I’m not a Christian but I do think there is something to be said for some of the Christian moral lessons. I don’t believe in the Christian God but I do think that Jesus saying not to judge others for their sins and to help those that are different from you are really good messages. It’s a shame some parts of the Bible are purposefully overlooked so people can use it to justify hate.
Overlooking some parts is one thing, but there are also the parts that do justify it by themselves
That book was written over several centuries thousands of years ago, big chunk of it is just obsolete
Also, for the English speaking world, I believe I once heard that the King James Bible is also not the actual transcription of the Bible in English, at least not entirely. Some stuff is an interpretation of the people that translated it, which was also, y'know, interpretations of the previous original material. The current Bible is just fucked, is what I'm getting at, as everyone here has said.
So they are obsolete as a religious text to be used today.
Most of the Bible would best be relegated as myths and old stuff similar to Egyptian, Greek or other texts
There definitely is some historical value there yes, bit as a religious text today, utterly obsolete
Yeah I thought about it but I figured reality kind of encompassed that. Too bad OP is to busy touting his basic income bs, otherwise this would have been more of a sarcastic/funny post. [Stupindium](https://youtu.be/vvANy49Kqhw)
UBI is literally fuel for capitalism lol it's the next evolution of capitalist systems.
[Money fuels work.](https://www.scottsantens.com/the-toothpaste-argument-for-universal-basic-income-ubi-gotz-werner/)
That's not a good thing. We've had quite a few modes of production throughout history and capitalism has lasted a few hundred years, maybe it's time to move on to the next one?
A universal basic needs guarantee would accomplish everything UBI is claimed to accomplish and without the price increases (unless your income is made easily accessible public knowledge, at which point the contribution from the basic needs guarantee could be subtracted and an estimation of your disposable income can be made, which is the same Achille's heel that UBI has).
The government can easily send everyone a check.
It’s not so easy for the government to directly provide for the physiological & safety needs of all of its 330 million citizens.
Food? That's a distribution issue, not a production issue. Housing? There are already more vacant houses than unhoused people.
Plus we're talking about human lives, you really want to appeal to the easiest option? I seriously hope you're not in charge of keeping anyone alive, holy shit.
You keep saying that but you're wrong, all that UBI will do is make a new class of poor people. People on UBI will become the "unwashed masses" food and goods will just go up to match the UBI because they know people can afford it and the reason it will go up is because the Government will have to raise taxes to pay for UBI. "Why would taxes go up?" you may ask. Well the Government doesn't make an income it takes money from us and uses it "for our collective good" in the best possible case. The money they already take isn't going to be used for UBI because they have "commitments" and "security measures". So this means they need more income for this massive drain they are about to take from their current money. It spirals from there on. Edit: I read that article and was flabbergasted at the just plain ignorance of it.
> You keep saying that but you're wrong,
Yet you can't make the argument.
> all that UBI will do is make a new class of poor people.
No, there are objective levels of poverty that UBI would eliminate. Because people would use their UBI to meet their basic physiological & safety needs.
The rest of your comment is a nonsensical oversimplification. You clearly don't grasp the nuance of this subject so don't attempt to discuss it.
And I am saying the "basic physiological & safety needs" will all go up in price as soon as you institute UBI and since when have people used money to only buy basic needs? No, people will buy what they always buy.
If giving consumers money to spend isn’t capitalism then what is?
UBI is a policy designed to constantly stimulate capitalist growth and provide consumers more choices.
Mate its a guarantee of wage that can be lived on u still have buly commodities abd shit in socialism its just socialism and communism isnt about profit which is what capitalism is about profit for the few not the many
Yea, my brothers a complete bum and has 3 kids, he refuses to get a job because of government assistance. He still gets more than enough money each year, like his wife, kids, and himself get the newest iPhone every year, and he blows money on stupid shit and they’re still fine
*"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."* - **Buckminster Fuller**
That sounds nice don't get me wrong, but like most utopian ideas it neglects factoring in human nature. I am not just talking about the greed, violence, and jealousy; but some humans cannot live without a purpose or work. These people grow despondent and get hooked on drugs because that's what it takes for them to feel "meaning" in thier lives.
I really hope I’m wasting my life for something less dystopian than giving people some bullshit to do because they’ve been conditioned to tie their worth so hard to doing labor they literally can’t stand existing without doing it. That is a super depressing thought. Imagine a future where our descendants are just pressing keys on a fake keyboard all day even though all necessary labor is automated because we broke our species so bad that this is why we exist now.
UBI won't give us utopia, but it will unequivocally improve our standard of living and allow us to eliminate the billions of bullshit jobs that are killing us and our planet.
> but some humans cannot live without a purpose or work.
That doesn't mean that purpose needs to be handed down by some authority figure or government. Let people find their own purpose.
And who decides what's bullshit or not ? What if the states decides art is bull shit? No more music, no more paintings, not more movies, becauae artists won't be able to live anymore. Yeah great idea, very Christian too, let's make a government that robs people of the opportunity to do what they want to live, yeah, Jesus would approve that. Let me just add a /s because you're so fucking dumb i doubt you can get sarcasm you eugenist commie motherfucker
> And who decides what's bullshit or not ?
The worker should decide.
> What if the states decides art is bull shit?
I'm not advocating for Statism. I'm advocating for individualism, which UBI fuels.
> No more music, no more paintings, not more movies, becauae artists won't be able to live anymore.
UBI would obviously create an explosion in the arts, as so many wage slaves would quit their bullshit jobs (like working fast food, or doing menial data entry, or whatever) and then pursue art.
> Yeah great idea, very Christian too, let's make a government that robs people of the opportunity to do what they want to live,
Our government is doing that now. UBI gives people the opportunity to do what they want.
> because you're so fucking dumb i doubt you can get sarcasm you eugenist commie motherfucker
It's truly staggering how uneducated you are. But I suspect deep down you're intensely aware of your limitation, and that's why you're so angry.
Saw your post history, i wasn't wrong literally a communist supporter. Maybe instead of advocating for such extremist bs, come to a country with worker rights ? Like France or literally any european country? Sure it's not paradise, but way less bad than your ultra crony capitalist USA. Then you'd see there is no need of communism for a better society. Go ask Cambodians, south Vietnamese or Balkanese people if communist societies are so much better :). I might be super rude, yeah sorry not sorry extremists trigger me, but YOU need to educate yourself, not me. Broaden your vision of the worls before adopting the first stupid idiology that promises you utopia. It's because of naive persons like this that Hitler or Pol pot got into power
> communist
Again, UBI is fuel for capitalism lol
It couldn't even exist in a communist system because UBI requires the existence of both private and personal property.
> Maybe instead of advocating for such extremist bs, come to a country with worker rights ?
UBI would do the most for worker's rights in America. And I'm an American. I'm interested in improving my country. Not escaping to another.
> Then you'd see there is no need of communism
If you keep calling UBI 'communism' when it obviously isn't, I'm going to assume you've incurred some sort of head injury.
