/dead/ - dead

>>1937
Literally one of the most cringe takes ever.

Niggas who say this need to look up its origins and historical usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat
>He who does not work, neither shall he eat is a New Testament aphorism originally by Paul the Apostle, later cited by John Smith in the early 1600s colony of Jamestown, Virginia

Yeah quoting the fucking Bible and an English settler colonist is a great look for a fucking communist.

Tankies BTFO

>>1939
tbf the bible can be based
>"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
if i was christcom gang i'd have this tattooed on the faces of the former rich.

>>1941
I mean sure, it can definitely be to some extent, specially liberation theology, but it has limitations given the reactionary character of religious dogma, if anything it should only be approached as a vector for recruitment and radicalization rather than an ideological basis for any movement.

>>1937
soviet model failed because they tried to give everyone a job. not everyone needs a job for all of us to have our needs met. Working should be a voluntary choice and those who choose to work should be praised as well as given some sort of compensation beyond the basics that everyone gets. Workers should be ranked into categories depending on their efficiency/effort and given bonuses if they are a hard worker. Honestly, just some pride payment would be enough for most people. If youre growing food to feed people and are praised for serving society, thats a lot more satisfying than working way harder for some pointless sales job trying to get people to buy stuff they dont need.

>>1939
Ideological supermarket, as any supermarket, is only fit for looting

>>1943
>Working should be a voluntary choice and those who choose to work should be praised as well as given some sort of compensation beyond the basics that everyone gets.
Based, except I disagree with the pride/praise thing, I think if it's an actual job it should have material compensation. But yeah, everyone should get the same basic stuff and then choose how much they want to work.
It's the ideal, anyway. I wouldn't think it's possible in the early stages of socialist society. How do you think the Soviets should have done it?

>>1943
First half is cringe. We all need work.

The problem is most of our work is based around trivial affairs like bagging groceries and making fast food.

I also think the current system of hiring amd employment should be done away with.

>>1941
that's not even the most based part

America
>you slave but still cannot afford anything
Communist China
>You produce and you can actually live a dignified life

After adjusting for cost of living, the median Chinese have much higher wages and wealth than the median American. The mean is higher for america because the bourgeoisie hold immense wealth and suck vast incomes while the median american slaves while starving. Westoids will never truly understand how poor they actually are because they compute in nominal rather than real terms and the bourgeoisie hold all of "their nation's" wealth.

>>2737
>Communist China
China stopped being communist when they allowed private property and market competition in the late 90s. That's also when their wealth and standard of living went through the roof. Weird coincidence.

>>1943
>Workers should be ranked into categories depending on their efficiency/effort and given bonuses if they are a hard worker.
That's sounds like capitalism with extra steps.

>Honestly, just some pride payment would be enough for most people.
But not you though, right. You're going to stay at home and play video games all day. Working is for retards who want to win employee of the month.

>but muh common good
Be honest with yourself dude, you won't even give a 5% tip to the minimum wage starbucks barista, you think you're going to work 8 hours a day for free?

>soviet model failed because they tried to give everyone a job
No they had to give everyone a job because socialism and central planning is so ridiculously inefficienct.

