Money?

money?
bad

Attached: marx.jpg (1280x1500, 1M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CWF_0lkBhjY&list=PLvoAL-KSZ32f2WAqejJdLM2ByZWKpREt8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Brainlet here.
Did Marx unironically think doctors should be getting paid as much as factory workers? What would be the incentive to spend years of your life studying to be a doctor when you can just do menial labour and get paid the same?

There would be no getting paid or trading. In his utopia, if you need a check-up the doctor would give it to you for free. And if the doctor needs food he would go to the farmer and get it for free. There is no currency or trading, you just take what you want and provide what you can for the commune

given equal pay I'd rather be a doctor than work with my hands all day long

Recipes for the cookbooks of the future? Worse than money

No he believed in a retarded social contract of people giving shit to each other out of their good will. Essentially as dumb as AnCaps.
In practice I support things like barter trade, I think money is mostly just an unnecessary middle man, but the real problem is how much power and how many applications money has. Reduce the power of money you basically remove the problem. Commies want to throw out the baby with the bathwater and reduce human civilization back to zero.

gimme dat fo free

What about the years of training and insomnia required to become a doctor?

No you wouldnt

Don't become a doctor if you medicine too hard for you

Yes, I would. I know doctors, I know factory workers. It's a more pleasant and rewarding experience.

Read pic related, and stop pretending you know what Marxism is before you read it completely with the help of secondary sources and/or help from your professor if you're in a philosophy program.

Attached: 182634632218.jpg (348x499, 36K)

Dealing with sick and dying people evwry day of your life for piss pay would not be an enjoyable experience. You would also have no spare time you would be working even at home. It would be completely soul crushing and depressing. Suicide rate among doctors is pretty high.

value is created through socially necessary labor time. being a doctor requires more labor, meaning their services are more valuable than trades that require less socially necessary labor time. whether you would want to devote all of your time to being a doctor when your labor is just as valuable hour to hour in any other trade is simply up to you.

>socially necessary
pls define

It feels like everyone has their own self defined version of Marxism on this fucking board.
Why cant one of you spastic retards just explain it in basic terms instead of going on some lengthy tangent of econobabble? I shouldnt have to read his entire works plus commentaries from other authors on said works to understand it. If I do have to then its already a failed ideology. Break it down. Why is what everybody calls Communism not real Communism and why is Marxism this hyper redpilled big brain idea that only the excelcietes of the neo-upper class can understand?

labor which contributes something in some way to the total needs of a community. this means digging a ditch and then filling the ditch in, while obviously labor, is not socially necessary and therefore has no value.

Average required labor time. Like, something is not worth more just because it took you 8 hours to make when it would take the average person 3.
Most modern Marxists had abandoned the labor theory of
value though, afaik.

seems like a pretty slippery definition but thank you.

you are so close to realising it's an unrealistic ideology that doesn't work in the real world

Why would anybody do anything if there is no incentive to do anything
Why would I study medicine for 8 years of my life and go through all that stress for absolutley zero benefit whatsoever other than gratitude and satisfaction when I could just assume someone else will do it

>critique marx
>”you just dont understand him you gotta read a thoudand pages of drivel until you can say something meaningful”
Marx fags are worse than pascal fags

I already gatherd that much from the fact that every single IRL communist has been a serial fuck-up but they assure me it wasnt real and we still havent actually tried it, so I want to know what we're supposed to be trying.

Yes, user. You generally have to read a philosopher's works before you critique them. This is the literature board. You're not on /pol/ anymore.

>/pol/
Nothing he even said was remotely /pol/ you schizo

t. Sociopath

Is the idea that some people find meaning in helping others and do it out of their own free volition, regardless of the pay? The first responder medical people in my country work shitty hours, get shitty pay and have to pay money to get trained for the job. What kind of incentive is that?

Reminder that illiterate peasants in Vietnam were able to understand the basic tenants of Marxism through organised community classes.
Also a reminder that most capitalists, both in the definition of followers of the ideology that capitalism is the best economic system and those who gain their wealth through capital investment, do not themselves understand capitalism. You just need some basics which our society does for capitalism, even if it doesn't do that all too well, but not for communism and Marxism. Hence why so few people actually understand it, not to even mention how many teachers tell their students communism is when you live like the Smurfs.