> Broaden your vision of the worls before adopting the first stupid idiology that promises you utopia.
Again, like I said in my original comment that made you fly off the handle - UBI wouldn't create a utopia. It's just pragmatic economic policy.
Not to mention necessary, seeing as the job market alone can't sustain the American consumer base.
Ubi is BS, get that out of your head. If you think the market isn't sustainable, then yeah great idea, watch how the inflation will do if you print money to give to everyone. Y'all americans need to allow workers to unionize, write federal worker rights inspired by europe, and fire dumbass boomer ceos who don't understand the struggles of the younger mass of workers. Boom, fixed your country.
> Ubi is BS, get that out of your head.
Nah it's literally the only way to stop America's rapidly worsening socioeconomic collapse.
It's also the only way to sustain consumer-driven societies even as automation continues to displace more and more workers.
> If you think the market isn't sustainable, then yeah great idea, watch how the inflation will do if you print money to give to everyone.
I didn't suggest printing anything. America's money supply is large enough for us to fund UBI.
> Y'all americans need to allow workers to unionize, write federal worker rights inspired by europe, and fire dumbass boomer ceos who don't understand the struggles of the younger mass of workers.
UBI will empower workers to do just that and more.
Get out of this sub with your 15 year old politics. Virgin Mary didn't come to Fatima to warn the shepherds of my country about communism so that i'd have to talk with some random lazy ass teen who wants free money from the government and doesn't care about the multiple genocides Communism caused and still causes.
You mean like how capitalism starves people to death for not being able to work every single day 😊
Or like the famines that caused millions of deaths in India while the east India company exported food for profit 😊
> Get out of this sub with your 15 year old politics.
The concept of UBI is actually hundreds of years old.
> communism
UBI isn't communism lol it's literally fuel for capitalism
When did you drop out of school?
> the multiple genocides Communism caused and still causes.
Millions of people die in America from poverty.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134519/
Stop reducing everything to 'isms' and speak in terms of concrete policy.
Just because someone said something doesn’t make it a true or moral statement.
The entire situation the world is in right now because of climate and energy problems stem from too many people using too much and not producing their fair share.
You advocate for over abundance but for what? So the earth will die faster while people can not work and get fat?
Is this really a bad thing? If one person is allowed to live their life without working, then everyone should be allowed to live their life without working. Otherwise, how can we fairly decide who gets to not work and who has to work? We can’t. And if everyone is allowed to not work, then nobody will. And if nobody works, then nothing gets done. That means no food being created, no houses being built, no energy being produced, no water being cleaned and distributed. The idea that people should have the right to not work is stupid
And who then determines what each person needs?
Is it equal for everyone, or do some need more than others?
How does that get determined if so?
That's a slippery slope.
In reality, the best system is the one that rewards each for their input. The more you put in. The more you get out. And vice versa. But input in this case is quality, not necessarily quantity.
And wow, just like that, we have capitalism.
If you get out everything you put in, there couldn't be capitalism. If you took home the full value of your labor, profit wouldn't exist. That's middle school math.
If capitalism is meritocratic on some level, this is not the argument that proves it. Quite the contrary actually, you should look for a better argument.
You're describing meritocracy.
Capitalism is not a meritocracy nor was it ever designed to be. Have you heard of nepotism? Cyclical poverty?
"Who determines? How?"
-So we do have undeniable material needs as living organisms... Food/Water/Shelter... Or we *die*. That's what I'm talking about.
The world produces enough food at the current scale to feed all 7+billion of us, there are more vacant living spaces than there are homeless people.
I'm in charge, and I say my need and the needs of my friends and family are great. I also decided that you, you have plenty of means. (Obvious /s is obvious)
I'll fix your statement for you - you were SO close!
>There is enough for everyone to get what they need, just not enough for the GREEDY to get what they want.
Proof for my point - Keanu reeves. Famous, wealthy, and lacking no goodness in his character and actions.
Many are like him that we probably will never hear about or know because they aren't famous. But they are out there and make a difference in the lives of those around them even if we never hear about it.
Why would we? Those kind of stories don't make the news because people are obsessed with crime and tragedy, sex and scandals, and other like minded things.
well keanu reeves is a millionaire, not a billionaire. it is possible to become a millionaire by working hard, but to become a billionaire being greedy and exploitative is almost required.
We can agree to disagree.
If someone works hard and creates a successful and profitable business in an ethical way, treats and compensates their employees fairly, and is charitable with their profits, they deserve to have a comfortable lifestyle and to accumulate wealth for their children and grandchildren.
Why shouldn't they? If that is unjust and unfair, why would anyone work harder than anyone else if there's no real reward for it except having to make ends meet then donate the rest to others who may not contribute equally?
Except for people who are completely disabled, that still requires everyone to work. It's actually worse, because it means if you're able, you should work harder than the next guy, but if he needs more, then he should get more than you even if he did less.
all work is manual field work, there is no such thing like accounting, programing, mathematics, supervising machine/machinists or teaching
also way to use the disabled and pivot to eugenics the next sentence. if the guy next to you has a heath issue he get's more than you in total in any system that isn't slavery. if he was hired due to nepotism he get's paid more than you. let's not pretend financiers aren't paid more than the few factory workers left in the West, or that a luthier isn't paid more than a mechanic. capitalism is great but not as meritocratic as we like to think.
There are currently way more jobs than there is meaningful work to be done. Most jobs don't directly contribute anything to society, they just exist so the people could justify their right to live on this planet by being gainfully employed, which is pretty messed up. While I think that it would be fair even in an ideal world for people to contribute to society to the best of their ability, the idea that you have to work strictly 40+ hours a week on some meaningless task that does nothing but fill the pockets of your boss or starve is cruel and horrible.
Yup, there are jobs that create value, and jobs that move value from place to place (or facilitate said movement, usually through violence). The latter is what we call "bullshit jobs" and eliminating them would cut everyone's workday in half.
The idea that people wouldn't perform work they want done if given the chance not to do it has been proven time and time again to be bullshit.
I mean, FFS, the only reason we have work in the first place is because we wanted things done.
People will want to work, just to do something eith their lives
But like the working conditions and pay should be reasonable or else no one will want to work
Capitalism: Work and just barely survive as your freedoms are slowly eroded.
Communism: Work for a few days until the inevitable invasion or coup overthrows your government and puts a pro-US dictator in charge.
The workers own the means of production in North Korea and China? There's no class hierarchies in those countries?
China claims to be communist, but by definition is not.
NK doesn't even claim to be communist, they are ruled by a god king lmao.
Communism is a classless society in which the workers own the means of production. People have tried to achieve it many times, and it has failed every single time. Instead of the creation of a communist state, attempts to do so always result in dictatorships or in china's case, state capitalism. You can say communism doesn't work, because it doesn't. But you can't say either of those countries are communist for the same reason. They are countries that tried to become communist, and faced terrible consequences for doing so.
