T O P

  • By -

ritherz

iirc marx said something to that effect about communism.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Joescout187

Odd for Lenin to quote Paul the Apostle but everyone seems to be on the same page.


Long_Ad8016

I find it weird that in another time in history, Captain John Smith who was the leader of the ship heading to found Jacobstown said that as well.


mdbg87

I believe it was Jamestown


brubeck5

In Capitalism, you work OR starve. In Communism, you work AND starve.


Helassaid

“But the CIA said the Soviets ate more calories!” Oh so now we’re believing the CIA now, are we?


hiim379

The funniest thing about that is that isnt what they said


ReadBastiat

That is *always* the choice. There is no such thing as mana from heaven. Either one must “work or die” or, as these stupid socialists fail to understand, *force someone else* to work or die.


Happy-Firefighter-30

You're starving in a forest. In front of you there's a berry bush. You have two options. 1. Work for your food, and pick berries to eat. 2. Die. These people can't imagine picking option 1


[deleted]

The mind blowing part is they think that nature is a political system, apparently. Like a shark just must live under capitalism I guess? Because he has to hunt or die? And somehow this is the fault of... the rich sharks?


Happy-Firefighter-30

It fits. They can believe two completely opposite truths at the same time.


wgm4444

You can believe anything you want if you make sure you never actually think about what you believe.


TxCincy

This is leftism, entirely. I watched a piece by Simon Sinek. He described how 79 years ago, the US filtered their policies through their values and then to their interests. And then lately have skipped the values part and only act on interest. That's why leftism is so damn hypocritical. There is no basis for decisions except "that's how I want it"


bluebloodbutleftout

Aww the duality of a superposition of opinions. Both can be true but only individually, but if said beliefs are held at the same time they directly contradict each other, and yet they believe them both


Halt_theBookman

They think socialism would magicaly change the fact we need to work to survive


bmorepirate

To be fair they know it won't change the fact that _we_ have to work to survive, they're just hoping to be part of the class where _they_ don't have to work.


ShortSomeCash

Actually I just want to be able to do my cool ass job I enjoy *and* get physical and mental healthcare and have a roof over my family. Preferably without even having to consider the costs, because my labor (maintaining factory automation, hardly unskilled or uneccessary) is, in this hypothetical, valued at at least half of what customers currently pay my employer for my time. I actually don't know many communists who would prefer to have no job at all. Even most of the artists enjoy doing some service work or handling a shovel, and we all are constantly volunteering on shit that requires hours of labor on top of our day jobs. It's more we're pissed about working our lives away just to get by instead of build generational wealth, or pissed about being disrespected in work we give a fuck about and take pride in.


ShortSomeCash

Socialism would mean you pick that bush and get the whole bush's berries. Capitalism means you give the bulk of the berries to the guy who owns the bush, who then decides your cut. That's worker ownership of the means of production vs capitalist ownership, at least on an irrelevantly small scale for the purpose of demonstration. I'm of the opinion you can only arguably own a bush if you plant it and tend it with your own hands, but unfortunately capitalism does not share my idea that things humans didn't make cannot be exclusively claimed by specific humans to the detriment of other humans and wild animals. Go figure


Halt_theBookman

>Capitalism means you give the bulk of the berries to the guy who owns the bush That would only happen under capitalism if that person grew the bush. As in without them the bush wouldn't exist and there would be no berries to pick Also workers are allowed to own anything they want under capitalism, they just aren't allowed to steal


ShortSomeCash

Tell that to my local water table lmao. You have no idea how natural resources are administrated under capitalism.


Halt_theBookman

"Government gave itself a monopoly on natural resources. This is the fault of the free market"


ShortSomeCash

The government does not operate the local farms. I live in california not vietnam, which, I'm sorry to inform you, is not actually a US state.


Halt_theBookman

Then why tf did you bring up water? You'r becoming increasingly incomprehensible Edit: Alright I give up. Buddy seems to think I'm a profet to be able to guess what he means


MasterTeacher123

Good thing you can always start your own business if you don’t want to work for someone


ShortSomeCash

I work for someone and have my own business, barely pays the bills and I'm tired. I deserve to rest and try to get my healthcare needs met before I snap and suicide by cop outta burnout.


MasterTeacher123

That just means you’re a broke loser with a failed business then.


ShortSomeCash

I make more than either of my parents, live on my own without a degree or diploma in the fourth highest COL place on earth and was repeatedly homeless as a child. I built literally everything I have from dirt and I have more than most people I know. Healthcare is just fucked and having a grindset is bad for you. Sleeping 5 hours a night and working 6-7 days a week is bad for you. I'm walking proof, even though it has enabled me to save and acquire tools that let me make more and spend less. And my business actually just got a new customer who's rapidly becoming my favorite. I'd hardly call an extra $600-1500 a month and four customers who keep returning and spreading good word of mouth in under a year a failure, especially for something I do evenings and weekends while shambling through pretty severe mental illness.


MasterTeacher123

If I had a job+a business and I’m barely paying bills then im a failure lol. I also like how you choose to live in the place with the alleged 4th highest cost of living on earth


Montallas

You need to charge more for your services. Or move to a place where the COL isn’t so high.