If you're a lazy hack this video series is solid: youtube.com/watch?v=CWF_0lkBhjY&list=PLvoAL-KSZ32f2WAqejJdLM2ByZWKpREt8
if you're not you can read Adam Smith's wealth of nations, Capital at least volume one preferably read with David Harvey's companion to capital, and pic related to get a grasp on Marxist Leninism which is distinct from Marxism but has been a great influence in some strains of Marxism.

Attached: Lenin.jpg (320x499, 21K)

Throwing away Marx before having engaged with his philosophy outside of having watched a Carl of Swindon video is pretty /pol/ my man.

When you realise that your ideology is stupid because it is idiology? Why you can't fight what you don't like without endless labels and useless books that just circlejerking same ideas from hundred years ago?

>The not real communism meme
Nobody, barring younger anarchists will argue this user. Mostly because only socialist/state capitalist regimes have been achieved so far.

>Your ideology is stupid because it is an ideology, also because I can't understand it and can't be bothered to learn.
That's a spicy take my man.

>t. Sociopath
How the fuck am I a sociopath?

>Is the idea that some people find meaning in helping others and do it out of their own free volition, regardless of the pay?
Yeah why would people do that? Do you think people are inherently good or something?

>The first responder medical people in my country work shitty hours, get shitty pay and have to pay money to get trained for the job. What kind of incentive is that?
Sure, I have a friend who is a volunteer firefighter. But you dont need to train for that. You didnt answer my question, why would I go to school and study hard for some high end profession when there is no incentive to? I dont work to find fulfillment and very few people do, they work because they need to, which is why Capitalism (for all its issues) revolutionised the world and put technological progress on hyper drive.
So you want to remove that, we're essentially going back to the stone age where people largely sit around and only hunt when they need to eat. That sounds fucking shit.

Marxism has been made so contentious in the US that to get a clear understanding of it you’ve gotta read it for yourself. As you said, everyone will go around telling you wildly different things about what Marxism is, so who do you know to trust? Gotta go to the source. Even if you don’t think you’ll agree w/ the Marxist view before reading, it should be obvious that there’s something provocative about his work that’s worth exploring.

Exactly. So if nobody has to pay for anything the only reason people would be doctors would be out of pure goodwill. Otherwise they could do menial labour and still get everything for free. I don't know about you, but I don't think people are so altruistic. Also what stops people being greedy and taking too much resources for themselves?
>simply up to you
Yeah and very few people will willingly put themselves through years of education and rigorous study to be a doctor when this will yield the exact same consequences as being a low-skilled worker.

Also what happens to creative pursuits like writing? How does one determine the value of writing if not through the market? Will every pseud and wannabe writer who puts out pure garbage be able to retire from work and take up writing full time?

Keep defending your idols on internet. That's more productive for marxism than actions IRL against system, that's for sure

People call you a sociopath because you're literally saying you're only incentivised by monetary gain. Now Marxism does advocate for a doctor gaining more from his labour than for example a dishwasher but that doesn't negate the fact that you're either a sociopath or completely brainwashed.
Also, the ideo that people are inherently good or bad is something that Marxism takes care which you would know if you actually read what you were talking about instead of thinking we're on fucking /pol/.

>Yeah why would people do that?
Because they want to and they can
>Do you think people are inherently good or something?
No one imply that, dumbass.

is concept of doing something without financial motivation is impossible for americans to grasp?

>How will we determine the value of creative work?!?!?!
You... really don't understand the difference between value and price do you?
>Lol, just do things against the system without having a theoretical system to inform you on what those things that should be fought are.
Imagine being such a thoughtless drone, you'd do great in the military, user.

So you know what things you fought against. What now?

>You... really don't understand the difference between value and price do you?
How does this answer my question?

No, he did not advocate that idea. Equality of outcome is a meme developed by contemporary Marxists. Marx himself explicitly rejected the idea of equality of outcome in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Money is pretty stupid, to be fair. So is capitalism.

Mate, you cannot achieve anything of value, at least when it comes to actualising a dictatorship of the proletariat or a socialist regime through some other way, without the working class achieving class consciousness first.
The huge theoretical problem of 21st century Marxism is exactly that, how do you compete with a massive propaganda machine that has created 'capitalist realism'.
Just, please, read. You're not on /pol/ anymore.
Same point: read.