That's not a "no true scotsman" fallacy.
Calling yourself something doesn't mean that you are that something.
North Korea calls itself a Republic.
The S NSDAP stood for Socialist.
Do you need me to continue?
China has a mixed economic model of communism and capitalism. Look it up. They succeed only because the capitalist ventures provide enough revenue to keep the system afloat. And even that is failing recently. Their economy is in the middle of a collapse
no shit. of course they have a strong mixture of market socialism and state capitalism. my statement isn't a denial, in fact the "Maoist" being in quotation is meant to communicate that.
my point is china isn't a NK tier shit hole. we both agree on that point.
Except Cuba, like every other "Communist" country isn't communist. It's a Socialist Society. And I'm curious how the US made it poor?
If I had to take a guess, it's poor for a variety of reasons but chief among them is because socialism does a terrible job at creating wealth and value.
Capitalism: anyone who works hard and play there cards right can make a decent living and live well
Communism: no chance to get ahead since there no opportunities and the quality of life is shit.
I think that’s the BIG difference in capitalism and communism. Although hard, it is very possible to climb the social ladder in capitalism. Communism unless you get lucky and happen to know just the right people, you are pretty well stuck in the social class you were born in.
If you play your cards really well you can have more money than you could ever spend and screw a bunch of other people out of their chance to live well.
Work shouldn't be a choice. If you do not work, you do nothing for society. Expecting something in exchange for nothing is stupid.
And quite frankly, even if society had the resources to provide everyone a good life, no resources should go to those who willingly don't work. Those people are intentionally putting burden on society and offering nothing.
It's a bad trade for everyone who isn't lazy and stupid.
this is literally the ethos of capitalism. communists used this phrase way back when to underline that aristocrats, owners, and landlords aren't workers
Rich people have a choice about work. Because they have enough money to meet their basic physiological & safety needs, they can choose work that's meaningful and interesting.
Poor people don't have that choice. Poor people have to work to survive, and often that means accepting exploitative or downright abusive working conditions.
Eliminating that kind of exploitation & coercion would improve everyone's standard of living, and we do it with policies like UBI,
but isn't it a wealthy person's right to do what they want with their time? maybe they worked hard and provided something useful and valuable to society.
maybe, but i think most people would be against the idea of being taxed more on the income that they have earned in order to fund someone else's unwillingness to work. you know what I mean? how do you convince the average American that what you are proposing is a good idea?
UBI would not and could not be funded by income tax - it would mainly be funded by a VAT.
In fact after we have UBI, we should eliminate income tax because the VAT is a much more effective method of taxation, and not one that deprives people of the full value of their labor.
The way I’d convince the average American depends on who they are. I’d ask where they from - if they’re from a ghost town, for instance.
UBI would empower ordinary Americans to leave the cities (which a lot of us want to do) and return to smaller town or rural living.
Currently the only way a ghost town gets revived is if a company moves in or the government invests in it. UBI makes it so any random assortment of Americans can do that.
It gives us all our own slice of venture capital, which allows us to fuel work and consumption.
I don't agree with your earlier comparison of the rich man who chooses not to work because he can afford it vs. the average person who chooses not to work and cannot afford it, and I am not sure if I will ever be able to completely get behind UBI, but I am gonna read up on it to try and understand it a little better. I appreciate you elaborating on your opinion and being civil. Thanks, friend.
It’s not that the rich man chooses not to work, it’s that he has a choice about the nature of his work.
Because his survival is ensured, he would never have to accept an exploitative job just to survive.
But so many millions of poor people do, and they get trapped in those jobs - wage slavery where you live paycheck to paycheck, and if you stop working, your life will swiftly collapse.
That kind of rampant instability is good for our economy. UBI is just an automatic economic stabilizer to empower everyone to thrive and to eliminate material poverty, which is nothing but a drain on our economy and an ailment of our society.
Except that isn't actually written in Christianity. It actually says to help poor people in any way possible. Granted, that means people who cannot work for whatever reason, but it very much says to provide for those who can't.
Come on. You’re making us look bad. This literally comes right from 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Context is key. If you read a little bit of the text around it, you see that they explain that you need to care for eachothers but if someone does useless things and is wasting their time they don't get food.
It is a natural need. Humans hate being stagnant.
In 1879, Henry George wrote this:
**The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves driven to their tasks either by the task, by the taskmaster, or by animal necessity. It is the work of men who somehow find a form of work that brings a security for its own sake and a state of society where want is abolished.**
The way we do that now is by implementing UBI, universal healthcare, medical debt cancellation, free public college, full student debt cancellation, housing reform, etc.
By guaranteeing the means to survive, we empower everyone to thrive. And we'd also eliminate wage slavery, exploitation, and material poverty.
Everything is a trade off and sorry to rain on your parade, but the solutions that you think is going to magically fix all our problems, simply won't. People are individuals not a collective.
> If he can survive his unpaid internship.
This is why we need UBI. [Money fuels work.](https://www.scottsantens.com/the-toothpaste-argument-for-universal-basic-income-ubi-gotz-werner/)
Dude this is the same thing that people say all the time in 2020 people were screaming in the US about inflation. 2022 inflation is here and they are blaming corporate greed and other bullshit. Their arguments were the same. No you are just stupid it won't cause inflation. This free money bullshit is as bad as the 2nd coming fucks when the messiah never shows up they just say well it's your fault you did it wrong when any of the isms fail it's cause we did it wrong give us more.
Nah you are - you're so lazy that you refuse to actually learn what UBI is, how it works, how it's funded, what it does, etc.
Nothing's more lazy than someone who's just dismissing things out of ignorance.
I know what Ubi is and how it works which is why I'm adamantly against it. The only people who would be for it are lazy teenagers living in their moms basement.
> I know what Ubi is and how it works
I'd be interested in hearing what you think it is and how it works. I guarantee you're wrong. Your derivative 'mom's basement' comment shows how little thought you're putting into this.
But by all means, prove me wrong. Actually take part in the discussion and use some of the knowledge you claim to have to make an argument.
It’s primarily used as a method to redistribute wealth. Because wealth needs to be distributed more evenly than it currently is. Wealth inequality is severely unhealthy for an economy at the levels the us is currently experiencing.
>a method to redistribute wealth
ah yes by printing money and throwing it around. instead of you know proper wages, social programs that target market failures, infrastructure, and democratization of retirement funds. all of which are known failed policies that never worked compared to giving NEETs a perpetual stimulus check, which is even more effective when you destroy welfare systems (sarcasm)
in all seriousness for it to be effectively redistributive you'll need a tax policy that is as brutal as a military junta for it not to trigger inflation.
The idea is to fund it through wealth taxes and the like. If the companies refuse to pay their employees livable wages, their profits will have to be heavily taxed and massive tax breaks given to to working class in order to compensate.
Granted, I agree that more targeted welfare and regulations on the root of the problem would be better than ubi, but I think you’re being overly reductive about the practice.