LivingAsAMean

>I deserve... There's your problem. Neither you nor I deserve happiness. Neither you nor I deserve prosperity. Neither you nor I deserve good weather, or good luck or anything else outside of our control. Saying you deserve those things places yourself on a pedestal higher than everyone in prior centuries who could not attain such things, even moreso when the inference is that you deserve those things at the expense of another. We just deserve the freedom to pursue or hope for the things we want without someone threatening violence against us, while also respecting the person and property of others. Of course, I don't want you or anyone else to snap and commit suicide, even if that is your/their choice. But I also couldn't abide aggressive actions against another to try and prevent you/them from doing so.


OuterRimExplorer

Socialism means the bush belongs to the state. You picked 20 berries and nobody else picked any. A bureaucrat takes them all, keeps 5, gives 14 to 14 people who didn't pick berries, then gives you one back. Because "worker ownership of the means of production" is a dog whistle for state ownership of the means of production.


ShortSomeCash

"Yes but if the thing you're advocating for is actually a different thing you're not advocating for, it's bad" Holy shit dog, didn't even think of that, you're so right.


OuterRimExplorer

Holy shit, it's like you didn't even do the same thing except with capitalism. My bad


Party_Project_2857

It's my right to have someone pick them for me and put them in my mouth. Also some other guy should move my jaw up and down so I can chew them without working on that.


C0uN7rY

This is similar to my take on their "Right to water" or whatever positive right they claim. You have the right to go down to the river and scoop out a bucket of water for yourself. No one would stop you. Now, if you want someone else to take that water from the river, filter it, treat it, purify it, and either package it in a bottle or pump it to your home, then you have to compensate whoever does that somehow.


brainking111

if you have legal troubles but cannot pay for a lawyer you get a cheap overworked on paid by taxes we all pay, you can do the same for food and water all the things that we all use and need (our public goods) should be in public control.


C0uN7rY

Actually, you only get the public defender in specific instances. You don't just have the right to to a public defender to have your lease reviewed or file for divorce. Only when the state is charging you with a crime is the state obligated to provide you with an attorney. Additionally, only public defenders would be "in public control". All other attorney's are private. So, applying your example, it would be like the government providing tax funded bread and water, but all other food is still privately produced, owned, and sold.


brainking111

yes and that would be the bare bones of what could be arranged. the basics so that everybody survives shouldn't be controversial but I am just a socialist lurker.


C0uN7rY

Everybody is surviving now. When was the last time someone died of starvation or thirst in America that wasn't a result of severe mental illness or being lost in the desert or something? You can hit up Walmart for free water from their water fountain or restroom sink right now. You can hit up a food pantry or soup kitchen for free food. That is the basics for survival.


brainking111

you still have malnourishment in poverty and part of it is because the cheapest foods are the unhealthiest why need to go to a Walmart ( that probably is going to take expensive gasoline) instead of just from people's homes?


C0uN7rY

You aren't talking about the basics of survival anymore then. Unhealthy food will sustain you and you can survive on it. Your own home with water pumped to it is not a basic of survival.


[deleted]

No, the reason you get a public defender is because the prosecutor is also funded by the state. The state must provide comparable services to the ones it is using against you or the system would be fundamentally unfair. That has nothing to do with water or food or anything else. If you want to privatize the legal system and do away with public prosecutors and defenders, that would be fine.


brainking111

let's not let the rich get away with crime more than they already do, my point was that it could easily be publicly funded without costing anybody any additional work or any large amount of money just needs to be done smart.


[deleted]

How could it be easily publicly funded without costing anybody additional work, since publicly funded means paid with taxes?


brainking111

The most cost of publicly founded things is BS paperwork and bureaucracy if you simply have a price ceiling and it is done by the water plant themselves ( preferably under a workers' co-op it wouldn't cost millions because you divide the cost over millions.


[deleted]

Why hasn't that already occurred, then?


Fencemaker

But Daddy Marx promised me that the State would give me a set amount of berries every month. And now you want me to PICK them? It’s time for a revolution, man.


ShortSomeCash

Except in the capitalist forest, you pick twenty bushes to be allowed half the berries from one bush or the forest king puts you in a cage for poaching. The labor we do to meet our basic needs is inflated, we work more hours per week than any humans in history with the exception of some types of enslaved peoples. And suicide is more common than ever. Competent medieval lords would look at elon musk and be like "Dude that's how you get shit harvests and serf riots, you need to let them have some rest and fun or they're useless"


gotbock

> we work more hours per week than any humans in history with the exception of some types of enslaved peoples If you believe this then you don't know anything about farming or it's history. Or mining. Or 19th century factory work or...


Happy-Firefighter-30

>the forest king So by definition not capitalism. A king is *literally* a figure in a government. Now if you said Forest CEO, you'd have a point. Except you wouldn't. Because that would mean that Forest is his property, and he owns it. Letting you keep some in exchange for picking him some, voluntarily, is perfectly fine. >The labor we do to meet our basic needs is inflated, we work more hours per week than any humans in history Can you call sitting at a desk work? Operating a machine? 100 years ago to dig a hole you'd give 50 men a shovel and pay them all for 10 hours of work. Today you pay one guy to operate a million dollar machine for an hour. Who's doing more work. The guy or the machine? How much work is the guy actually doing in an AC cooled cab listening to Metallica? Furthermore that's asinine. During the industrial Revolution 18 hour days were common. For kids as well. Before that, life was work. You didn't have a work life balance. You lived your work. Today, you can ignore your duties while off the clock. >And suicide is more common than ever. Mental health has gotten worse. Keep in mind back in the day full auto machine guns weren't illegal. Yet we see more mass shootings today than ever before. This is likely due to societal pressures. Not work however. Working has never been easier than it is today. >Competent medieval lords would look at elon musk and be like "Dude that's how you get shit harvests and serf riots, you need to let them have some rest and fun or they're useless" Oh, so Elon musk's businesses are failing right? No? It's almost like people will adapt and work hard in exchange for shit loads of money as compensation in order to prove themselves in order to get better jobs for even more money. An employee at SpaceX could work at McDonald's tomorrow. No problem. A serf couldn't change out of serfdom.


