a random agatha2 banner

/agatha2/ - E-Girl Purgatory

e-girl gossip & drama


New Reply on thread #4427
X
Max 20 files0 B total
[New Reply]

[Index] [Catalog] [Banners] [Logs]
Posting mode: Reply [Return]


 >>/5610/
Your mistake is thinking that communism can be "applied."

Marx:
> Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

You're too fixated on Stalin and Co.
 >>/5599/
> everyones needs were truly met
If everyone's needs are met, then what exactly is stopping people from just not working? Again, there's the same problem you're not addressing.
thumbnail of educate urself.jpg
thumbnail of educate urself.jpg
educate... jpg
(71.33 KB, 465x703)
 >>/5608/
Why is it that leftists can never actually have a discussion? You have the chance to convince people to your viewpoint and all you can do is deflect and go "educate yourself".
The guy asked a simple question: What should a communist society do to people who just dont want to work. All you've done is refuse to answer him and told him to go read a book.
 >>/5599/
 >>/5626/
Hey here's another one you wont answer: What if someone wants something beyond their "needs"? What if I want gold diamond ring, or a banana in Iceland like that other guy said. How can I acquire one of those in communism?
Surely it's not fair for the commune to just give one of those to me and not everyone else.
 >>/5627/
I did answer by asking to elaborate what he meant, since he seemed to imply that in a communist society everybody should have to work (?). in order to have a discussion there has to be a basic understanding of the matter by both sides, something which is clearly lacking here, that's why I suggested that the guy should do a little preliminary research. I am not your tutor, I don't have to explain anything you can easily learn yourself by a google search.
If there's not that basic level I mentioned, the discussion becomes pointless and revolving around preposterous, childish questions like this  >>/5628/ or the one about lazy people, which is a waste of everybody's time. You can keep throwing poop around pretending you're having a sensible argument, that doesn't mean I should play along or be interested in it.
 >>/5645/
i stopped arguing with rightoids who claim to read but ask the same 10000 questions once i realized 99% of what they ask is answered by the first chapter of capital vol 1. and critique of the gotha programme. they dont read anything and none of the answers you give will do anything. they just move the goalpost and keep strawmanning with dead dictators no one even likes except internet autists.
 >>/5645/
> should do a little preliminary research. I am not your tutor, I don't have to explain anything you can easily learn yourself
Again with the "educate yourself"
> childish questions like this  >>/5628/ or the one about lazy people, which is a waste of everybody's time
And again refusing to answer.
This is why nobody takes communists seriously, and why everyone mocks them online. You think everyone should already be familiar with your point of view, and you absolutely refuse to just explain yourself. ANY intelligent person can summarize their argument in a couple short sentences, but communists never seem to be able to do that. It's always "educate yourself" or "no that's not MY definition of communism so I win".
The only way for a communist to win an argument is if it's with someone who already agrees with them.
Last chance: What does a communist society do if someone refuses to work?
 >>/5653/
Different anon here. They're not entertaining you because your questions seem absurd and baity and honestly seem obvious to anyone who's slightly familiar with Marxism. It also requires far more effort to answer questions that you're asking than it takes to ask them. I'll go ahead against my better judgment as a gesture of good faith. 

People are already lazy and don't work under capitalism. Have you ever worked in an office? Those dingy buildings are filled to the brim with people who do *maybe* 2-3 hours of actual work in a whole day. Factors like reciprocity with your community and social obligation are much more motivating than simply having to do the absolute bare minimum to not be fired. 

A lot, if not most by this point, of work in the first world is completely pointless and only serves to continue an endless cycle of capital. Advertising jobs, data analysts, accountants, office clerks, schedulers, managers, salesmen, etc. Believe it or not, the vast majority of jobs aren't actually needed. The fact that there is an "unemployment problem" is indicative of this. Despite mass unemployment striking the US every few years, the world has always continued to spin and only takes a hit if there is a mass strike by people whose jobs actually matter. The fact that there are so many people unemployed yet society still functions as normal should be a GOOD thing but instead is considered bad—Why? Because people need money from a job to survive. Thus tons of "bullshit jobs" are created. 