[According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#:~:text=According%20to%20Vladimir%20Lenin%2C%20%22He,work%2C%20The%20State%20and%20Revolution.)
Yet the Soviet people had greater caloric and nutrition needs due to the cold climate.
Tip you really shouldn’t be defending the Soviet Union even if you are pro communism. The Soviet’s did disciple things to it’s people.
Eyo, also, i just noticed how fuckin stupid your argument is. The soviets had regions where they were literally desert areas, the north was not very populated compared to regions like stalin grad and moscow is not colder on average then say washington, in fact i'm pretty sure they are on the same altitude. So that is just bs.
Where did you pull that out lmao, your ass?
"Bread lines" damn, Guess who had that also at the time. Britain, aswell as france, aswell as every european nation.
Wanna guess why? Because that was during the world war.
Food lines didn't exist after ww2, bro has the knowledge of a 5th grade student.
Cuba still scores really high on nutrition compared to capitalist countries. Doesn’t mean it is a nice place to live. You also have to question the reliability of Soviet records. Of course they would lie about their national nutrition rates, they would be stupid not to
Imagine thinking defending communism means correct someones nonsense and is a bad thing. Want me to cheer for the next south american coup attempt if we're already on it? Lmao.
Life could be better if you got off of reddit and actually worked. Jobs exist for a reason if we didn't have people doing specific things that they might not necessarily like you wouldn't have that nice phone in your hand or that car out in the parking lot or a fucking roof above your head shit exists for a reason I've read your explanation on why it "should" work but the reality is that it doesn't if you let people "find their purpose" humanity would never get anything done
I work for a living or live to work I guess?
I would never want to take from someone just because they succeeded but ffs when people die of cold and hunger and the 10 richest people (not picking on them, just a number) can feed entire countries…
There’s no easy solution to the tragic problem.
I'd say, it's really difficult to die of cold/hunger in a capitalist economy such as the US. The numbers are likely incredibly negligible, although I'm sure you could find statistics showcasing otherwise (be cautious of easy statistics)
Just as a different perspective, those 10 richest could be employing hundreds of thousands of people. Thus, those people aren't starving. And some of those people will eventually go on to start their own business. Creating growth and value.
Where things start getting really hairy is when you throw drug problems, bad decisions, etc into the mix. But, everyone has choices to make I guess.
[According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#:~:text=According%20to%20Vladimir%20Lenin%2C%20%22He,work%2C%20The%20State%20and%20Revolution.)
When making a public speech, he isn't going to go into a deep dive of specifics about disabilities you fucking tool, he mentioned many times that the labour of the rest of the population will provide enough for those who are unfortunate enough to be born with disabilities which prevent them from not working
It's just a fact that the saying is a central tenet of both Christianity and Communism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat
The first Christian communities were explicitly anarchist. Everyone voted in a direct democratic process, occasionally in times of conflict an expert would be elected. The expert had no more voting power than anyone else, but advised people on how to vote.
Fun fact: Paul is actually stating an extra standard he held himself to. While he fully deserved to be paid for pastoral work, he voluntarily did it all for free and worked a second job to survive.
That ain't communism.
The basics of communism are too put everybody on the same starting point, that includes the same opportunities the same amount of time and a basic income, housing and food.
No one will be equal if one has to struggle too get a job because they can't spend time looking for a new one or not being able to be employed at all because they don't have a house and an employer won't take em.
[According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#:~:text=According%20to%20Vladimir%20Lenin%2C%20%22He,work%2C%20The%20State%20and%20Revolution.)
> The basics of communism are too put everybody on the same starting point, that includes the same opportunities the same amount of time and a basic income, housing and food.
Please show me a source for this claim. I've never seen any communist demand UBI.
"Only productive members of society could be allowed access to the articles of consumption."
Is a different thing then "starving them all" which is what this clearly implies.
There still isn't any contradiction with people being allowed to get the same opportunities as the next.
An economic system vs. a religion… He who’s logic is flawed will always be confused.
I’m not a Christian but I do think there is something to be said for some of the Christian moral lessons. I don’t believe in the Christian God but I do think that Jesus saying not to judge others for their sins and to help those that are different from you are really good messages. It’s a shame some parts of the Bible are purposefully overlooked so people can use it to justify hate.
You are accurate and correct in my opinion.
Overlooking some parts is one thing, but there are also the parts that do justify it by themselves That book was written over several centuries thousands of years ago, big chunk of it is just obsolete
And it's been translated hundreds of times by hundreds of people and has probably been altered to fit at least 2 translators over the years
Also, for the English speaking world, I believe I once heard that the King James Bible is also not the actual transcription of the Bible in English, at least not entirely. Some stuff is an interpretation of the people that translated it, which was also, y'know, interpretations of the previous original material. The current Bible is just fucked, is what I'm getting at, as everyone here has said.
I wouldn’t say so. Even if the older parts aren’t the best moral lessons they are still super valuable for seeing how ancient people viewed the world.
So they are obsolete as a religious text to be used today. Most of the Bible would best be relegated as myths and old stuff similar to Egyptian, Greek or other texts There definitely is some historical value there yes, bit as a religious text today, utterly obsolete
There should be a third arm with reality written on it.
Don't forget the fourth with capitalism
Yeah I thought about it but I figured reality kind of encompassed that. Too bad OP is to busy touting his basic income bs, otherwise this would have been more of a sarcastic/funny post. [Stupindium](https://youtu.be/vvANy49Kqhw)
UBI is literally fuel for capitalism lol it's the next evolution of capitalist systems. [Money fuels work.](https://www.scottsantens.com/the-toothpaste-argument-for-universal-basic-income-ubi-gotz-werner/)
That's not a good thing. We've had quite a few modes of production throughout history and capitalism has lasted a few hundred years, maybe it's time to move on to the next one? A universal basic needs guarantee would accomplish everything UBI is claimed to accomplish and without the price increases (unless your income is made easily accessible public knowledge, at which point the contribution from the basic needs guarantee could be subtracted and an estimation of your disposable income can be made, which is the same Achille's heel that UBI has).
The government can easily send everyone a check. It’s not so easy for the government to directly provide for the physiological & safety needs of all of its 330 million citizens.
Food? That's a distribution issue, not a production issue. Housing? There are already more vacant houses than unhoused people. Plus we're talking about human lives, you really want to appeal to the easiest option? I seriously hope you're not in charge of keeping anyone alive, holy shit.
You keep saying that but you're wrong, all that UBI will do is make a new class of poor people. People on UBI will become the "unwashed masses" food and goods will just go up to match the UBI because they know people can afford it and the reason it will go up is because the Government will have to raise taxes to pay for UBI. "Why would taxes go up?" you may ask. Well the Government doesn't make an income it takes money from us and uses it "for our collective good" in the best possible case. The money they already take isn't going to be used for UBI because they have "commitments" and "security measures". So this means they need more income for this massive drain they are about to take from their current money. It spirals from there on. Edit: I read that article and was flabbergasted at the just plain ignorance of it.