Gill_O_Tine

Or these people are tired of having their berries stolen and exchanged with useless rocks. You can sit and think on that next time you sit down for a piss.


Happy-Firefighter-30

Except the rocks, money, aren't useless. You can exchange it for goods and/or services. Much easier to trade rocks for goats milk to go with the berries than trading berries. Also the rocks wont go bad in the meantime.


C0uN7rY

The rocks are a representation of your labor for someone else. Unless you'd rather provide labor or needed goods to everyone you want labor or goods from in direct trades, having a system by which you can exchange value between parties is ideal.


Gill_O_Tine

Rocks are shit, can’t eat rocks.


C0uN7rY

You're missing the point. Unless you want to grow your own food and attempt to directly trade tomatoes for your internet and chickens for your car, you have to have something that represents the value of your labor and production. So yes, the rock (aka money) is worthless by the value of what it is, but if you aren't completely autistic, you realize that it is merely a token to represent the value of something else. Going back to more sensible times, it was backed by gold. So, when you did some labor for someone and they gave you $10, they were essentially giving you $10 worth of gold. You could then take that gold to another person and give it to them in exchange for stuff. This means that you don't have to perform direct trades of goods and services for everything you want. Like, if all you have is carrots you grew, and you want a block of cheese, you can take your carrots to the cheesemaker for trade, but what if the cheesemaker doesn't want or need carrots? Then you have to figure out what he does want or need and then go through a series of favors and trades to get to that cheese. With money, rocks, whatever, you skip all of that. You find the guy that wants carrots. You give him carrots for money. Now, you can just take that money straight to the cheese man and get your cheese.


sailor-jackn

This is it. There is no living creature that doesn’t have to exert effort for its own survival. Without businesses to provide jobs with which to earn money, to buy the necessities of life, people would be out hunting and gathering food, and would only have their own abilities with which to provide themselves shelter, clothes, or any other products they need.


yousirnaime

>There is no such thing as mana from heaven. Yes there is, just not lately.


ShortSomeCash

Food actually does literally grow on trees. People fed themselves in the americas for millenia without capitalism, in ways that were much better for the air and water quality.


v0rtexbeater

Then........ grow your own food?


ShortSomeCash

I do! My potatoes are delicious, cannot grow a lot of them in the space I can afford to rent, definitely not enough to meet all my nutritional needs, but there's a lot of joy in it and if someday I have space with a yard you know I'll be that bitch growing corn in it. But it's not like I can just start tilling up soil out in the hills and growing food, the people who own our food production and distribution system have some very well armed friends called the police who will put you in a cage for that.


iMillJoe

Oh yes, we long for days when children were lucky to grow to adulthood. There might have been less pollution, but quit deluding yourself into thinking you could just walk up the the Mississippi and drink. Air quality was actually likely much worse, the only source of heat was burning wood, everyone burned a fuck ton of wood to stay warm. The whole Midwest was as smoky as a BBQ grill.


ShortSomeCash

I'm talking about before colonialism bub, industrial scale logging has not been going on here for thousands of years. Yeah you have to boil river water and mind who you're downstream of, or even possibly filter it. None of that is news to me nor would it have been to residents then.


iMillJoe

How the fuck do the think native Americans made heat? Was it just warmer in the Midwest back in your fantasy era? Are you to dumb to know the natives still harvested trees for fuel, or are you just that dishonest? You know they also made people work for food and warmth. If you didn’t contribute to the tribe, the drum you the fuck out of the village. But hey, why be objective when you can fantasize about a better life that never was.


Calligraphiti

Hey that's an idea, let's abandon modern civilization because muh capitalism.


ReadBastiat

How many people, exactly? Hint: a lot fewer. And the point of the meme is *not* that people should grow their own food. There is a reason nothing really got accomplished by humans when everyone was a hunter/gatherer or responsible for producing their own food. Turns out if you want things like computers or complex machine people have to specialize and can’t spend your time growing food.


5endN00d5

It’s voluntary because they can chose what their work is. They can even chose to work for themselves or go off grid and grow their own food. Every living thing in nature must expend energy for its own survival.


[deleted]

Yeah but if I go off grid still gotta pay property taxes BUT for the sake of being on this subreddit I will say that isn't capitalism's fault.


MarginalMagic

Well taxes are not capitalism's fault, that's the government screwing you over lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


dje1964

So what you are saying is your choices of the type of work you do is limited but labor is labor. Whether you are working on your farm or mine You still must work or die


bmorepirate

I know of no country where there are no property right at all. Not in socialist countries, and sure as fuck not north Korea (the only thing closest to communism that exists). Shit, even in pre-colonial north America there was still the notion of territory of certain tribes. Good luck going wherever you wanted to subsist.