> but what if someone is perfectly able to work and simply refuses to
Well, what happens to those people under capitalism, a system in which you have to work to get money to get food to survive? They get assistance from friends, family, neighbors—the community.
 >>/5657/
(continued)

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was stated by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme (a rather short writing which scathingly criticized a Social Democrat party in Germany). It's taken out of context and misrepresents the actual contents of the text. This particular quote is only a sliver of what Marx said, and it refers explicitly to the so-called "higher phase" of communism, long after any remnants of capital have been phased out. 
"To each according to his contribution" was put forth as the basis for a "lower phase" of communist society, directly following a transition from capitalism. 

Regarding the "lower phase," Marx states that "the individual receives from society exactly what he gives to it" and advocates for remuneration through labor vouchers instead of money, noting also that collective collaboration on labor with no surplus value extraction would also mean that one's labor put forth would directly benefit them and their peers instead of a hoarding higher-up. 
> The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.

> In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity instead of something which exists only to make some greedy bastard's pockets fatter, like what happens with wage labor. 

Communism has no blueprint or guided path to installation. Time and time again, Marx stated that communism is a movement to abolish the present state of things. Having witnessed the world's changes triggered by industrial revolution, he understood that material conditions change and whatever he wrote on actually bringing about communism would be rendered totally irrelevant down the line. So really, communism is not a question of "what will it be like" rather than "what will it NOT be like?"

Marx was first and foremost a philosopher with a deep interest in breaking down economics and dispelling myths. The key is that he was anti-economy in general. He saw capitalism as unsustainable and constantly requiring governmental intervention simply to keep itself afloat and that, naturally, it would bring about its own demise, either with the help of people or not.
 >>/5658/
Oh yeah, one last thing. It is a mistake to think of the Soviet Union in discussions about Marxism proper. Marx would have been disgusted by the USSR after Lenin's death, and realistically even during his rule. No proper Marxist thinks the USSR or any other "communist state" achieved communism. They've all retained the value-form and had generalized commodity production, not to mention been straight-up retarded most of the time. The truth is that socialism appeals to people so the term and vaguely related ideas (Which end up being more social democracy which Marx hated) have been used as a way to quickly garner support with large, poor, often agrarian populations. Even India's constitution says they're socialist lol.
 >>/5657/
> your questions seem absurd and baity
No, it's a genuine question, and IMO a genuine concern. If the commune supposedly takes care of people, the food and resources have to come from somewhere, right? So it might be a problem if people take from the community without contributing an equal or higher amount. Sounds like a legitimate issue, no?
> It also requires far more effort to answer questions that you're asking
To be fair, I've made like 5 posts asking for an answer, plus the probably dozens of times I've asked this throughout the years, with little to no answer.
> Well, what happens to those people under capitalism, a system in which you have to work to get money to get food to survive? They get assistance from friends, family, neighbors—the community.
But the issue is that THOSE people need to work in order to have the extra resources to help others out. Which then brings up other issues.
How does one get extra resources? From extra work? So one's rewards for work are based on the effort, time, or skill involved? Also, what's the motivation to help someone out if they're just gonna continue to be lazy, ie why work to feed someone else's laziness. In fact, why work yourself if others will take care of you?
If someone's needs are met, what exactly is motivating them to be productive in life? Pure good will?
See what I mean? This raises other issues.
 >>/5658/
> in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work
So, to put it simply, you're assuming and betting on people being automatically motivated to work, due to good work conditions.
Isnt that rather naive though?
I mean, seriously, how many of those people actually exist? That'd be like 1% of the population, 5% tops. Even with good conditions, there's gonna be tons of people who just dont give a fuck and will want to do zero work. And if the commune takes care of those people, those 1-5% of the motivated workers will likely lose motivation seeing as all their work is going towards feeding lazy people. Any good will would quickly go down the toilet by then, honestly.
Not to mention, the logistics themselves of a small amount of motivated people actually managing to support everyone, even at full power.
You really think people would be happy to work if they didnt have the threat of starvation and homelessness over their heads? I dont think most people are strong or intelligent enough for that.
 >>/5667/
Oh and I'd also like to hear how you'd get a sewer cleaner or an similarly unpleasant job to be "motivated to work for the good of society".
 >>/5667/
 >>/5668/
I'm the anon who doesn't want to explain things to you, and for a good reason, judging from your replies. out of compassion for the poor devil who made the effort of humoring you, I'll just say a couple of things, not in the false hope of enlightening you, but just to expose the laughable quality of your reasoning.