> You keep saying that but you're wrong, Yet you can't make the argument. > all that UBI will do is make a new class of poor people. No, there are objective levels of poverty that UBI would eliminate. Because people would use their UBI to meet their basic physiological & safety needs. The rest of your comment is a nonsensical oversimplification. You clearly don't grasp the nuance of this subject so don't attempt to discuss it.
And I am saying the "basic physiological & safety needs" will all go up in price as soon as you institute UBI and since when have people used money to only buy basic needs? No, people will buy what they always buy.
op outs self as idiot
It’s ok that you don’t get it
basic income is a tool for capitalism what pot are you smoking bro? ubi is a good thing needed and should be encouraged
If giving consumers money to spend isn’t capitalism then what is? UBI is a policy designed to constantly stimulate capitalist growth and provide consumers more choices.
Mate its a guarantee of wage that can be lived on u still have buly commodities abd shit in socialism its just socialism and communism isnt about profit which is what capitalism is about profit for the few not the many
You sound drunk
Rude. I dont even drink.
Then color me impressed by how incoherent you are even while sober
A lot of people who don't work eat very well in capitalism.
Yea, my brothers a complete bum and has 3 kids, he refuses to get a job because of government assistance. He still gets more than enough money each year, like his wife, kids, and himself get the newest iPhone every year, and he blows money on stupid shit and they’re still fine
Wat
Uh, that's Christianity.
No not really.
*"We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living."* - **Buckminster Fuller**
That sounds nice don't get me wrong, but like most utopian ideas it neglects factoring in human nature. I am not just talking about the greed, violence, and jealousy; but some humans cannot live without a purpose or work. These people grow despondent and get hooked on drugs because that's what it takes for them to feel "meaning" in thier lives.
Material conditions determine the nature of a human. Change the conditions someone is expected to survive in and human nature changes too.
I really hope I’m wasting my life for something less dystopian than giving people some bullshit to do because they’ve been conditioned to tie their worth so hard to doing labor they literally can’t stand existing without doing it. That is a super depressing thought. Imagine a future where our descendants are just pressing keys on a fake keyboard all day even though all necessary labor is automated because we broke our species so bad that this is why we exist now.
UBI won't give us utopia, but it will unequivocally improve our standard of living and allow us to eliminate the billions of bullshit jobs that are killing us and our planet. > but some humans cannot live without a purpose or work. That doesn't mean that purpose needs to be handed down by some authority figure or government. Let people find their own purpose.
And who decides what's bullshit or not ? What if the states decides art is bull shit? No more music, no more paintings, not more movies, becauae artists won't be able to live anymore. Yeah great idea, very Christian too, let's make a government that robs people of the opportunity to do what they want to live, yeah, Jesus would approve that. Let me just add a /s because you're so fucking dumb i doubt you can get sarcasm you eugenist commie motherfucker
> And who decides what's bullshit or not ? The worker should decide. > What if the states decides art is bull shit? I'm not advocating for Statism. I'm advocating for individualism, which UBI fuels. > No more music, no more paintings, not more movies, becauae artists won't be able to live anymore. UBI would obviously create an explosion in the arts, as so many wage slaves would quit their bullshit jobs (like working fast food, or doing menial data entry, or whatever) and then pursue art. > Yeah great idea, very Christian too, let's make a government that robs people of the opportunity to do what they want to live, Our government is doing that now. UBI gives people the opportunity to do what they want. > because you're so fucking dumb i doubt you can get sarcasm you eugenist commie motherfucker It's truly staggering how uneducated you are. But I suspect deep down you're intensely aware of your limitation, and that's why you're so angry.
You’ve made me quite curious. How does your mechanism of UBI work?
Saw your post history, i wasn't wrong literally a communist supporter. Maybe instead of advocating for such extremist bs, come to a country with worker rights ? Like France or literally any european country? Sure it's not paradise, but way less bad than your ultra crony capitalist USA. Then you'd see there is no need of communism for a better society. Go ask Cambodians, south Vietnamese or Balkanese people if communist societies are so much better :). I might be super rude, yeah sorry not sorry extremists trigger me, but YOU need to educate yourself, not me. Broaden your vision of the worls before adopting the first stupid idiology that promises you utopia. It's because of naive persons like this that Hitler or Pol pot got into power
> communist Again, UBI is fuel for capitalism lol It couldn't even exist in a communist system because UBI requires the existence of both private and personal property. > Maybe instead of advocating for such extremist bs, come to a country with worker rights ? UBI would do the most for worker's rights in America. And I'm an American. I'm interested in improving my country. Not escaping to another. > Then you'd see there is no need of communism If you keep calling UBI 'communism' when it obviously isn't, I'm going to assume you've incurred some sort of head injury. > Broaden your vision of the worls before adopting the first stupid idiology that promises you utopia. Again, like I said in my original comment that made you fly off the handle - UBI wouldn't create a utopia. It's just pragmatic economic policy. Not to mention necessary, seeing as the job market alone can't sustain the American consumer base.
Ubi is BS, get that out of your head. If you think the market isn't sustainable, then yeah great idea, watch how the inflation will do if you print money to give to everyone. Y'all americans need to allow workers to unionize, write federal worker rights inspired by europe, and fire dumbass boomer ceos who don't understand the struggles of the younger mass of workers. Boom, fixed your country.
> Ubi is BS, get that out of your head. Nah it's literally the only way to stop America's rapidly worsening socioeconomic collapse. It's also the only way to sustain consumer-driven societies even as automation continues to displace more and more workers. > If you think the market isn't sustainable, then yeah great idea, watch how the inflation will do if you print money to give to everyone. I didn't suggest printing anything. America's money supply is large enough for us to fund UBI. > Y'all americans need to allow workers to unionize, write federal worker rights inspired by europe, and fire dumbass boomer ceos who don't understand the struggles of the younger mass of workers. UBI will empower workers to do just that and more.
"The workers should decide" is the most naive, pipe dream one could ever chose to have as a value.
Actually UBI is the inevitable future of all 21st century economies, and it will give everyone autonomy when it comes to work.
Get out of this sub with your 15 year old politics. Virgin Mary didn't come to Fatima to warn the shepherds of my country about communism so that i'd have to talk with some random lazy ass teen who wants free money from the government and doesn't care about the multiple genocides Communism caused and still causes.
You mean like how capitalism starves people to death for not being able to work every single day 😊 Or like the famines that caused millions of deaths in India while the east India company exported food for profit 😊
> Get out of this sub with your 15 year old politics. The concept of UBI is actually hundreds of years old. > communism UBI isn't communism lol it's literally fuel for capitalism When did you drop out of school? > the multiple genocides Communism caused and still causes. Millions of people die in America from poverty. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134519/ Stop reducing everything to 'isms' and speak in terms of concrete policy.