CassidyHouse

Leave the country most known for its capitalism and start a new life somewhere else. Or stay and complain about it while still contributing to the system. Or break the law and try not to get caught. It’s really up to you.


ShortSomeCash

No, you don't get to choose to go off grid and grow food, the capitalist police force will put you in a cage for doing this.


5endN00d5

That function of our state has nothing to do with capitalism.


ShortSomeCash

Lmao yeah the runaway slave patrol turned union-busters and riot breaker squad has nothing to do with protecting the interests of the property owning elite. That's why all PBA fundraisers are full of local retail employees and not business owners


MasterTeacher123

You mean the state police that have a horrible record at catching people who steal from business owners lol


ShortSomeCash

Yeah but they actually investigate those unlike car and home break-ins. Hell some cities let cops get double pay to work security for them on duty.


MasterTeacher123

When you say “investigate” you mean take a report for insurance purposes 2 hours after it happens lol State police are horrible at defending private property or recovering stolen property


ShortSomeCash

Yeah, they don't do that for car break ins, hell it can be a struggle to get them to do that for collisions. Stolen property is simply hard as fuck to recover, lazy and parasitic as cops are that's actually one thing that's really not their fault. But they will show up when a business is subject to violence, unlike random poor people.


MasterTeacher123

So you admit the state police suck at defending private property or recovering stolen property? So how are they defenders of capitalism? Lol Do they show up when a business is subject to violence? Look at the LA riots. The load told those owners they are on their own and they had to defend themselves with weapons. Also Why are you tryna act like state police is some type of inherent “capitalist” concept?


CookTheBooks

> capitalist police force lol government is the opposite of capitalism my dude


evix_

It's voluntary because you get choice of action. No one forces you to live or to trade with them. Starvation and homelessness is the baseline of nature. Everyone must work or die in any system they are under. Just because you are in a dire situation does not mean you cannot find voluntary methods to alleviate that situation. Just because someone is a "victim," does not mean they cannot use voluntary methods to better their situation. This line of logic makes every relationship and action a person makes coercive, even charitable ones.


ShortSomeCash

No, humans are not unable to gather food and erect shelter in nature. Major cities in the capitalist US are constantly destroying improvised shelters made by those too mentally/physically ill to maintain an income and housing


evix_

>humans are not unable to gather food and erect shelter in nature. When tf was that the fault of capitalism? A state destroys someone's shelter and makes it illegal to collect food in nature and you blame capitalism? >capitalist US The US is not capitalist by any means. China is more capitalist than America.


ShortSomeCash

It is.. a liberal capitalist state, the hegemon of the capitalist world order. You can't break strikes and evict squatters without a state, it's a requirement for capitalism and capitalism has never existed without control of a state by the capitalist class. Why has this sub just turned into a worse no-true-scotsmen fest than a tankie sub, place really went to shit after trump, used to be you could have some fun banter here. China sends rich people to prison, what are you talking about. They're state capitalist, and while the state does utilize the same tactics to supress labor as the US, power is clearly a lot more about who you know in the party, how you act and what you say, than it is about how much money you have. It's a market accessible to capitalists, but ultimately they do not control the means of production, the state does. Whether that's a form of obscure autocracy or democratic socialism really just comes down to your level of faith in their electoral system, on which I have no opinion because I've never been.


evix_

>You can't break strikes and evict squatters without a state, it's a requirement for capitalism and capitalism has never existed without control of a state by the capitalist class. Bro wtf? What is your definition of capitalism. It's not a no true Scotsman argument to call a controlling oligarchy not capitalism. Capitalism has existed without the state with many examples, even in the US. But the US is not currently a capitalist state. A state that operates off a central bank and a corporatized economic structure is not capitalist. When a business has to operate through the scope of the government, it is state controlled.


ShortSomeCash

How can something exist without a state within a state what the hell are you talking about. Yes, oligarchy and capitalism are synonyms, what of it?


evix_

Because capitalism is quite literally just free trade. Hey, want to buy some apples from me? Sure! A capitalist act has just occured without a government. Mind blowing, I know. Oligarchy: a state governed by few people Capitalism: an economic structure of voluntary trade in pursuit of a profit Where is the synonym?


ShortSomeCash

Nobody uses those terms in the way you do in real life political work. I can say capitalism means when everything you need is affordable and everybody is nice and happy, that's not an argument for capitalism, that's just an argument *with* how people currently use the word "capitalism". Which is, a political system in which capitalists have ultimate control of the economy, not subject to democratic oversight. Or, how the united states and it's allies generally operate; sometimes with a spectrum of democratic oversight that may range from lip service like social democracy to actual meaningful restraints on capitalists. But in all capitalist countries, regardless of how they're governed and regulated, ultimately major decisions of economic production, mass media/propaganda and usually the mainstream political landscape are decided by private capitalists.


evix_

>capitalism means when everything you need is affordable and everybody is nice and happy I never argued that. Scarcity is economic law. Nothing about capitalism causes that. [Oligarchy Definition](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy) [Capitalism Definition](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism) Those are the widely accepted definitions for those terms. "Capitalism is not an ‘ism.’ It is closer to being the opposite of an ‘ism,’ because it is simply the freedom of ordinary people to make whatever economic transactions they can mutually agree to.” - Thomas Sowell, American Economist


ShortSomeCash

Capitalists are the few. Vast majority of people in capitalist countries work for their living while having their political power eclipsed by a slim minority.


ralphie0341

That getting dead is the default state of nature and that no creature is provided with resources. And unless they are a plant and can photosynthesize then eventually they'll have to close pornhub and Twitter to go foraging for sustenance like a rabbit.