#1
> there's gonna be tons of people who just dont give a fuck and will want to do zero work
you're vastly underestimating the importance of social pressure. in any kind of society, people mostly behave according to the rules because one of the main drives for individual behavior is the need of acceptance and belonging. most people are perfectly happy when this basic need is fulfilled. this is true regardless of the economic system, so your objection is completely futile. maybe you didn't think about this factor because you have sociopathic tendencies, I don't know.

#2:
> how you'd get a sewer cleaner or an similarly unpleasant job to be "motivated to work for the good of society"
you wouldn't. another wrong assumption on your part: you seem to believe that what communists want is a perfect society that will be devoid of any problem and conflict, where everybody does only what they want and what makes them happy. that simply isn't true. a different social system entails different problems and humanity will never live in the garden of Eden, no matter the circumstances. the main purpose of communism is to resolve the instrinsic contradictions of capitalism, not because this would lead to heaven on earth, but because communists believe that overall this would offer a better chance of a dignified, gratifying and peaceful existence to most people, and not just to a greedy elite. the key words in my last sentence are 'overall', 'chance', and 'most people', which all imply some relativism.

as you can see, I'm quite able of answering and refuting what you're saying, if I decide to do so. maybe for a moment you thought you were so much smarter than those pathetic, idealistic lefties but, alas, the dream is over.
 >>/5675/
not that anon but you're typing a lot of words and not saying very much. at least lefties don't have to pretend to appeal to the unwashed masses anymore
again, where does sewer man enter the picture here? is he recognized for his developing sewer cleaner skills at an early age and selected like a little jedi padawan and trained for one specific purpose in life? or do you "social pressure" any old cunt into getting down there?
 >>/5675/
> you're vastly underestimating the importance of social pressure
If people are working due to social pressure, they're not WANTING to work, which is the entire point in that anon's argument. And even still, what if people are pressured and still dont want to work?
> people mostly behave according to the rules because one of the main drives for individual behavior is the need of acceptance and belonging
That's retarded. People should follow rules because that's what's correct and morally right to do. Not because of the social consequences of not following them.
> (sewer cleaner job) you wouldn't
So who cleans the sewers? Unless you have scat fetishists, nobody's going to ENJOY working as a sewer cleaner, meaning that since everyone's needs are met, nobody's going to actually want to clean sewers.
> a better chance of a dignified, gratifying and peaceful existence to most people, and not just to a greedy elite
So again what you want isnt communism, it's the same capitalism, but with better work and living conditions. Again, you'd get much more support if you just said that.
> you thought you were so much smarter than those pathetic, idealistic lefties but, alas, the dream is over.
Pure projection on your part. I literally just asked questions, you're the one trying to make things personal.

So to summarize your points:
1. People who dont want to work would be socially pressured into working. (Which isnt even guaranteed to make them work)
2. In an ideal communist society, there wouldnt be anyone to clean sewers, or do similarly difficult jobs.
Gotta say, dude. The inability to solve simple societal issues combined with the "educate yourself" and smug prick leftist attitude, isnt convincing me of communism.

