knowledge should come from firsthand experience, to some degree, not entirely from secondhand experience.

better get off the internet then fagget

Petite bourgeois means having characteristics of the petite bourgeoisie, or small business owners. It's perfectly legitimate to use it in the context, given the nature of your ideology.

I bet you even own your own business.

Why's that? I'm not sitting here, far removed from the working world, critiquing their existence, and advocating political change on their behalf in a manner that drastically affects their lives, leaving me completely unscathed should my ideations be completely unfounded and off the mark.

Being a carpenter requires tenfold more physical labor than working on a factory line, you LARPing schmuck.

Confirmed for being a small business owning faggot.

And yet you are subject to misinterpret said experience just as the mainstream media would have it. Do psychological quirks not exist, from the Mandela effect to ASMR? Marketing and ideology are everywhere; unless you have mystical and/or Platonic knowledge, you are unable to form any judgements from your own knowledge, even if you independently come to a conclusion which has never been reached before by any man.

For example, is your understanding of socialism firsthand? If someone - anyone at all - told you what 'socialism' is, then according to your logic you'd have to instantaneously reject that decision. Do you live in the 'real' world when you are constantly making your own assumptions, many of which aren't even of use to you in explaining and shaping the world? And what is your view, anyway: a thing-in-itself? Are you suggesting that your perspective on the world can be determined without reference to other pieces of information, Holla Forumsyp?

Can you give me your own working model of the economy without using any information besides whatever is in your mind?

Do as says and go to solitary confinement if that's your attitude.

hard burger detected

what can we possibly do now

Are you mentally slow?

The internet is entirely composed of second hand information. Do you even live what you preach? You're honestly a bit of a loser.

I'm not sitting here advocating and economic or political system of my own creation, I'm advocating against your beloved intellectuals and their failed, destructive ideals.

also what said, go listen to a podcast about Descartes and Kant etc.

You dodged my accusation and started sperging on about how hard your work is. I took that to be an admission that you're either self employed or a small business owner. A petite bourgeois faggot either way.

Here's the difference between me and your beloved intellectuals.
Me:
Your beloved intellectual:
Their lack of experience then becomes very significant.

Your accusation that I'm a business owner? I'm not. Also I said that because you stupidly implied carpentry isn't a labor intensive working class job, when in reality it's one of the most crucial jobs in a civilization and one of the most labor intensive. As are all trade jobs, skilled or unskilled.

Ah yes, I too am constantly accosted by roving bands of intellectuals imposing their viewpoints on me. Seriously, how weak are you to get all prissy about what people write?

How the fuck are "intellectuals" dictating how to live your life. Do you think that "intellectuals" somehow have power over you?

Lel, a carpenter in America? That must be hell. Come back when your family has worked in a mine in the third world, stupid liberal.

It's not just about what they write, you dunce, it's about their influence in modern society. Intellectuals and other assorted filth, such as journalists, are a major influential part of mainstream social consensus, and thus the talking points of politicians and the direction of governance. This directly affects my life.

Oh no, life in my first world country isn't as bad as some third world cesspit like Nigeria; therefore I have no right to defend my way of living. Go suck a migrants dick and praise him for his hardship you lowbrow moron.

It just means they have superior ideas to the ones you support, in the Darwinian sense. They must be ideas that are better at propagating and multiplying themselves, and thus, better ideas. If you're so mad, come up with better ideas yourself in stead of whining like a little bitch.

…using information which you got from the mainstream media?

Dodging like an AI which isn't engineered to reply well- wait a minute…

…even the ones whom you support such as the pro-capitalists? I dare you to come up with an original thought if you're so doubtful and yet not admitting that you've got a bias while highlighting those which we have. No-one here is an impartial prophet. In essence, do as says and make a critique of socialism and the entire left which we can't debunk. You're not having much success right now.

…not forgetting Hegel.

I never said it wasn't intensive, I took objection to you implying you were from a lower social strata than factory workers (who are basically the second lowest level of the proletariat, above only the unemployed) because of the work you do. Tradies tend to earn a fuckload more than your average unskilled laborer (here it's about double on average) and are far more likely to own their own business, or at least be self employed. To compare them to your average wage labourer is a fucking joke.

That's not what it means at all. It means their platform for propagating their beliefs is superior, and that's intentional. They're nothing more than propagandists, supported and elevated by people with similar ideals. This is why Right-wing ideals are the counter-culture and growing. The Left is the establishment in nearly every large institution.