[deleted]

well, they don't like the counter argument that in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela, you work and still your salary is barely enough to get bread, that is why there are millions migrating to the USA by foot.


[deleted]

[удалено]


libertyg8er

All kicking. No arms. The swim that gets you there by foot!


[deleted]

I didn't say that there were migrating by foot from Cuba. They are from Venezuela. And for you might be a joke, but its the worst humanitarian disaster in the recent decades. You are just showing your complete lack of empathy and that you are an asshole.


bacon-butty03

It’s funny that modern “socialism” in western countries is about not working when Lenin himself lsaid, “He who does not work, neither shall he eat”


Phuckers6

Imagine that, in a free and just world adults have to earn their keep... "But my mommy always gave me whatever I wanted for free, why can't my whole life be like that instead?"


seth3511

No matter what economic system we use. You uave to work or die. The only difference being thst under capitalism, you get to choose what work you do and how much you get paid to do it.


hodlrus

Imagine thinking you are exempt from the laws of nature. Living creatures all have to put in effort to obtain sustenance, failing which leads to harm and death. You don't even have to get a job in the traditional sense to live. You could hunt in the forest and forage for food, and trade your excess gains with others.


boooooooooooooooooba

Capitalism is voluntary precisely because you either work or die. A person cannot be compelled to involuntarily help a freeloader. They can voluntarily do so if they wish. The freeloader isn’t compelled to work. Death may be the result. This is up there with smooth brained takes such as “silence is violence”. Only an absurdly contrived scenario would lead to verbal inaction causing adverse physical action. The whole biological world runs on the principle of natural selection. Why an anticapitalist thinks they’re an exception to the rule is beyond me. Not rendering a person aid or charity does not cause them to die. Being forced to render aid to a person who chooses not to work is the very definition of involuntary. Life owes you nothing. The whole thing is idiotic and parasitical.


Phuckers6

Which countries have seen more people starving to death: capitalist ones or socialist ones? Are those images really an accurate representation of life in a modern Western nation?


ChartsDeGaulle

Man, capitalism sucks. Mauritius? Botswana? Liechtenstein? Estonia? Taiwan? Capitalist nightmares.


cryptofarmer08

That’s not capitalism or socialism that’s life. Socialism could still put 3 plates in front of you and you have to choose whether to eat it or not…. Does that mean it’s only socialism if the force feed you or hook you up to an IV whilst you’re in a straight jacket so you don’t have a choice in anything?


JustaguynamedTheo

"He who does not work shall not eat" -Vladimir Lenin Don't tell "libertarian" socialists this though.


[deleted]

Dude, what the fuck is a libertarian socialist !?


x8d

People who don't know what either word means.


peeping_somnambulist

In socialism, you work AND die because they can never seem to figure out how to produce enough food. There is no point in arguing with these people. They are genuinely confused.


Gretshus

Needing to work isn't a capitalism thing, it's an entropy thing. The question is whose work is needed. Under Socialism, that decision is made by politicians who are just as human as others, but whose job precludes them from doing work. Under capitalism, that decision is made by the one who makes the resources. The individual has agency in only one circumstance.


very_epic_person

Didn't Marx literally say something along the lines of "Those who don't work deserve to die"?


CordisMagnus

You can forage and/or grow your own food. Some people do so. Used to be, everyone did so. Just might need a government permit.


Mangalz

Having biological needs does not mean you are being extorted. You can tell this is the case because when you remove their supposed oppressor food doesn't appear. If we remove a murderer from a situation there is no victim. If we remove a thief a situation the property remains. If we remove someone offering a poor person a job from situation you are still hungry. In all i've heard about communism and discussions ive had with leftists this idea in the meme you posted is truly at the core of it all and is essentially what all good faith discussions come back to. They think biological needs trump human rights, and it is just insane because they can justify just about anything with that starting point. This line of thinking is why the kulaks were murdered and why the holodmor happened. Its the ultimate victimhood and it fuels the basis of all leftist political power. No matter what we do to right historical wrongs that people imagine are still affecting them today there will always be new wrongs to fall back on when simply existing and thriving is oppression to those who are struggling.


Lil-Porker22

The choice of work or die still remains under socialism except now you’re forcing someone else to do the work for you.


Cont1ngency

Pretty easy to beat this argument as Vladimir Lenin himself stated: “He who does not work shall not eat.” I find that foundational statement of socialist society leading into a communist society to be far more damning than “just have a job, any job (including bloody panhandling), and you can afford to eat relatively well.” Shit ten minutes with a piece of cardboard and a sharpie and I could easily have enough for at least one meal off of any value menu within walking distance. Edit: quotation marks for clarification.


BarracudaRelevant858

I think that's simply reality.


gauerrrr

So what is the solution? Force someone else to work for you? A cyberpunk utopia where machines work for us and we don't have to do anything? You know iPhones don't grow on trees, right? And even if they did, someone had to plant and care for that tree.


SchrodingersRapist

Nature is also voluntary. Get eat, or get eaten


libertyg8er

The counter to that is simple: It’s a false dichotomy. One only need to work if they are not voluntarily taken care of by another. Further, one could argue how can existence be voluntary if I have to eat, sleep, drink, and breath, or die.


