i never said that other people find all work unpleasant to do. there are many people who do a whole lot of activities voluntarily. (just look at how many people go to the gym, etc.)
But plenty of people, per OP, don’t “like” anything other than shoving food into their mouths, and sleeping.
i think you're unreasonably assuming here that a revolution would happen everywhere on the planet at the same time. realistically, that's not the case. you start with one place, then another, etc. and in the meantime you have exactly the problems that i cited. how to interact with other entities, etc?
well, the question is whether you enjoy the act of picking up a fruit and eating it, i guess. like, even if a full platter suddenly appears in front of you, you still have to shove the mass into your mouth. do you enjoy doing that? if not, then why do you eat?
first of all, labor seems to be the constant in your worldview that everything revolves around. do you believe (or think that it's possible / desirable) that we will eventually have a fully automated luxury society?
if yes, how would you call such a system?
secondly, it seems to me that the point that "bourgeoisie" doesn't work is a big problem to you. mind explaining why? is it because society desperately needs that 1% extra labor output? is it because of some "work is a moral must" mindset (quasi-religious)? is it for some other reason?
thirdly, it seems to me that you're defining communism socialism as essentially our current society, just that CEOs don't get huge bonuses and shareholders don't skim company profit. so, in other words, our current world minus the stock market: every company has to emit zero profit (such that no shareholders gain from it) and all the money must instead be spent on the business itself: wages to workers and resource acquirements.
did i understand that correctly? would you add anything? do you think that this setup is already feasible in today's legal framework through worker-owned businesses? ("co-ops" and what they're called)
Put another way: no one should be obligated to participate in society, but then society should likewise have no obligations to the non-participants.
funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates. that those who don't work, don't deserve to eat. "useless eaters" and all that, my mother can (sadly) give you a long and stern lecture about that (she is very much what you would call a "conservative").
capitalism re-formulates that by saying that you need money to buy food, but to get that money, you have to work. in other words, who doesn't work, doesn't get food. that's why many people say it's cruel and inhumane because it makes people suffer who don't work. and that's exactly why we have things such as social safety nets etc. where the state gives money to people sothat they can buy basic stuff with it if they are poor. because society at large revolts against the concept of "who doesn't work, shouldn't eat". or at least that's how it is in most (civilized) countries, except of course in america people don't always see things that way.
i do think that "voluntary" is a pretty clear term. would you still do it if it didn't cost you anything, and it also didn't get you any physical reward?
The tendency of the rate of profit to fall will soon mean that an industry will stop producing said commodity. It can’t anymore if it’s unprofitable. This is where the state has to step in and start subsidizing that industry or buying the commodity themself in order to articially inflate demand in order to keep that industry afloat. See e.g. the “butter mountains” of the EU.
ahem i just so happen to be very familiar with the whole concept of the tendency of rate of profit to fall (TRPF) and you're misunderstanding it here. it turns to be unprofitable in the sense that the profit rate approaches zero (for example, exponentially), it does not go negative! companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays. so they continue to produce stuff indefinitely, according to the model. even though they make less and less profit with it. no state subsidizing involved here.
this is maybe a subtlety here. something can converge towards zero while also always staying positive. check out this function:
Because women only want what that don’t have. If they have big tits they want a reduction, if they have small tits they want a boob job, if they have blonde hair they want brunette, if they have brunette hair they want blonde, if they have curly hair they want strait…
Every… Single… Woman I’ve dated has bitched about something they didn’t have naturally. The same with men, all these women that “never met good guys” have, they just ignored them because they could have them.
i think there is a term from chinese philosophy ... called Diyu is a state of permanent unrest, where the people can never find peace because they're constantly driven by something that feels off ... it's considered the opposite of a calm, "fine with how the world is" so called "buddha nature".
ich erinnere mich daran gelesen zu haben dass strom kaum effizient weiter als ca. 300 km übertragen werden kann
unsere beiträge, deren bezahl/login-wand
i never said that other people find all work unpleasant to do. there are many people who do a whole lot of activities voluntarily. (just look at how many people go to the gym, etc.)
so no, that's not what i meant.
yeah ok, i didn't mean to belittle you by explaining convergence and such, it's just that i wasn't sure what level of math education you got.
xD
how is it ridiculous and pointless? fixing software is a big concern to me.
i think you're unreasonably assuming here that a revolution would happen everywhere on the planet at the same time. realistically, that's not the case. you start with one place, then another, etc. and in the meantime you have exactly the problems that i cited. how to interact with other entities, etc?
well, the question is whether you enjoy the act of picking up a fruit and eating it, i guess. like, even if a full platter suddenly appears in front of you, you still have to shove the mass into your mouth. do you enjoy doing that? if not, then why do you eat?
why so? what makes humans non-animals?
also what kind of view is this? where is the meaning in that?
thanks :)
ok so what you're describing here is that ...
secondly, it seems to me that the point that "bourgeoisie" doesn't work is a big problem to you. mind explaining why? is it because society desperately needs that 1% extra labor output? is it because of some "work is a moral must" mindset (quasi-religious)? is it for some other reason?
thirdly, it seems to me that you're defining
communismsocialism as essentially our current society, just that CEOs don't get huge bonuses and shareholders don't skim company profit. so, in other words, our current world minus the stock market: every company has to emit zero profit (such that no shareholders gain from it) and all the money must instead be spent on the business itself: wages to workers and resource acquirements.did i understand that correctly? would you add anything? do you think that this setup is already feasible in today's legal framework through worker-owned businesses? ("co-ops" and what they're called)
funnily enough, that is exactly what capitalism postulates. that those who don't work, don't deserve to eat. "useless eaters" and all that, my mother can (sadly) give you a long and stern lecture about that (she is very much what you would call a "conservative").
capitalism re-formulates that by saying that you need money to buy food, but to get that money, you have to work. in other words, who doesn't work, doesn't get food. that's why many people say it's cruel and inhumane because it makes people suffer who don't work. and that's exactly why we have things such as social safety nets etc. where the state gives money to people sothat they can buy basic stuff with it if they are poor. because society at large revolts against the concept of "who doesn't work, shouldn't eat". or at least that's how it is in most (civilized) countries, except of course in america people don't always see things that way.
funny :) but i came up with it independently
dude ... pls put that behind a spoiler tag. that is a serious infohazard there
i do think that "voluntary" is a pretty clear term. would you still do it if it didn't cost you anything, and it also didn't get you any physical reward?
ahem i just so happen to be very familiar with the whole concept of the tendency of rate of profit to fall (TRPF) and you're misunderstanding it here. it turns to be unprofitable in the sense that the profit rate approaches zero (for example, exponentially), it does not go negative! companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays. so they continue to produce stuff indefinitely, according to the model. even though they make less and less profit with it. no state subsidizing involved here.
this is maybe a subtlety here. something can converge towards zero while also always staying positive. check out this function:
what you're describing is just capitalism with extra steps
i mean, i only asked whether you go to work voluntarily, and whether it could therefore be considered vegan.
first time?
i think there is a term from chinese philosophy ... called Diyu is a state of permanent unrest, where the people can never find peace because they're constantly driven by something that feels off ... it's considered the opposite of a calm, "fine with how the world is" so called "buddha nature".