>>2738
Read the Communist Constitution of China. Communist China is Communist, not capitalist. There are no capitalists in Communist China because the capitalists have been eliminated—Communism has transformed this once parasitic class into a productive class of the People which manages means of production. There is no capitalism in Communist China. The People's Private Property is inviolable, as Communist private property is utterly different from capitalist private property—the conditional nature of Communist private property ensures that it operates within the framework of socialism and precludes the formation of any capitalist class. In Communist China, the invisible hand of the market is guided by the iron fist of the Party and the People
https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html.
<After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, our country gradually achieved the transition from a new democratic society to a socialist society. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on an alliance of workers and peasants, which in essence is a dictatorship of the proletariat, has been consolidated and developed. The Chinese people and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army have defeated imperialist and hegemonist aggression, sabotage and armed provocations, safeguarded national independence and security, and strengthened national defense. Major achievements have been made in economic development. An independent and relatively complete socialist industrial system has now basically been established, and agricultural output has markedly increased. Significant advances have been made in education, science, culture and other fields, and education about socialist thought has made notable progress. The lives of the people have been considerably improved.
<In our country the exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated, but class struggle will continue to exist within a certain scope for a long time to come. The people of China must fight against those domestic and foreign forces and elements that are hostile to and undermine our country’s socialist system.
<Article 6 The foundation of the socialist economic system of the People’s Republic of China is socialist public ownership of the means of production, that is, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership by the working people. The system of socialist public ownership has eradicated the system of exploitation of man by man, and practices the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.”
<Article 13 Citizens’ lawful private property is inviolable. The state shall protect the right of citizens to own and inherit private property in accordance with the provisions of law. The state may, in order to meet the demands of the public interest and in accordance with the provisions of law, expropriate or requisition citizens’ private property and furnish compensation.

>>2739
>Read the Communist Constitution of China.
Read the communist manifesto. Communism is the abolishion of private property. The moment they allowed citizens to keep profits from market activities they gave up on communism.

>There are no capitalists in Communist China because the capitalists have been eliminated
I suppose all the Bentleys driving around Beijing are owned by very hardworking janitors.

>the conditional nature of Communist private property ensures that it operates within the framework of socialism and precludes the formation of any capitalist class.
That's fascism not communism.

>In Communist China, the invisible hand of the market is guided by the iron fist of the Party and the People
Party yes. People no. Xi is leader for life they are not even pretending to do democracy anymore.

>>2740
You are totally wrong. Read attached pdf.
>Communism is the abolishion of private property.
Communism is the abolition of class. This has been acomplished in Communist China.
>I suppose all the Bentleys driving around Beijing are owned by very hardworking janitors.
You are brainwashed by capitalism to believe that driving a Bentley makes one bourgeois, but this is only so in capitalism production. In Communist China, wealth is not a sign of capitalist exploitation but a testament to the success of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. In line with marxist theory, the value of a Bentley far exceeds any value produced by a janitor. Therefore, it’s clear that those driving Bentleys in Beijing are not janitors but proletarians who play a far more productive role in the economy. If janitors were afforded Bentleys, then they would recieve more value than they produce, which means they would exploit surplus-value from the proletariat; therefore, as per marxist theory, these Bentley driving janitors would be bourgeois in this utopia.

he's right

>>1943
I think the USSR could have kept reducing the number of hours in the work week and then no one would have a leg to stand on when they talk about stagnation. TBF I think China can start reducing the hours in a working week, not sure why they don't.

>>2753
>I think the USSR could have kept reducing the number of hours in the work week and then no one would have a leg to stand on when they talk about stagnation.
For perspective the Soviets complained about stagnation when they had over 3% economic growth. Most capitalist countries would consider that a booming economy-

But your idea is not wrong. It's a little bit counter intuitive at first. Lowering work hours actually results in economic growth because it forces improvents of production techniques to make workers more productive. To get more work done in less time. The simple explanation is that by rationing the labor-time, the better tools that speed up the work become the cheaper option.

>TBF I think China can start reducing the hours in a working week, not sure why they don't.
The Chinese don't do anything without coordinating the shit out of it. So they'll queue up the development of more advanced production techniques, then they create the political cadres that get tasked to chase down all the relevant enterprises and prepare them for shorter work days at a higher technical level . And when all their ducks are in a row, they set the hole thing off like a complictaed fireworks show.

I don't know why they do things like that. But it's always amusing when they do, because all the neo-lib econ "experts" come out of the woods to declare with great conviction that it's a sign the chinese economy is about to collapse, and then they're wrong about it every time.

>>1937
Socialism was always workerist. Why it always sucked. Communism is just some bastard child of that which gives a false promise of no work at some undefinable point.

-isms people are extremely annoying and destructive people in general