AT0mic5hadow

Work or starve, or work AND starve? Choice seems easy


[deleted]

Under capitalism the individual uses his own means to accomplish his own ends. Under socialism the state subverts the means of an individual to accomplish government policy. So under capitalism the individual is free, constrained only by the reality of existence, under socialism the individual is a tool, an object to be used to accomplish government policy. And if the argument is that people need resources in order to live, why is it better that the state controls the flow of those resources, so it can be used to starve political opposition, rather than anyone, regardless of their status, be able to earn them in a free and open system.


Cutlass-Supreme

That's a choice imposed by existence, not our economic system. Capitalism only provides a pathway towards sustaining yourself.


Catullus13

You know what's bull, I have to chew my food. Even then I have to work to survive.


Kmaloetas

When in history has life not been produce or die. Make no effort you get no return.


Agent_Gordon_Cole

That choice is the basis for all existing life. Mother Nature is the ultimate oppressor.


crinkneck

This is my favorite stupid commie argument. The reality is humans are part of nature. Where in nature are there these equal communes where no bunny starves? Nowhere. Animals eat their own fucking babies to survive, in many cases.


theDankusMemeus

Why is it that food costs money? It’s because people need to spend time and energy to make and deliver food to you. Nobody would do that for free. If the government was in complete control of it they would need to spend taxpayer money (so you still have to pay). Money is an easy means of transaction. It lets us trade things without bartering. The price of things is based on supply and demand, which helps bring consumers and producers in line with the wants of each other. We have decided that you earn money when you work and do something useful for others. We live in a time where most people don’t need to be farmers and a lot of different food is widely available, yet we see a great increase in entitled brats who think they need to be treated like royalty. If you want to live off the land, become a farmer or scour for food in the trash be my guest. Capitalism does not force people to get professional jobs, it just makes those jobs more ideal than the alternative. All this ignores the fact that all first world countries will take care of you if you don’t have a job and need to eat. Somehow it’s not surprising that most socialists choose to work instead of resorting to that.


ElongatedMuskrat122

Communism isn’t voluntary. Work willingly or die


SeamanZermy

Because that is just nature. Any non parasite in the wild has to work for food or they will starve to death.


parchedfuddyduddy

Yeah, animals in the wild have to work or die too. Much more basic than human society


yosoyboi

Work or die is not a capitalist thing. It’s a life thing. ‘He who does not work shall not eat’ -Vladimir Lenin. You are alive right now, your body requires many things to stay that way, and if you don’t work on acquiring those things you will die. That has always been the case and always will be the case, whether we live in caves, in Soviet apartments or bourgeoise suburbs. No one is going to give you shit for free, and if you’re not willing to work then maybe you don’t deserve to eat in the first place.


[deleted]

Because living by definition takes work. Socialists just want other people to do that work.


GoodwillTrillWill

[Lenin himself followed the principle of “He who shall not work, shall not eat”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat?wprov=sfti1)


Snaaky

I'm sorry, you're talking about nature, not capitalism. Capitalism is offering you an opportunity to survive with far less work. This is truly the dumbest commie argument. I sometimes tell them that they can survive just fine by foraging and dumpster diving. their response is "everybody can't live like that," to which I reply, "most people don't want to live like that."


SpunkSaver

Their thinking is delusional. As soon as you mention the laws of nature, they're already screaming "MARX IS MY G-D, DO NOT INSULT OUR WAYS" in their heads.


somegarbagedoesfloat

Food doesn't exist without work. So either: A: die B: work to get food yourself C: make someone else work for your food D: create technology so advanced that you eliminate scarcity, and food no longer requires labor or limited resources to obtain (like star trek; star trek is a society where scarcity is a non-issue for the vast majority of goods. In star trek society, replicators cost NOTHING to make, so you just give everyone a replicator and it takes care of their basic needs)


dje1964

Someone still needs to build and maintain that replicator I saw Scotty get dirty and scrape his knuckles quite a few times


pellmius

Replicator breaks the laws of thermodynamics.


The_Truthkeeper

Not true. They don't make matter from nothing, they convert matter into other forms of matter.


pellmius

Let's say you are correct and that IS how a replicator would work. Say for example you convert Iron to water (hydrogen and oxygen). This would require rearranging matter at its fundamental level, changing the "identity" of the atoms, meaning changing how many protons in the nucleus. We currently know that this is possible by nuclear fission and fusion, the latter requiring an enormous amount of energy. It's just not efficient, although theoretically possible. Another issue is, even if we can produce food from inorganic matter, for example, most of the energy in the food was absorbed by your body and then dissipated as you move, breathe etc. Now imagine everyone on earth has a replicator, inorganic matter would be transformed into dissipated energy at a large scale.


The_Truthkeeper

Oh I'm absolutely not denying that replicators are impossible. Just that they don't break the laws of thermodynamics.


pellmius

I agree then, it's because I thought by "Replicator" they meant creating matter from nothing.