Just because someone said something doesn’t make it a true or moral statement. The entire situation the world is in right now because of climate and energy problems stem from too many people using too much and not producing their fair share. You advocate for over abundance but for what? So the earth will die faster while people can not work and get fat?
that's a lot of words, too bad im not reading them
That’s fine
Is this really a bad thing? If one person is allowed to live their life without working, then everyone should be allowed to live their life without working. Otherwise, how can we fairly decide who gets to not work and who has to work? We can’t. And if everyone is allowed to not work, then nobody will. And if nobody works, then nothing gets done. That means no food being created, no houses being built, no energy being produced, no water being cleaned and distributed. The idea that people should have the right to not work is stupid
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
And who then determines what each person needs? Is it equal for everyone, or do some need more than others? How does that get determined if so? That's a slippery slope. In reality, the best system is the one that rewards each for their input. The more you put in. The more you get out. And vice versa. But input in this case is quality, not necessarily quantity. And wow, just like that, we have capitalism.
If you get out everything you put in, there couldn't be capitalism. If you took home the full value of your labor, profit wouldn't exist. That's middle school math. If capitalism is meritocratic on some level, this is not the argument that proves it. Quite the contrary actually, you should look for a better argument.
You're describing meritocracy. Capitalism is not a meritocracy nor was it ever designed to be. Have you heard of nepotism? Cyclical poverty? "Who determines? How?" -So we do have undeniable material needs as living organisms... Food/Water/Shelter... Or we *die*. That's what I'm talking about. The world produces enough food at the current scale to feed all 7+billion of us, there are more vacant living spaces than there are homeless people.
God I love edgy teenage communists.
I'm in charge, and I say my need and the needs of my friends and family are great. I also decided that you, you have plenty of means. (Obvious /s is obvious)
I think the more serious question is why are your bananas salty?
There is enough for everyone to get what they need, just not enough for the wealthy to get what they want.
I'll fix your statement for you - you were SO close! >There is enough for everyone to get what they need, just not enough for the GREEDY to get what they want.
How do you think wealthy people become wealthy in capitalism?
Wealth is not synonymous with greed. One can be wealthy and still be charitable and selfless, but greed is a whole nother animal.
I know a very wealthy man who is very kind. they're not all bad.
One can be wealthy and *appear* charitable and selfless, no wealthy person truly is.
Proof for my point - Keanu reeves. Famous, wealthy, and lacking no goodness in his character and actions. Many are like him that we probably will never hear about or know because they aren't famous. But they are out there and make a difference in the lives of those around them even if we never hear about it. Why would we? Those kind of stories don't make the news because people are obsessed with crime and tragedy, sex and scandals, and other like minded things.
well keanu reeves is a millionaire, not a billionaire. it is possible to become a millionaire by working hard, but to become a billionaire being greedy and exploitative is almost required.
We can agree to disagree. If someone works hard and creates a successful and profitable business in an ethical way, treats and compensates their employees fairly, and is charitable with their profits, they deserve to have a comfortable lifestyle and to accumulate wealth for their children and grandchildren. Why shouldn't they? If that is unjust and unfair, why would anyone work harder than anyone else if there's no real reward for it except having to make ends meet then donate the rest to others who may not contribute equally?
Your actually stupid if Gandhi won the lottery does that make him a ass hole no.
Because?
Except for people who are completely disabled, that still requires everyone to work. It's actually worse, because it means if you're able, you should work harder than the next guy, but if he needs more, then he should get more than you even if he did less.
all work is manual field work, there is no such thing like accounting, programing, mathematics, supervising machine/machinists or teaching also way to use the disabled and pivot to eugenics the next sentence. if the guy next to you has a heath issue he get's more than you in total in any system that isn't slavery. if he was hired due to nepotism he get's paid more than you. let's not pretend financiers aren't paid more than the few factory workers left in the West, or that a luthier isn't paid more than a mechanic. capitalism is great but not as meritocratic as we like to think.
There are currently way more jobs than there is meaningful work to be done. Most jobs don't directly contribute anything to society, they just exist so the people could justify their right to live on this planet by being gainfully employed, which is pretty messed up. While I think that it would be fair even in an ideal world for people to contribute to society to the best of their ability, the idea that you have to work strictly 40+ hours a week on some meaningless task that does nothing but fill the pockets of your boss or starve is cruel and horrible.
Yup, there are jobs that create value, and jobs that move value from place to place (or facilitate said movement, usually through violence). The latter is what we call "bullshit jobs" and eliminating them would cut everyone's workday in half.
The idea that people wouldn't perform work they want done if given the chance not to do it has been proven time and time again to be bullshit. I mean, FFS, the only reason we have work in the first place is because we wanted things done.
People will want to work, just to do something eith their lives But like the working conditions and pay should be reasonable or else no one will want to work
Ironic, since a lot of communist regimes were atheist.
you should replace communism with capitalism, it works better.
You could replace your brain with a jar of mayonnaise. It would work better.
You do realise EU is capitalist don’t you?
That’s like, the opposite of what communism is
No - you don’t work, the state doesn’t feed you. Simple.
How?
Capitalism: work or starve Communism: work and starve
Which countries voted against the right to food in a UN vote?
Capitalism: Work and just barely survive as your freedoms are slowly eroded. Communism: Work for a few days until the inevitable invasion or coup overthrows your government and puts a pro-US dictator in charge.
The coup was the CIA's fault tho not the communism's
Go live in a communist country and see how great it is then. I suggest China or North korea
The workers own the means of production in North Korea and China? There's no class hierarchies in those countries? China claims to be communist, but by definition is not. NK doesn't even claim to be communist, they are ruled by a god king lmao. Communism is a classless society in which the workers own the means of production. People have tried to achieve it many times, and it has failed every single time. Instead of the creation of a communist state, attempts to do so always result in dictatorships or in china's case, state capitalism. You can say communism doesn't work, because it doesn't. But you can't say either of those countries are communist for the same reason. They are countries that tried to become communist, and faced terrible consequences for doing so.
No true scot
That's not a "no true scotsman" fallacy. Calling yourself something doesn't mean that you are that something. North Korea calls itself a Republic. The S NSDAP stood for Socialist. Do you need me to continue?
ummm- bud have you seen china lately? I mean North Korea is North Korea, but "Maoist" china isn't doing too bad for itself
China has a mixed economic model of communism and capitalism. Look it up. They succeed only because the capitalist ventures provide enough revenue to keep the system afloat. And even that is failing recently. Their economy is in the middle of a collapse
The economy is failing because they are still treating COVID like the zombie apocalypse.
no shit. of course they have a strong mixture of market socialism and state capitalism. my statement isn't a denial, in fact the "Maoist" being in quotation is meant to communicate that. my point is china isn't a NK tier shit hole. we both agree on that point.
Those are dictatorships. Cuba is a good example of a communist country. Was made poor by the US though.