Here's an example: How do we motivate people to do harder or unpleasant jobs in capitalism? You reward them more, via money.
How does capitalism deal with people who refuse to work? They simply dont get payed and thus cant buy food. This discourages laziness.
See how I answered those two very easily?
 >>/5677/
I've noticed that too. I didnt want to bring it up but yeah, that anon isnt very good at summarizing his points.
Maybe leftists hate answering questions because it takes a lot of energy for them, since they're bad at keeping things short.
 >>/5681/
Assuming that in an area of millions of people (like any cityscape) there'd be no one who'd help to fix sewers is just as absurd as thinking everyone would wanna help.
 >>/5684/
You're missing the point. Even if there are people who'd happily clean sewers, there arent enough of those to clean up everyone else's shit.
 >>/5675/
That whole "social pressure" thing is such a woman way of thinking.
> men
> you get payed based on how you work. No work means no pay. Extra work means extra pay.
> women
> ummm... if you dont wanna work thats umm fine but ummm everyone's gonna think you're a poopyhead... umm you dont want that do you... so umm come work, it's yummy fun :)))
 >>/5687/
Why are you being so intentionally obtuse and bringing in your gender sperging again? The other anon clearly stated that labor vouchers would be used and if you didn't work you'd simply starve. It's only assumed that this would naturally be phased out leading to the higher stage with more automation and less need for labor.
 >>/5681/
as I said:
> I'll just say a couple of things, not in the false hope of enlightening you, but just to expose the laughable quality of your reasoning

thank you for proving my point. in your reply you either didn't understand what I wrote, dumbed it down with the excuse of "summarizing" it or twisted my words to suit your perspective. ever heard of confirmation bias? I'm not going to point out where and why you did all of this in detail, so please, feel free of thinking that I'm dodging your questions.
you feel entitled to regard these things as 'simple societal issues' that can be dealt with 'very easily' simply because you're too ignorant and narrow-minded to be aware of their complexity, so you think your simplistic answers (as reducing the concept of work to a mere economical transaction) are reasonable. one has to wonder why you aren't in some extremely high position of power, where you could solve all these simple problems with your simple answers, instead of being here wasting all your wisdom with us stupid communists. maybe it's because, for instance, you clearly don't even know what social pressure is and how it is internalized, you haven't got a clue about any sociological or psychological matter. I have actually researched these fucking things, I haven't come up with a idiotic theory of society in my spare time on an image board for degenerates. so excuse me if I don't indulge any longer in this extremely productive nonsense. you accuse me of being smug? I wonder what's more arrogant, calling someone out for being out of their depth or claiming to have all the solutions to problems you haven't even begun to understand.
then again, if you could see how brainwashed by capitalistic ideology you are (one example: regarding production above the basic right to survival, which is abhorrent), you wouldn't be brainwashed, would you? you're a dangerous mix of ignorance, dishonesty and stupidity, and I don't care if you accuse me of resorting to personal attack, since you've just proved that it's not worth arguing with the likes of you, if there ever was any doubt about it. to me, the discussion ends here. so go on, you can claim victory and plant a little dollar flag on your scrotum.
 >>/5700/
bravo

 >>/5681/
oh, and one more thing about your final example. you're suggesting to lure people into work by either giving them a good pay or blackmailing them (you have to work if you want to survive). guess which one of the two happens in capitalism and which one in a society where wealth is fairly distributed (which, btw, doesn't mean given away for nothing). "capitalism and communism are the same", fucking ridiculous.
thumbnail of d10.jpg
thumbnail of d10.jpg
d10 jpg
(127.82 KB, 927x1200)
 >>/5698/
> thank you for proving my point. in your reply you either didn't understand what I wrote
Like I said, leftists can only win an argument with people they already agree with. As soon as they experience any resistance, they deflect and bail on the conversation.
1. You are a mega retard.
2. You have zero ability to summarize what your arguments are. 
3. You have zero reading comprehension, or you purposefully pretend to misunderstand what is said.
4. None of your stances can handle any sort of criticism. At the first most basic questions, you are unable to offer any argument and just deflect everything.
5. You are so arrogant you believe everyone should automatically agree with you without you needing to explain yourself. And youre so entitled you get offended when someone questions you.
6. Considering your economical stupidity, I bet you are bad with money. I laugh at your poverty because it is self inflicted.
 >>/4711/
John Maus attended the January 6 rally and dinated to the republican party and Ariel Rivers said he is a trump supporter,he said he is left wing to save face lmao, there is reddit threads of his fans seething  about it

Post(s) action:


Moderation Help
Scope:
Duration: Days

Ban Type:


New Reply on thread #4427
Max 20 files0 B total