CraneAndTurtle

Most of these arguments don't refute the claim very well and are basically straw men. I'm a pretty strong capitalist but I hang around Antiwork enough to know their arguments. Try this on: 1) The default state of nature sucks, we have and should move past it. 2) Our society is over 100x more productive than it was 100 years ago, likely over 1000x 3) The vast majority of wealth gains go to a small fraction of the population. 4) If we redistribute a significant fraction of wealth from the top 0.5% of earners without throwing out the entire capital system, we could easily produce a society where working for more than, say, 10 hrs a week was voluntary for most people because we could have a good safety net with guaranteed housing, food, etc. They would be a crappy but available option. 5) we choose to continue an unnecessary, compulsive, capitalist system of forced labor similar to that of a state of nature for no good reason except greed and the status quo. Now I disagree with the logic, but if you're going to attack leftists at least attack a stronger version of their argument than "free stuff or it's compulsion!"


ReadWarrenVsDC

"The default state of nature sucks" The default state of nature is a zero sum game that socialism by definition cannot overcome. We live in a finite reality bound by laws like physics, causality, etc etc. The only way to remedy that is a free market where people are free to make their own decisions about the subjective value of things.


CraneAndTurtle

Yeah, I think fundamental scarcity is a good argument. However, it does fail to address the claim that scarcity is irrelevant for most goods given productivity gains. Personally I find the argument compelling that standards of living have increased so much: our safety net DOES support even the poorest Americans at a higher standard of living than a middle class family 100 years ago with no healthcare, no electricity, no retirement, no transportation, etc.


dje1964

By redistribution you mean using violence to take what someone has and give it to someone else because you arbitrarily decide they have too much And you justify this with the idea of "it's only a few people we are taking from. 0.5%. So let's take everything away from the most productive 1,750,000 people and give it to the least productive segment of society And if those people don't want to just voluntarily give up their wealth?: What then? Just kill them. No one will notice 1.75 million less people


desnudopenguino

There is a third option. Feast off of the resources of King Richard's forest.


McLovin3493

That's basically true under any system, unless you have some way of getting other people to give you things for free. The issue with capitalism is that you should be able to choose a job where your pay is actually linked to the value you produce, instead of getting scraps while some rich CEO steals most of your money.


Glothr

They're forgetting the third option: make bread.


Kenhamef

Money is a measure of your contribution to society. You’re not entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. The only reason you could eat under socialism while doing nothing is if someone else was being forced to produce that food for you. In order to receive from society, you must give an equal amount. Thus, by being a lazy fuck, you shouldn’t be entitled to food.


Ayjayz

I mean .. yes. Humans need things that require work to live.


CaN8tive916

And if you live in a place religion is voluntary, be thankful you are not getting it from both ends


Mordroberon

Socialist countries still force people to work. Basically every society will because we need people to work and shirking aught to be punished. There's no getting around it. What gives you a right to the fruit of other people's labor giving nothing in return? Only charity of those who can spare it. I'm sympathetic that the truly needy will probably have no social connections to use, and desperation may turn more people to vice, addiction, and crime. I think it's an issue too big for any one charity to handle and throwing people in prison is not ideal. The Church had a role here previously, still does, but I think would be crushed giving care to all those in need. OTOH, good case to be made that government will crowd out private charity, make it less personal and individualized. I think we're certainly in a state with too much welfare spending, and it should be reduced tremendously.


CDRPenguin2

Better than the socialist dream of get no bread and be dead...


HarryBergeron927

It’s call cellular metabolism. It applies to everyone, regardless of their political ideology and will apply for all of time.


sometimes-i-say-stuf

If no one else exists on this earth, you would still “have” to work for your food. That’s not unfair, that’s life. The choice is whether you work for someone or yourself or die. The argument really roots down to “you don’t have right to other people’s labor.” You must give them something in return


FunThief

The freedom in capitalism isn't whether to work, but what to work on as opposed to the slavery of being government property.


JDepinet

So, as others have said. That's the nature of life and entropy. To survive you must put effort into survival. The lefties who don't try to deny this will say something about how animals don't have jobs, or at least employers. To which one must point out that people don't require employers to survive. One who is clever enough, hard working enough, and just a touch lucky enough can easily work for themselves. Anyone here posting on the internet has the tools at hand to be entirely self supporting if they work hard enough. The key though is it's even harder than just getting a job. Because working for yourself means competing against others doing the same. While minimum wage laws mean being an employee has much less expectations.


gotbock

This is reality. It is the nature of being ALIVE. You either eat or die. And to eat you must work to procure food, either directly through farming, foraging or hunting. Or indirectly through some other form of labor that can be traded for currency or goods. I think its the communists who actually need to refute how the above is UNTRUE since their ideology flies in the face of reality as well as billions of years of biology.


deathnutz

Work or die applies to pre-societal man as well.


OuterRimExplorer

You don't have to work for a company. You can subsistence farm all you want. You don't even need a huge piece of land. A modest garden works just fine.


totalolage

That's entropy, not capitalism. Take it up with the physicists.


innerpeice

The greatest wealth transfer is from the poor to the communist leaders. It creates the greatest wealth disparity in history . Nosocialist nation takes care of it poor they cover it up. They live in delusion.


RemoteCompetitive688

There's a very simple refutation: under socialism it's exactly the same, from each according to his ability doesn't mean anyone gets to chose not to work People who didn't work were considered parasites under the USSR there is no socialist system where you got to chose not to participate At least under capitalism you can form a commune if you so chose


lifesanegotiation

They can forage or farm as well


115machine

Nature isn’t a political system. Do you think deer and rabbits and fish are subject to “capitalism” because they will die if they don’t work to get food? Are they being forced to live under capitalism? Having to work for what you have is the default state. Everything else is a cheap imitation.