I wouldn't even say that it was invented by contemporary Marxists, it was mostly a strawman designed to easily defeat Marxism as if it were utopian. Contemporary 'Marxists', and I'm talking kids here, will tend to argue for it in good faith though though, mostly just before they become anarchists at around age 16-20.

Pussy

The main bad thing about capitalism that ruins money is really the switching up of the trade dynamic from: product/labor - money - product/labor to money - product/labor - money.

You just wrote a paragraph of a diatribe on capitalism and peasants in vietnam when you could have explained it instead.
This is exactly what I mean.
I dont want to read 5 books to understand a basic economic theory. Its ridiculous. If other economists can do it in one book so can Marx, if I need to do 3 months of study to understand this I'm not going to bother because I know it'll be a waste of time and frankly I have better things to read.
I appreciate the links and suggestions and I know you mean well but its a bit much.

>people call you a sociopath because you're literally saying you're only incentivised by monetary gain
I never "literally" said that even once actually. But if that qualifies someone as a sociopath then I guess everybody (but you ofc) is a sociopath, because guess what; 99% of people labour for material gain.
Calling me names doesnt make your argument any better, user.
If Marxism "takes care" of good will then please explain it to me instead of hurling insults.

Who wants to?
>No one imply that. dumbass.
Then why would people be good to one another instead of doing what they always do?
I'm also not american and not a capitalist nor a materialist but keep those insults coming.

Marxism: Rich diversity of literature examining its many theoretical implications and how we can use it as a way to actualise socialism in practice.
Capitalism: I refuse to read unless someone gives me a fair market rate to do so. Also: you're a pussy.

>Who wants to?
People that do. Are you retarded?
>Then why would people be good to one another instead of doing what they always do?
What the fuck are you meant even by that?

>Same point: read.
Bro I'm talking about actual praxis not some idealistic interpretation of value and price. How do you determine the value of somebody's creative work and at what point does someone say 'this is trash and you should not be able to be a full time writer anymore. go back to the factory'? Only the market can do that.

Can you clarify something for me, since you are so well-read. Does communism have these three principles: stateless, moneyless and classless? If the answer is yes, can you explain to me if critiquing communism is critiquing Marxism? To my knowledge Marx advocated for communism which involves those three things but please do clarify if I’m wrong

Woah you can read. Capitalism is over now.

Do you think he was bi?

>Only the market can do that.
How do you pretend to be open to learning when you already presuppose a certain mode of thinking?
I linked you a video series taking only half an hour user, it goes through the basics taken with some democratic socialist biases. Also: the fact that people do menial labor for monetary gain does not mean that the same situation applies to jobs that are fullfilling in themselves.
"I'm also not american and not a capitalist nor a materialist..."
Pray do tell, what is your ideology then?

>People that do
Thats not an answer you moron
Why are free doctors going to suddenly appear in your communist utopia? Who is going to educate them and why?
>What the fuck are you meant even by that?
ESL?
What I meant by that is people tend to be rarher competitive, to the point that we have fought wars with each other since the dawn of time over trivial things. So why would people suddenly agree to work together for no material gain? Material gain is the incentive TO work together in most cases, so you're losing a huge mass of workers by removing that.

Communism as defined within Marx's philosophical system is, amongst other things, stateless, moneyless and classless, yes.
Critiquing this definition of communism is critiquing an aspect of Marxism, yes.

>Thats not an answer you moron
Yes it is answer on that question. Otherwise how can you answer this question?
>people tend to be rarher competitive
No they don't if there's no need for it.

OP, imagine that you weren't a selfish piece of shit or a retard and actually wanted to help those that help you. Goddamn, American "individualism" (protip: your entire persona is a product of marketing and propaganda) is one of the worst things ever. I wish you retards could take after the Japanese in social responsibility. Inb4 blaming it on NIGGERS REEEE. You dumbfuck white burger cunts continue to unironically fuck them over with that shitty clause in the 14th amendment and every other thing you do. Imagine being a fucking retard burger who blathers about personal agency and held slaves or has the most populated prisons. Imagine. Gulags were nothing. Fuck you. Fuck burgers. Get nuked.

I had something completely different typed but I deleted it because I realised OP is just a burgeretard who won't understand anything.

