r/antiwork - Yes, it's exactly what it sounds like.

How will society function without jobs?


  • Total voters
    900
  • Poll closed .
Yeah, lots of books from the 30s and 40s where Western libs went to the USSR and with the idea that they "just want to drive a tractor somewhere" and being really let down when they got their assigned job working 12 hour days in a forge somewhere.

And then during the Purge they were shot for being American. But that's a different problem.
 
Nursing unions are generally pretty good. One of the reasons is that they're pretty localized. Once unions start gobbling up people nationwide in different positions you get a lot of members who are at cross purposes and the union ends up not doing too much.
More decentralization of unions is needed if they are to serve the needs of their local members. Hell more decentralization is needed in general but this is a talk for a real discussion and not some thread about lazy halfwits who think 20 hours is too much.
 
1.png

Because Section 8 is just full of artists and philosophers.
 
View attachment 3306463

Because Section 8 is just full of artists and philosophers.
That's the really sad thing. There are some kinds of people who do produce substantial contributions to mankind when allowed to work on their passion projects under patronage. Leftists subscribe to a political theory that forbids them from identifying those people, and demands that the laziest get the most.
 
View attachment 3306463

Because Section 8 is just full of artists and philosophers.
See also for anti-socialist sentiment:
Vladimir Lenin said:
The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products. This is a "defect" according to Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law.
Vladimir Lenin said:
The Soviets must set to work more boldly and display greater initiative. All "communes"—factories, villages, consumers’ societies, and committees of supplies—must compete with each other as practical organisers of accounting and control of labour and distribution of products. The programme of this accounting and control is simple, clear and intelligible to all—everyone to have bread; everyone to have sound footwear and good clothing; everyone to have warm dwellings; everyone to work conscientiously; not a single rogue (including those who shirk their work) to be allowed to be at liberty, but kept in prison, or serve his sentence of compulsory labour of the hardest kind; not a single rich man who violates the laws and regulations of socialism to be allowed to escape the fate of the rogue, which should, in justice, be the fate of the rich man. "He who does not work, neither shall he eat"—this is the practical commandment of socialism. This is how things should be organised practically. These are the practical successes our "communes" and our worker and peasant organisers should be proud of. And this applies particularly to the organisers among the intellectuals (particularly, because they are too much, far too much in the habit of being proud of their general instructions and resolutions).

Thousands of practical forms and methods of accounting and controlling the rich, the rogues and the idlers must be devised and put to a practical test by the communes themselves, by small units in town and country. Variety is a guarantee of effectiveness here, a pledge of success in achieving the single common aim—to clean the land of Russia of all vermin, of fleas—the rogues, of bugs—the rich, and so on and so forth. In one place half a score of rich, a dozen rogues, half a dozen workers who shirk their work (in the manner of rowdies, the manner in which many compositors in Petrograd, particularly in the Party printing-shops, shirk their work) will be put in prison. In another place they will be put to cleaning latrines. In a third place they will be provided with "yellow tickets" after they have served their time, so that everyone shall keep an eye on them, as harmful persons, until they reform. In a fourth place, one out of every ten idlers will be shot on the spot. In a fifth place mixed methods may be adopted, and by probational release, for example, the rich, the bourgeois intellectuals, the rogues and rowdies who are corrigible will be given an opportunity to reform quickly. The more variety there will be, the better and richer will be our general experience, the more certain and rapid will be the success of socialism, and the easier will it be for practice to devise—for only practice can devise—the best methods and means of struggle.
Vladimir Lenin said:
The bourgeoisie are disrupting the fixed prices, they are profiteering in grain, they are making a hundred, two hundred and more rubles’ profit on every pood of grain; they are disrupting the grain monopoly and the proper distribution of grain by resorting to bribery and corruption and by deliberately supporting everything tending to destroy the power of the workers, which is endeavouring to put into effect the prime, basic and root principle of socialism: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.” “He who does not work, neither shall he eat”—every toiler understands that. Every worker, every poor and even middle peasant, everybody who has suffered need in his lifetime, everybody who has ever lived by his own labour, is in agreement with this. Nine-tenths of the population of Russia are in agreement with this truth. In this simple, elementary and perfectly obvious truth lies the basis of socialism, the indefeasible source of its strength, the indestructible pledge of its final victory.
Karl Marx said:
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!

I have dealt more at length with the "undiminished" proceeds of labor, on the one hand, and with "equal right" and "fair distribution", on the other, in order to show what a crime it is to attempt, on the one hand, to force on our Party again, as dogmas, ideas which in a certain period had some meaning but have now become obsolete verbal rubbish, while again perverting, on the other, the realistic outlook, which it cost so much effort to instill into the Party but which has now taken root in it, by means of ideological nonsense about right and other trash so common among the democrats and French socialists.

Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
 
I have to wonder what he would say if people stole his computer and all his valuables from his house. Something big gay about rules don't apply to me or some other bullshit i would bet.
He makes close to half a mil per year on patreon or something. I bet his LLC is looking mighty "reclaimable" to his anarchist fellow travelers.
 
He makes close to half a mil per year on patreon or something. I bet his LLC is looking mighty "reclaimable" to his anarchist fellow travelers.
That is always the way. Modern commies always never think that they have "assets" that any self respecting communist from the 1900s would consider Romanov tier in terms of lavishness. Big houses, cars, money, not having to do any real work. People like Jim would be the first against the wall if a real commie revolution happened. Followed by Commissar Jamal reclaiming his tv for "The People".
He would ignore you if you said this to him and people like him. Because like i said above. They only care about these rules as long as they can beat up the people they hate with them. If you turn the rules on them, it suddenly does not count because.
WEEEELLLL I ONLY MAKE 500K BUT DA CEOS MAN MAKE 2BILLION!!
They never stop to think they, have such a high standard of living that a Soviet peasant would fucking kill his entire family to be even in his shoes for 5 mins.
They are ungrateful bastards, pissing around with such silly issues such as what gender they want to be or what bad wig they have on while the real working class are worried about the cost of living.
 
I'd be more supportive of this if I didn't know that labor laws don't apply to retarded people. Including minimum wage.

Technically it's a good thing since they'd lose disability if they made too much, including losing Medicaid, but it definitely feels weird to know the retard washing the windows at the grocery store is probably making like thirty cents an hour.
This gets the retard out if their caretakers eye for a few hours which is good for them, but also allows the retard to earn a bit of cash as well as feel they're part of the community. In bootcamp (MCRD San Diego) the Chowhall employs retards to clean, which I guess let's them do something for their country I a weird way
 
There's a special needs guy who bags groceries at my local Kroger. Asks "paper or plastic" but regardless of how you answer, you're getting plastic.

I have not corrected him and insisted on paper, not gonna make that kind of trouble for myself.
Yeh that's one of the main reasons why the Gov has special caveats for businesses to pay less than minimum wage. Let's face it. If you work a job for years, and you can't follow as simple of a decision tree as "if they say plastic, use plastic. If they say paper, use paper", then very likely you're unemployable even at minimum wage. Jobs at that point become glorified babysitters. That's why it's important that the minimum wage isn't set too high. If the minimum wage is set at the price of a comfortable lifestyle, then only people who can perform labor valued at the cost of a comfortable lifestyle will be employed (until prices inflate enough that it's not the price of a comfortable lifestyle).

You can never regulate yourself into prosperity. You can only regulate yourself out of it.
 
Yeh that's one of the main reasons why the Gov has special caveats for businesses to pay less than minimum wage. Let's face it. If you work a job for years, and you can't follow as simple of a decision tree as "if they say plastic, use plastic. If they say paper, use paper", then very likely you're unemployable even at minimum wage. Jobs at that point become glorified babysitters. That's why it's important that the minimum wage isn't set too high. If the minimum wage is set at the price of a comfortable lifestyle, then only people who can perform labor valued at the cost of a comfortable lifestyle will be employed (until prices inflate enough that it's not the price of a comfortable lifestyle).

You can never regulate yourself into prosperity. You can only regulate yourself out of it.
Why not just make an exception for retards who can't produce enough value to be worth the minimum wage instead?
 
Why not just make an exception for retards who can't produce enough value to be worth the minimum wage instead?
They do, but I am pretty sure that the tard rate still has to be at least a certain percentage of the minimum, so hiking the minimum means that the tard pay becomes more expensive as well, at which point it would be more economical just to hire competent employees and pay them all minimum than get lower-quality employees that you can pay the still-costly sub-minimum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grimacefetishist
This is so close to self-awareness that it hurts. He can recognize the symptoms of a collapsing society but probably blames right-wingers or capitalism for it.
Wait until he figures out that soulless corporation that pushes him until he collapses, repeatedly cuts his benefits, and would fire him in an instant the second he drops below 150% productivity probably loves troons, funds pride shit, and probably has a majority Jewish board of directors and shareholders that hate the working class and white people.

It would horrify your average reddit fag to see just how close they are to agreeing with people who post here or on 4chan.
 
Last edited:
Back