Comparing one laborer to another is redundant. They both play an important role to society and are an absolute necessity for success. An intellectual on the other hand is nothing more than oppressive hand on their backs guiding them where they don't want to go, with the backing of a political apparatus who heeds their advice against the laborer's wishes.

There are no incentives for quality labor or entrepeneurship in socialism. There is no production for profit, money, or private property in socialism, so those concepts become incoherent.

Nope. not dodging. You're just to stupid to see that I undermined your snarky, stupid little point. Go compare an apple to a watermelon somewhere else.

Yup.

You're living in an alternate reality then.
The right wing is the status quo and has been for the past 150 years. This is what happens when you learn politics from memes.

Left =/= liberal. The left has no power in the media, universities, etc., those are almost exclusively idpol liberals. If you hate those, you should look into nazbol ideas, it will suit you.

Now THIS is utter bullshit. Unless by left you mean identarian liberals sperging on about trans-rights or whatever their pet minority happens to be at the time. Marxists are a small minority in any university, even more so in other public institutions (governments aren't exactly fond of employing honest to god commies). This idea that somehow there's a "long march through institutions" is a conspiracy theory on par with denial of the moon landings or believing the earth is flat.

Not if one of them owns a business and exploits other workers it's not. Labourers are absolutely necessary, blood sucking cappie scum are not.

Kek. This shit again. I hope you realise scientists and engineers also qualify as intellectuals. And they are absolutely essential to the operation of an industrial society.

To add to this:

Market socialists are state capitalists. Mutualists are liberals with orange and black characteristics.

Marxist-Lenists are state capitalists.

Communism is a social revolution which does away with the present order of things. In Communism, it will be impossible to own private property. By that I don't mean that the State will ban private property, but as a consequence of the social revolution, private property will become meaningless and the desire to own it will disappear. Similarly, currencies will become useless pieces of paper, which you won't be able to exchange for anything, not because you aren't allowed to, but because they have become meaningless pieces of paper. Wage labor will become impossible, because you can't be paid for your work, private property won't exist, and it will be impossible to sell your labor power for wages. The production Plan will meet all needs, by definition - if it does not, then we don't have Communism.

When I say "intellectual" I use it as a pejorative for these worthless protected University professors, social science majors, and other assorted talking heads who preach ideology from a position of influence. Not people doing grunt work in a lab.

meant to quote myself:

I don't need to worry about your view of Communism, because it will never happen. It's what happens as a result of the failed implementation of that that I worry about. The dictatorships that arise as a result, and the genocides and oppression, and the horrid living conditions. It happens every time. This is why people say "no true scotsman." It's not about what Communism is, as a theory, but what it results in in reality.

In that case fair enough, I'm not exactly a fan of them as they tend to be liberals, but if you think that these clowns actually have any degree of power you're completely deluded. For the most part these "talking heads" are acting on behalf of people with actual wealth and power (eg. capitalists and politicians). And they certainly aren't communists.

Don't worry, you don't have to implement anything. It will happen anyway with the material development of the productive forces.

That's his point; he's trying to say that he works harder.

The problem here is that he is an active part of and a supporter of an unstable system which crashes frequently only to be revived using public funds. This same system (called 'capitalism') is extremely inefficient as shown by the failures of the market mechanism to distribute goods such as streetlights.

libcom.org/files/Sheppard-Inefficiancy-read.pdf shows many more examples of the failures of the capitalist mode of production.

Oh, hang on, according to , he wants to let go of his now-irrelevant statement about him being a hard-working person since comparisons between labourers is vain.

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

Oh, wait, that's intellectual propaganda! It cannot be useful to me in any way because I am a deity on Earth who knows what the world's true problems are!

You didn't address ; all you did was change your scope of discussion, which I can refute anyway:

Tell me, does austerity not exist? Marx saw reductions to the scope of government spending.

Hello, Paul! How thrilling it must be to have such cynicism: economics is dominated by neoclassical edgelords and the other social sciences are populated by 'Marxist' closet-liberals who preach the Gospel of Biological Essentialism to justify their postmodernist analyses of the world which they imagine themselves to be in rather than applying historical materialism and class analysis to explain the power relations and their dynamics. These are the people whom politicians and major businesspeople listen to in order to keep the liberal establishment afloat by putting a happy face on capitalism rather than even being traditional-Keynesian socdems - the very Starbucks hipster-capitalists whom you hate. Leftists will line these people up against walls if they hesitate to forget their lumpenproletarian and bourgeois ways. Listen to ; this individual knows what they are talking about.