Marxism is anti-utopian, way to show that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
And read some basic anthropological work if you think the Randian 'muh human nature' argument still holds.

Based having an aneurysm out of pure rage poster.
You're not completely wrong either lol.

>How do you pretend to be open to learning when you already presuppose a certain mode of thinking?
I don't know why you keep dodging the question and going on tangents about how I'm not well-read. I know that. I admitted to being a brainlet on the first post of this thread. I do plan to read Marx in the future. However if you think that debate and playing devil's advocate isn't a good learning exercise then you are retarded. How about answering my question now? How does one determine the value of creative work under communism and, if it can't, will any slackjob writer be able to retire from actual work and take up writing full time?

>Why are free doctors going to suddenly appear in your communist utopia?
Why are doctorse appear before stable monetary system? Because there's need to heal people
Who is going to educate them
People that have knowledge about stuff
> and why?
Why people train other people to be a doctor? i guess for a purpose to make a doctor.
Your questions are kinda stupid, mate?

>same point: read
What a fucking brainlet. Use words you fucking simpleton and explain yourself. Oh that’s right, you can’t.

>I linked you a video series taking only half an hour user, it goes through the basics taken with some democratic socialist biases.
I'll check it out now then.
>Also: the fact that people do menial labor for monetary gain does not mean that the same situation applies to jobs that are fullfilling in themselves.
Not all jobs are fulfilling in themselves, but some jobs need to be done. Cleaning out sewage tanks isnt exactly fulfilling.
>"I'm also not american and not a capitalist nor a materialist..."
>Pray do tell, what is your ideology then?
I believe in Traditionalism. Corporatist economics (self governance of industry), barter trade for national exports and imports, but above all I believe the economic field should be subordinated to the spiritual society and high politics. As long as it is removed from ideology and functions to satisfaction, thats fine. I believe in meritocracy, a caste system, and authority enlightened by transcendent religious principles.

I just get so mad at Americans for generally being retarded all my thoughts start shifting to insulting them about halfway through whatever I'm attempting to post so I just delete it and allow myself to get mad.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

>no they dont if there's no need for it
How is there no need for it
What if that guy pisses me off and I want him to fuck off but he wont? What if i'm trying to impress a girl?

>anti-utopian
Ok HOW because it sounds pretty fucking utopian to me and basically everyone else charged you with the same accusation
I'm still waiting for one of your spergs to explain yourself

Your entire belief sounds fucking stupid, mate. So what you're saying is thay everything rests upon assumptions that someone will do it because, i dunno they wanna?
Thats absolutley braindead retarded.

>Did Marx unironically think doctors should be getting paid as much as factory workers?
only boomers, Americans and those who are heavily penetrated by Americanism believes this friend

Automation is going to make all this people do it out of the kindness of their heart shit pretty irrelavant.

>What if that guy pisses me off and I want him to fuck off but he wont
You go in competition with him and piss on yourself harder?
>What if i'm trying to impress a girl?
You're a cuck

Zero arguments

If we ever reach a point where human labour isnt needed whatsoever then humans no longer need to exist, brah.

Not him but you have zero brain cells.

>So what you're saying is thay everything rests upon assumptions that someone will do it because, i dunno they wanna?
Yeah. Or thinking that some people do things to get money because they WANT to get money to buy things they WANT is retarded for you to?

140 IQ and I'm a mechanical engineer, maybe you're the dumb one?

Zero arguments

The relevance and opus of Marx is heavily underestimated because of capitalist propaganda, mostly. His work is gargantuan and very in-depth from economy, sociology, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics and history, all the while making literary references throighout his books. Trying to explain marxism without previous intellectual work on Marx, or even his influences is a very hard task, moreso when said influences have been obscured by academia and media for centuries now, like Democritus or Adam Smith's LVT (how curious it is that market autoregulation is not regarded as a stupid concept while LVT is mostly considered bullshit nowadays, huh?)

Think of it as trying to understand Kant without any previous knowledge of empiricism or rationalism. It would be insanely difficult to do so.