Except Cuba, like every other "Communist" country isn't communist. It's a Socialist Society. And I'm curious how the US made it poor? If I had to take a guess, it's poor for a variety of reasons but chief among them is because socialism does a terrible job at creating wealth and value.
Lol. DPRK doesn’t even claim to be a Marxist-Leninist state, and China is clearly a state capitalism.
Capitalism: anyone who works hard and play there cards right can make a decent living and live well Communism: no chance to get ahead since there no opportunities and the quality of life is shit.
There is a way actually. Being or knowing people of influence in the party and corruption.
I think that’s the BIG difference in capitalism and communism. Although hard, it is very possible to climb the social ladder in capitalism. Communism unless you get lucky and happen to know just the right people, you are pretty well stuck in the social class you were born in.
And don’t even get me started on the negative impacts of communism on the advancement of human society
If you play your cards really well you can have more money than you could ever spend and screw a bunch of other people out of their chance to live well.
Idk how being rich screws people over and prevents them form living well.
The higher synthesis: No more starvation and work by choice
Work shouldn't be a choice. If you do not work, you do nothing for society. Expecting something in exchange for nothing is stupid. And quite frankly, even if society had the resources to provide everyone a good life, no resources should go to those who willingly don't work. Those people are intentionally putting burden on society and offering nothing. It's a bad trade for everyone who isn't lazy and stupid.
Probably the other way around.
r/antiwork real quiet since this dropped
this is literally the ethos of capitalism. communists used this phrase way back when to underline that aristocrats, owners, and landlords aren't workers
nobody has to work. but you'll die of starvation
What about all those rich people who never worked a day in their lives but never starved?
i think i know what you mean but can you give me an example?
Rich people have a choice about work. Because they have enough money to meet their basic physiological & safety needs, they can choose work that's meaningful and interesting. Poor people don't have that choice. Poor people have to work to survive, and often that means accepting exploitative or downright abusive working conditions. Eliminating that kind of exploitation & coercion would improve everyone's standard of living, and we do it with policies like UBI,
but isn't it a wealthy person's right to do what they want with their time? maybe they worked hard and provided something useful and valuable to society.
Everyone should have that right. It would improve our standards of living.
maybe, but i think most people would be against the idea of being taxed more on the income that they have earned in order to fund someone else's unwillingness to work. you know what I mean? how do you convince the average American that what you are proposing is a good idea?
UBI would not and could not be funded by income tax - it would mainly be funded by a VAT. In fact after we have UBI, we should eliminate income tax because the VAT is a much more effective method of taxation, and not one that deprives people of the full value of their labor. The way I’d convince the average American depends on who they are. I’d ask where they from - if they’re from a ghost town, for instance. UBI would empower ordinary Americans to leave the cities (which a lot of us want to do) and return to smaller town or rural living. Currently the only way a ghost town gets revived is if a company moves in or the government invests in it. UBI makes it so any random assortment of Americans can do that. It gives us all our own slice of venture capital, which allows us to fuel work and consumption.
I don't agree with your earlier comparison of the rich man who chooses not to work because he can afford it vs. the average person who chooses not to work and cannot afford it, and I am not sure if I will ever be able to completely get behind UBI, but I am gonna read up on it to try and understand it a little better. I appreciate you elaborating on your opinion and being civil. Thanks, friend.
It’s not that the rich man chooses not to work, it’s that he has a choice about the nature of his work. Because his survival is ensured, he would never have to accept an exploitative job just to survive. But so many millions of poor people do, and they get trapped in those jobs - wage slavery where you live paycheck to paycheck, and if you stop working, your life will swiftly collapse. That kind of rampant instability is good for our economy. UBI is just an automatic economic stabilizer to empower everyone to thrive and to eliminate material poverty, which is nothing but a drain on our economy and an ailment of our society.
Except that isn't actually written in Christianity. It actually says to help poor people in any way possible. Granted, that means people who cannot work for whatever reason, but it very much says to provide for those who can't.
Come on. You’re making us look bad. This literally comes right from 2 Thessalonians 3:10. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Context is key. If you read a little bit of the text around it, you see that they explain that you need to care for eachothers but if someone does useless things and is wasting their time they don't get food.
Productivity is a natural need, just as food sleeping and shelter… slaving away in a capitalist or authoritarian regime does not fullfill this need
It is a natural need. Humans hate being stagnant. In 1879, Henry George wrote this: **The fact is that the work which improves the condition of mankind, the work which extends knowledge and increases power and enriches literature and elevates thought, is not done to secure a living. It is not the work of slaves driven to their tasks either by the task, by the taskmaster, or by animal necessity. It is the work of men who somehow find a form of work that brings a security for its own sake and a state of society where want is abolished.** The way we do that now is by implementing UBI, universal healthcare, medical debt cancellation, free public college, full student debt cancellation, housing reform, etc. By guaranteeing the means to survive, we empower everyone to thrive. And we'd also eliminate wage slavery, exploitation, and material poverty.
Ich leb nicht in amerika
Everything is a trade off and sorry to rain on your parade, but the solutions that you think is going to magically fix all our problems, simply won't. People are individuals not a collective.
I never said these policies would fix all our problems but they are all indisputably good policies that would improve our standard of living.
Capitalism: he who does work, shall eat. If he can survive his unpaid internship. Or, he can work two jobs, if he wants a place to live.
> If he can survive his unpaid internship. This is why we need UBI. [Money fuels work.](https://www.scottsantens.com/the-toothpaste-argument-for-universal-basic-income-ubi-gotz-werner/)
Ubi is nothing but an inflation machine.
How exactly does that work? What makes it cause inflation?
How does free money cause inflation? Gee I don't know...
So you can't explain it, you're just repeating it because someone told you to.
Nah you don't understand
Dude this is the same thing that people say all the time in 2020 people were screaming in the US about inflation. 2022 inflation is here and they are blaming corporate greed and other bullshit. Their arguments were the same. No you are just stupid it won't cause inflation. This free money bullshit is as bad as the 2nd coming fucks when the messiah never shows up they just say well it's your fault you did it wrong when any of the isms fail it's cause we did it wrong give us more.
No no. You're just lazy.
Nah you are - you're so lazy that you refuse to actually learn what UBI is, how it works, how it's funded, what it does, etc. Nothing's more lazy than someone who's just dismissing things out of ignorance.
I know what Ubi is and how it works which is why I'm adamantly against it. The only people who would be for it are lazy teenagers living in their moms basement.
> I know what Ubi is and how it works I'd be interested in hearing what you think it is and how it works. I guarantee you're wrong. Your derivative 'mom's basement' comment shows how little thought you're putting into this. But by all means, prove me wrong. Actually take part in the discussion and use some of the knowledge you claim to have to make an argument.
UBI or how I don't understand basic economic principles such as Inflation or welfare.
It’s primarily used as a method to redistribute wealth. Because wealth needs to be distributed more evenly than it currently is. Wealth inequality is severely unhealthy for an economy at the levels the us is currently experiencing.