What next, you're the Last Son of the West? 'The West' must've dropped you at birth; we can play the 'fucking establishment intellectuals' game too; we have more than our fair share of "worthless protected University professors, social science majors, and other assorted talking heads who preach ideology from a position of influence".

Even in attacking one particular kind of communist methodology which is often criticised for 'not being communist enough' in some sense or another, you fail hard.

reddit.com/r/communism/wiki/debunk

Reddit tankies can argue better than you can. For example, the Holodomor was a manufactured lie in which many rich peasants even killed their own livestock in protest against state officials despite the former group's knowledge of a famine. The USSR had democratic processes and according to Grover Furr, Stalin was even trying to make it more democratic despite implementing large wage differentials.

Even if these regimes were truly shit, you neglect the lacks of material resources that they had and bourgeois actions against them (the USSR was backwards and feudalist-capitalist before the Bolshevik takeover and got baited into Afghanistan and the Arms Race by the USA; Cuba was blockaded by the USA despite having wiped out numbers of AIDS cases; Allende's Chile was destroyed by Pinochet's army, itself funded by the CIA). You have no knowledge of history and gleefully claim that Marxist-Leninist nations were intrinsic failures despite massive evidence to the contrary. Read Marx, lurk more and fuck off.

A massive amount of "if only's". If only the farmers donated their storages, if only cuba wasn't blockaded, if only the USSR hadn't been baited by the US.

Your point being? History shows that the communist revolutions of had every chance of working but were sabotaged to extents which outweighed their internal failures in particular ways which were not foreseen by leftists. There is large disagreement within factions of the left regarding the reasons behind the failures.

If only it wasn't for the irresponsible subprime lending scandal in '08 or overproduction back in '29.

Furthermore, you've made no comments regarding the rest of what I say. Feel free to disregard it but all you're doing is strengthening me.

Addressing the original question, capitalism is born from primitive accumulation of capital, basically stealing everything. Given that this is the base of all the workers' "efficiency," that they have to work harder under capitalism than under primitive communism, one could say the root of all the efficiency is oppression through original dispossession. Man is dispossessed of the environments, the flora and fauna of prehistory that sustained him, via the establishment of prehistory. If this is where efficiency comes from then who gives a shit. If the coming socialist society decides to devolve into some sort of hunter-gatherer commune system then so be it, it's there decision. If they find a way to increase efficiency beyond that of capitalism while not exceeding the carrying capacity of nature, then good for them. I'm fine either way.

Well there's something you don't see every day.

OP, I can't speak for the MLs (and I'm not a Marxist), but regarding the general problem of incentivizing quality labor under socialism, it comes down to these cases:
(1) For many people, there is an intrinsic value to their job independent of money. For example, a nurse not paid a lot for what she does, enjoys the fact that she is helping patients. An ice cream vendor, not paid a lot, enjoys his job from the smiles he sees on the faces of children. Parenting is another example of unpaid labor that has intrinsic value.
(2) For other jobs, there is a bigger incentive for quality work when the worker is in a position to control his own workplace. Studies show that worker cooperatives are more productive and worker participation is higher. And despite the fact that socialism demands more than just cooperatives, they do work against the profit motive since in a cooperative, individual success is either tied to work done or distributed equally (unlike in a corporation where there is an inverse relationship between work done and compensation).
(3) For the remainder of unsavory jobs that no one wants to do (or that are too dangerous to do), they can probably be automated. We have the technology. This might be for things like sewer work or mining.
(4) If there's work left over that no one wants to do and cannot be automated, then it should be shared equally. It is not likely that anything exists in this category after considering (1-3), but if so, then the work should be distributed equally (in a volunteer system).
Notice that the alternative to (4) is that some people will be forced to work unsavory jobs under penalty of starvation, rather than have that responsibility shared in a volunteer system.

I know Chomsky isn't too liked around here, but he addresses this rather well. I've summarized his ides on labor under socialism.

youtube.com/watch?v=h_x0Y3FqkEI
(Somewhere in the middle around 15min he starts discussing this problem of work incentives.)

I didn't mean to spoiler those words, btw.

Work on the margin is mostly not pleasurable. It might be for the first hours but we will always get bored and end up resenting it.

Capitalism does not incentivize creativity and innovation, it exploits it. People will want to do something with their lives, it's a common aspect of the human experience.

additional material luxury for shit job.
The guys maintaining the sewers and picking up garbage should have bonus products in additions to their needs, as well as social reconnaissance
that or repartition of shit job, everyone work on shit job a year in his life or smth like that