This is best understood in relation to your concept of people behaving according to their ideals, and the impossibility of a society that does not appease said ideals, which sems from your Idealistic Metaphisical conception rather than a Dialectical Materialistic one. People do not organize in a capitalist society because they are selfish, they are selfish because they organiza and grow up and are socialized in said environment. There are plenty of historical examples of communal pre-market societies like the Iroquois Indians of New York, which have been addressed by Engel's "Origin of private property, family and the State", hence the short-tempered user urging you to READ before asking questions answered over a century ago in a way better fashion than any user in Yea Forums can answer to.

> Then why would people be good to one another instead of doing what they always do?

A central and undeniable characteristic of human existence is our desire to transform the environment we live in. Being the only self-conscious creatures, qe are able to adapt this self environment to our needs. However, aaid transformation (or work) has become a form of expression of the self in human society, embedding and cristalizing part of yourself in the product of your work, hence the artists love of his craft, or the labourers love for the product of his work. You can see it in a more contemporary light in the case of people doing "free work" (investment of their time and skills) just because. Ie.: Minecraft "autism" or me writing this long-ass post. This topic has been addressed and expanded as well in Capitam when marx talks aboit "fetishization of commodities".

Tl;dr: The other user is kind of rude, but it nevertheless does not excuse your willing ignorance or predisposition to be spoon-fed.

>Or thinking that some people do things to get money because they WANT to get money to buy things they WANT is retarded for you to?
People work for money because they have to survive, you mongoloid. That's the incentive to labour under Capitalism. And I think its pretty gross, but hey, its effective. Its sure as shit more effective than your system.

>People work for money because they have to survive
Only if they're poor

New flash buddy, all the wealth is in the top 2%. The rest of society works to pay bills and put food on their plates.

>Only the market can do that

Are tou aware that the commodification of art in pursue of profit is what is killing art in the 20th and 21st century, aren't you? I mean, just take a look at the state of "popular" music, cinema or even literature since we're on such board. The market stipulates that John Green and GRR Martin are great artists with artistic merit. This is something Adorno (a marxist) has warned us about for about a century, and you still get it the other way around. Maybe the marxists' frustration can be a little more understood when you put it this way.

>Its sure as shit more effective than your system
How is it more effective? I don't see any incentive to become doctor there. Only to get money by any means

newS*

Zero arguments

Not sure how this is relevant. It's pretty obvious that capitalism has had an adverse effect on art. But this does not mean that communism would be better.

>I don't see any incentive to become doctor there.
>Only to get money
Bingo you answered your own question. I'm not denying there may be *some* people out there who only do these things because they truly love it, and would do it even if they were living in the street, but the reality is the vast majority dont. You can be anti-materialist and still understand the necessity of material wealth and its value. Things have intrinsic value to us, you can't rationalize that out of people.
Most doctors slave through medical school to get their degree so they can make bank and provide for their significant other and future kids. That's a fact. If you removed that incentive, you would lose 90% of doctors.

Marxism is the materialistic and dialectical analysis of existence, which applied to human society (understood as historical materialism) sees the antagonical nature of all class societies and their inherent tendencies to overcome them in a new, elevated stage of the process. The logical and ultimate elevation of said process of antagonical relations is the classless society, which has been historically called communism. The achievement of said stage ought tl be through a revoultion because of the dialectical law of quantitative and qualitatice changes and the immediate aftermath of said revolution ought to be the proletariat dictatorship which is the State's machinery (which by definition is a tool in the hands of the dominant class to perpetuate their position of economic and politic power agaisnt the opressed class) in the hands of the workers in orser to repress reactionary attempts to re-instate the organization of class society all the while striving towards the abolishment of classes, the state (which would be redefined as a kind of administrative organization since it's repressing tools would no longer be needed in a classless society) and ultimately money.

Communism only describes said final situation, advocated in different forms by many philosophers and societies throught history. Marxism is the scientifical analysis of society and the laws that regulate it's evolution. Communism is a political ideal many people strive for (with many inconsistencies and un-scientific methods in many cases).

Why are you trying to cement his point?

>but the reality is the vast majority dont.
Vast majority don't become doctors either so why you bring the up anyway?
>You can be anti-materialist and still understand the necessity of material wealth and its value
That's double edged sworm argument and it's goes other way around as well
>Most doctors slave through medical school to get their degree so they can make bank and provide for their significant other and future kids. That's a fact.
Yeah that's fact. But there's no still incentive to do so because welth is not guaranteed by working. You'll be more succesful if you sell drugs. Or be a rapper or whatever
>If you removed that incentive, you would lose 90% of doctors.
I don't think you can prove statements like that outside of your imagination, user

> It's pretty obvious that capitalism has had an adverse effect on art

But I thought the market was the One giving srtistic merit where it is due!