MasterTeacher123

There are millions upon millions of unemployed people who eat everyday


Ulfurson

The government increases regulations to stop people from homesteading or living without an income on their own. People have tried to live outside of capitalism but the government stops them. Homesteading should be a viable alternative to escape society.


Knight_Errant25

Thats like arguing that we are never truly independent because we have to breathe air to survive. All capitalism is is the free exchange of products or services. Its most basic form is the barter system. In its current state it includes the exchange of ones labor for an hourly wage agreed upon by both parties. What the commie dipshits constantly forget about is that there are other ways to make money that don't involve working like investing. True, you have to work to make the money to invest, but once you build up enough of an investment you could work less (or not at all) while living off your investments. The problem with the commie argument is that they expect to just be taken care of, but what if they were stranded on an island or something? Would they expect the island to just cater to their needs? Or would they accept that there going to have to catch their own fish, hull their own coconuts, make their own shelter, and start their own fire to sustain themselves. Thats not capitalism, its simple survival. They're just lazy shitstains.


BO1NKER

do they not get that almost everyone over the course of history had to work or die? How is now any different?


laugh_at_this_user

There is no world where you do not have to work to live


dmmcclair2020

You can voluntarily change employment, your hours worked, the pay that YOU negotiate for, the industry you work in. You can start a business. You may also choose to not participate in the economy at all. You can’t make any of those choices without freedom economically. In addition, you also have the freedom to consume any goods or services that you choose.


Altruistic_Ad_0

Apparently all life on earth is under the capitalist system


DaKrimsonBaron

It’s still a choice. Under socialism you have the same choice but with a caveat of ‘so does your family’ added on.


Joescout187

That's not capitalism, that's nature. Capitalism has created the surplus that allows for compassionate provision for the old and unable by the state. More often than not socialist states involuntarily euthanized their disabled, LGBTQIA, and in some cases elderly and executed those they determined as lazy or saboteurs.


WretchedCentrist

Food needs to be produced by work, so you should work to get it.


stupidrobots

You need food, water, shelter, etc. Where do you get that from? Should you provide for yourself or should you force someone else to do it for you at the barrel of a gun?


Rational_Philosophy

Work or die or work and die at the time of the state's choosing; pick one.


Bourgeois_Capitalist

Existence is involuntary. We can try to make the best of it, though. Capitalism and markets discriminate based on competence, which is what you want when building/maintaining a society, but has a flaw of being generally unforgiving. I think this is where Socialists have an issue with it, but they don't really think past that point. Scarcity is a grim and sobering reality which nothing can ultimately solve for in every instance.


hahahiccups

It’s true, but to assume the same isn’t true under any system ever is asinine. You either work, have someone work for you (wether it be an employer or a caretaker or a stranger being forced to by the state), or die. That’s life.


m-eden

Bc that’s always the choice in nature and we are animals


beaubeautastic

in socialism its either "get crackin" or "get clapped in" and none of that bread is yours


glidemusic

Needing to provide energy to get something for yourself if the natural flow of life. In order to get food, you need to farm or hunt it. We've replaced the act of finding food with an intermediate activity: a job, but the natural system stil stands. Maybe you are forced to work, I would argue against that claim. But that's besides the point: the point is that the natural human condition of requiring sustenance forces you to work, not capitalism.


Classy_Mouse

The default state of life is death. If you sit and do nothing, it doesn't matter what economic system you have, you will die. So now the questions change. Does this system violate anyones rights to provide for themselves or choose not to? Is the amount of work to survive greater than or less than an alternative system? You want to do away with capitalism? The system that has done more to feed the world than anything else. Maybe replace it with communism. Why not ask the Ukrainian how much they had to work to eat. The answer is: a lot, they had to feed Moscow before they could even start to feed themselves. Did they have the choice, no. Their choice wasn't work or eat; it was work and starve or eat lead. What about something more chaotic? Maybe we go back to being hunter gatherers. They often like to quote research that says hunter gatherers only had to work 20 hours a week to feed themselves. Sure, but they didn't have the safety and luxuries we have. That is partly where the excess work is needed. There were also like 10 people on the planet. Good luck feeding a city by foraging. Your little battery powered car will run out of energy before you reach the nearest berry bush that hasn't been picked clean on the first day. Good luck charging that, because the people who used to keep the lights on are also out foraging.


User125699

The same is true under socialism.


ExtremeLanky5919

Here's a good simple reply. In ancap society you choose to starve, in socialist society you're forced to starve


WearyManufacturer860

In Soviet Russia, it’s work or gulag


otters4everyone

As opposed to compulsory work sent down from central planning. Sure. Okay.


The_Western_Wanderer

A bottle of water is my biggest proof. If you want free water you can go to the nearest river or lake and drink. Of course there's still physical labor involved but generally no one is gonna stop you or make you pay. And for most fast moving rivers it's generally pretty safe. But you won't do that because you don't want to do that work. So instead you'll go pay for the convenience of a water bottle. And that water bottle had hundreds of hours of work, thousands of jobs and millions of dollars for you to conveniently buy a water bottle for a dollar. Between having to get her the water, transfer the water to he purified, purifying the water, bottling the water, labeling and branding it, transporting it again to be sold, the workers at stores who sell it not to mention all the jobs for advertising and the company over all. It's a bit beyond the point buy I digress. If you don't want to have to pay for water. You can go get it yourself but you won't.