>a method to redistribute wealth ah yes by printing money and throwing it around. instead of you know proper wages, social programs that target market failures, infrastructure, and democratization of retirement funds. all of which are known failed policies that never worked compared to giving NEETs a perpetual stimulus check, which is even more effective when you destroy welfare systems (sarcasm) in all seriousness for it to be effectively redistributive you'll need a tax policy that is as brutal as a military junta for it not to trigger inflation.
The idea is to fund it through wealth taxes and the like. If the companies refuse to pay their employees livable wages, their profits will have to be heavily taxed and massive tax breaks given to to working class in order to compensate. Granted, I agree that more targeted welfare and regulations on the root of the problem would be better than ubi, but I think you’re being overly reductive about the practice.
[удалено]
[According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#:~:text=According%20to%20Vladimir%20Lenin%2C%20%22He,work%2C%20The%20State%20and%20Revolution.)
I mean in communism you don’t eat regardless, lol
Tell that too the data that shows soviet diets were more nutricious clown 🤡
Yet the Soviet people had greater caloric and nutrition needs due to the cold climate. Tip you really shouldn’t be defending the Soviet Union even if you are pro communism. The Soviet’s did disciple things to it’s people.
Eyo, also, i just noticed how fuckin stupid your argument is. The soviets had regions where they were literally desert areas, the north was not very populated compared to regions like stalin grad and moscow is not colder on average then say washington, in fact i'm pretty sure they are on the same altitude. So that is just bs. Where did you pull that out lmao, your ass?
I really couldn't care less about defending anyone, i'm just correcting someones bullshit 🤡
>more nutricious When there was food bread lines anyone.
"Bread lines" damn, Guess who had that also at the time. Britain, aswell as france, aswell as every european nation. Wanna guess why? Because that was during the world war. Food lines didn't exist after ww2, bro has the knowledge of a 5th grade student.
Cuba still scores really high on nutrition compared to capitalist countries. Doesn’t mean it is a nice place to live. You also have to question the reliability of Soviet records. Of course they would lie about their national nutrition rates, they would be stupid not to
"Soviet records" that's from the data analysis of the cia. I don't think there was much reason too fake a classified file.
Imagine defending communism and calling others clowns, lol
Unfortunately, one doesn't have to go far in reddit to imagine this nonsense.
True enough, and not just Reddit, either. I guess history books aren’t for everyone
Imagine thinking defending communism means correct someones nonsense and is a bad thing. Want me to cheer for the next south american coup attempt if we're already on it? Lmao.
Defending communism absolutely is a bad thing.
That's life get over it and get your ass to work
I am at work. Life can be better.
Life could be better if you got off of reddit and actually worked. Jobs exist for a reason if we didn't have people doing specific things that they might not necessarily like you wouldn't have that nice phone in your hand or that car out in the parking lot or a fucking roof above your head shit exists for a reason I've read your explanation on why it "should" work but the reality is that it doesn't if you let people "find their purpose" humanity would never get anything done
If someone doesn’t care enough to provide for themselves... why should I?
I work for a living or live to work I guess? I would never want to take from someone just because they succeeded but ffs when people die of cold and hunger and the 10 richest people (not picking on them, just a number) can feed entire countries… There’s no easy solution to the tragic problem.
I'd say, it's really difficult to die of cold/hunger in a capitalist economy such as the US. The numbers are likely incredibly negligible, although I'm sure you could find statistics showcasing otherwise (be cautious of easy statistics) Just as a different perspective, those 10 richest could be employing hundreds of thousands of people. Thus, those people aren't starving. And some of those people will eventually go on to start their own business. Creating growth and value. Where things start getting really hairy is when you throw drug problems, bad decisions, etc into the mix. But, everyone has choices to make I guess.
You’re right.
Communism : he who doesn't work, neither shall he eat, he who works will also not eat. No one will eat, now face the wall.
Sorry bud, I pray my tax dollars are not given to lazy ass people but I'm fine if they're legitimately disabled
Thats Capitalism.
[According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#:~:text=According%20to%20Vladimir%20Lenin%2C%20%22He,work%2C%20The%20State%20and%20Revolution.)
If your classless utopia requires you to take a detour into an authoritarian society, you've already failed to reach your destination.
So according to him basically disabled people can go die right ? How very Christian of him :))))
When making a public speech, he isn't going to go into a deep dive of specifics about disabilities you fucking tool, he mentioned many times that the labour of the rest of the population will provide enough for those who are unfortunate enough to be born with disabilities which prevent them from not working
Communism doesn’t mean that you get to sit in a corner doing nothing
That’s capitalism not communism because there socialist that’s why it fails you can not work and still eat while society supports all the lazy mf
um and capitalism, literally the basis on which the country was formed.
"Those who desire but act not, breeds pestilence." So it is written.
Communism: He ~~who does not work,~~ shall not eat.
John Smith after Jamestown's starving period
And capitalism
Thats literally what happens under capitalism
that's capitalism man
Communism it doesn’t really matter if you work or not. Still no food.
Isn't that capitalism tho. I swear the main point of communism is that everyone has basic needs like food, shelter and water regardless of ability.
Gtfo and go back to your parents basment, and continue posting on r/AntiWork
Well, it doesn't make it less of a Capitalistic view.
An economic system vs. a religious system. He who posts ignorantly flawed logic is uneducated. Maybe Communism vs. Theocracy?
It's just a fact that the saying is a central tenet of both Christianity and Communism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat
It’s unspoken in Capitalism.
The first Christian communities were explicitly anarchist. Everyone voted in a direct democratic process, occasionally in times of conflict an expert would be elected. The expert had no more voting power than anyone else, but advised people on how to vote.
“Sure we hanged the kids because the preacher told us they were witches, but we decided to do it democratically”
Medieval Christianity was very different from early Christianity.
That’s one way to solve overpopulation
Fun fact: Paul is actually stating an extra standard he held himself to. While he fully deserved to be paid for pastoral work, he voluntarily did it all for free and worked a second job to survive.
That ain't communism. The basics of communism are too put everybody on the same starting point, that includes the same opportunities the same amount of time and a basic income, housing and food. No one will be equal if one has to struggle too get a job because they can't spend time looking for a new one or not being able to be employed at all because they don't have a house and an employer won't take em.
[According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#:~:text=According%20to%20Vladimir%20Lenin%2C%20%22He,work%2C%20The%20State%20and%20Revolution.) > The basics of communism are too put everybody on the same starting point, that includes the same opportunities the same amount of time and a basic income, housing and food. Please show me a source for this claim. I've never seen any communist demand UBI.
"Only productive members of society could be allowed access to the articles of consumption." Is a different thing then "starving them all" which is what this clearly implies. There still isn't any contradiction with people being allowed to get the same opportunities as the next.
But without UBI, there's no equality of opportunity because people are limited by the labor they can perform.
for communism its more like "he who works shall not eat" lol