> This does not mean that communism would be better

If we analyze the effects of for-profit artistic work and commodification of art itself and deduce they are detrimental to artistic expression, what would be YOUR solution if not yhe abolishment (and superation ["Erhebung"]) of said processes?

Im so sick of working that if communism comes in my lifetime (it wont or ever will desu) Im going full NEET I dont give a shit.

There would be no doctors and factory workers. You would fish in the morning, do some carpentry in the afternoon, then spend your evening penning essays on metaphysics. This is not me being hyperbolic. This is literally what Marx believed.

>This is best understood in relation to your concept of people behaving according to their ideals, and the impossibility of a society that does not appease said ideals, which sems from your Idealistic Metaphisical conception rather than a Dialectical Materialistic one. People do not organize in a capitalist society because they are selfish, they are selfish because they organiza and grow up and are socialized in said environment.
People have been selfish and ambitious long before Capitalism even existed. Definitley less so than today, where it is promoted and brainwashed into people, but self preservation and competitive nature is just *in* us. Just as it is in all mammals. I dont believe that all human drives are social constructs. If that's the argument, then I think that can be easily torn down by behavioral genetics.
>There are plenty of historical examples of communal pre-market societies like the Iroquois Indians of New York, which have been addressed by Engel's "Origin of private property, family and the State", hence the short-tempered user urging you to READ before asking questions answered over a century ago in a way better fashion than any user in Yea Forums can answer to.
I'm sure it was, but using ancient history isn't a very good argument. The sociopolitical landscape of colonial America was vastly different from today. I'm not very familiar with this confederacy and I've only done a surface reading on Wikipedia but it sounds like these people were largely undeveloped.
>A central and undeniable characteristic of human existence is our desire to transform the environment we live in. Being the only self-conscious creatures
That's not true. Many animals are self aware.
>we are able to adapt this self environment to our needs. However, aaid transformation (or work) has become a form of expression of the self in human society, embedding and cristalizing part of yourself in the product of your work, hence the artists love of his craft, or the labourers love for the product of his work. You can see it in a more contemporary light in the case of people doing "free work" (investment of their time and skills) just because. Ie.: Minecraft "autism" or me writing this long-ass post. This topic has been addressed and expanded as well in Capitam when marx talks aboit "fetishization of commodities".
>Tl;dr: The other user is kind of rude, but it nevertheless does not excuse your willing ignorance or predisposition to be spoon-fed.
I understand what you're saying, but you're ignoring something. Writing and playing Minecraft is fulfilling. You have an incentive to do it because you get a reward at the end. I used the example of cleaning out a shit-tank before, and I'll use it again. Maybe there's one poor fucker out there who finds cleaning other people's shit up fulfilling, but I'd sure like to meet him. There are many jobs that aren't fulfilling, or that have a much higher demand that you cant meet without some other higher incentive.

>What if that guy pisses me off and I want him to fuck off but he wont? What if i'm trying to impress a girl?
How these are competitions?

>Vast majority don't become doctors either so why you bring the up anyway?
The vast majority of doctors, user. Not people.
>That's double edged sworm argument and it's goes other way around as well
Literally how? You're either denying it or accepting it.
>Yeah that's fact. But there's no still incentive to do so because welth is not guaranteed by working.
I.. dont.. I dont even.
>You'll be more succesful if you sell drugs.
That's against the law user. But you bring up a great point, why do people sell drugs? Do they get fulfillment from killing people or do they do it for money like you said?
>Or be a rapper or whatever
You first need talent.

Competing for a girls affection user.

Guy pissing on your head is Competing for a girls affection? And why you try to impress a girl that don't give a shit about you? To create a competition?

God sake, read a fuckin romance novel or something and you'll figure it out.

Well I clearly have more than zero braincells
Maybe one or two but not zero

So you materalistic concept of existing competition is based on romance novels? You don't see an irony of that?

>he didn't say that
>he didn't mean that
>this wasn't real socialism
>yeah they're dead but look at the industry
>capitalism killed more
>bootlicker

You're incredibly dumb user. Please stop replying to me.

Zero arguments

*procede to spent his whole life begging for money*

*also beats his wife*

>That's against the law user
>You first need talent
Who cares. They're have a lot of money without slaving away years of hardship. Doctors and engineers can suck it up

wtf I love marx now

Based

Hm its almost like monetary incentive is effective..

effective for making drugsellers and thiefs

People don't need to be altruistic. Believe or not, not everyone wants to spend their life shoveling shit. 4 year olds have no real understanding of money but ask them what they want to be and they'll say things like 'doctors, firefighters, nurses', some people just prefer different kinds of work.

4 year olds dont understand how much work it takes to become a doctor

>4 year olds have no real understanding of money but ask them what they want to be and they'll say things like 'doctors, firefighters, nurses', some people just prefer different kinds of work.
That is a really weak argument

There's people spending years perfecting their artisitic craft without any illusions of monetary gain (except maybe a small, very humble living) and yet these people keep at it.
Why do you think being a doctor is so different? If anything the incentives are even greater considering not only the social capital but also how good it feels to actually help people.

What he's trying to say is that the idea that's so prevalent in capitalist economies that monetary incentive is the most important or even the only incentive is more learned than anything.

>There's people spending years perfecting their artisitic craft without any illusions of monetary gain (except maybe a small, very humble living) and yet these people keep at it.
Very very few, most people would rather sit on their ass, eat and fuck all day while other people do the work.

>I believe in Traditionalism. Corporatist economics (self governance of industry), barter trade for national exports and imports, but above all I believe the economic field should be subordinated to the spiritual society and high politics. As long as it is removed from ideology and functions to satisfaction, thats fine. I believe in meritocracy, a caste system, and authority enlightened by transcendent religious principles.
Based, I mean you're a complete and utter retard but still, based.

No user, that's just the human condition under capitalism. And also at least a little bit of projection no?

Thats cool user you can think that. I'm proud of my beliefs and I have nothing to hide.

No user, that's reality. There was a world before Capitalism and it wasn't Communist.

>I dont believe that all human drives are social constructs. If that's the argument, then I think that can be easily torn down by behavioral genetics.
If this is the case you need to read more anthropolgy. Margaret Mead and Marcel Mauss might be a good starting point.
Also i wouldn't put much trust into behavioral generics or any branch of psychology that tries to resemble too much to natural sciences. Almost all studies of this kind that i've seen use their own statistical significance standards due to "the amount of avaliable cases" (for example studies with twins) that don't have any validity regarding to the law of the large numbers, which is the basic law upon statistics operates. Also most of them disregard or simplify "enviromental variables" to the point where the study ends up being ridiculous.

About the unpleasing tasks. What the other user said might help understand the question. Sennet wrote about it, with a hint of nostalgia, but being right nonetheless.
There's no activity that's fulfilling on it's own (pleasure is not interchangeable with fullfilment or desirability, just think how masturbation even if it is pleasurable -also, not always- might actually operate as an undesirable habit and produce suffering on the individual) all activities have a central socio-semiotic element. Just think how when i'm enrolled in a project, for example, building my own house even cleaning the shit that covered the place where my house will in the future stand might be pleasurable as long as it's linked to the whole project.
It's easy to see how many bussinesses are trying to make this holistic-project principle work to their own interests, with varying success by producing a "corporate culture", that tries to make the workers feel as if the whole bussiness was their own bussiness.
Is it possible to trigger interest and make something desirable and pleasurable, when the activity itself is fragmented and you're just doing a meaningless repetitive activity and you can't even think of the final product as a significative production of your own effort?
Just think of the craftmanship, usually the process of making finished products consists in unpleasurable labours which you find in a fragmented form on industry. And when you hear the craftsman talk about his craft he often mystifies it to the point where it seems that it is the most pleasurable experience in life.
Also technical division of labour = social division of labour in our societies. Mostly the least valued proffesions are the ones that pay the worst and viceversa.
Think about writting a novel or being a proffesor, here at least (Spain), the second one doesn't pay well at all. You can see that in those cases the labour has a high social value but low market value.
Whatever, my english sucks and i'm running out of words.

>Very very few, most people would rather sit on their ass, eat and fuck all day while other people do the work.
Yeah and first ones own second ones