Can we agree that the communism is about working hard and the capitalism is about working smart?

> owner(s) who might never see the factory
> hundreds of workers getting only a fraction of profits
> someone is being motivated to work smart
Nope. It doesn't make any sense.

>Can we agree that the communism is about working hard and the capitalism is about working smart?

This is the single dumbest thing I've ever seen on Veeky Forums bravio congratulations

Do you know how many rightist thinkers and economists were nightmarishly lazy compared

Fuck off

>It doesn't matter how hard you work, you will never be equal to the guy who has a billion dollars worth of assets.
How does it feel to be a moron that denies evidence?

> zuckerberg
> from rags to riches
> due to hard work

>rags
Never said this,but he was far away from a billionaire,and now is one of the wealthiest people alive.You have people like Steve Jobs,Amancio Ortega or Soros if you like them better.

Still not hard work and you know it.

>Still not hard work
How do you determine this? Ortega was poor as shit,started with a small hat store,and right now is one of the wealthiest people alive.If by hard work you mean physical work,then you could be right,but the difference is,that anyone can do physical work.

> How do you determine this?
To earn 1 billion in 20 years, without spending any money on life/education, working 365 days a year, 10 hours a day, you need to earn ~14 thousand dollars per hour.

There is no "hard work" that can earn this amount of money. The highest hourly wage (high-end medicine) is around $100-150. You need to earn 100 (one hundred) times more to become a billionaire.

Therefore, if anyone earns more, this income comes not from hard work, but from being lucky. The proof is that you cannot replicate their success by working just as hard.

It's not just luck but the perfect storm of ambition, intelligence, resources, and connections. Which is even more disparaging to be honest.

I don't get this argument from lefties. I get the same respond when I say that the left isn't about workers right anymore.

>"HURDU THE RIGHT DOESN'T EITHER"

Well no shit, the right has never claimed to be especially interested in workers rights. Same thing applies here, right wingers who haven't worked a lot can still support right wing ideology and not seem hypocritical.

Traditional left wing can not.

>There is no "hard work" that can earn this amount of money. The highest hourly wage (high-end medicine) is around $100-150. You need to earn 100 (one hundred) times more to become a billionaire.
Yeah,working a lot doesnt make the work efficient.You need creativity,connections and luck to become rich,that doesnt make this people work not hard

> It's not just luck
No. But "ambition, intelligence, resources, and connections" still aren't enough if you aren't one of the lucky ones who ALSO found themselves in the right place in the right time. But if you are lucky even ambition and intellignece aren't necessary.

For example, late USSR: as long as you had right connections and was ready to (basically) commit treason you could easily become a multi-millionaire without any resources. I'm talking about earning 50 million dollars within one month by borrowing money from Central Bank and making simple financial transactions several times a week.

In fact, willingness to commit crime is just as (if not more) important than intelligence, if you want to earn lots of money.

> and luck
> and luck
What are you arguing about? The whole point is "hard work does not make you billionaire".

Once luck enters the equation, you might just as well get born in a family of billionaires.

>communism
>working hard

Are you literally retarded?

>communism
>agreeing on anything

Honestly, this
It's exceedingly RARE to acquire such high levels of capital but it's perfectly POSSIBLE.

The right app, product, system, or idea can make someone into a multi-billionaire in a pretty short time.

Though it isn't data-based, consider the example of Tetris. Under Communism, its creator was barely rewarded while the State and its elites took the fruits of that labor.

Under Capitalism, if the creator protected himself and took advantage of ownership laws/rights appropriately, he could have been a multi-millionaire at minimum.

Under Communism, there is no recourse. Under capitalism, at least, there are mechanisms for ensuring you own your own ideas and the fruits thereof. Not all take advantage of it, but the mechanisms exist.

obtaining it in the first place was the smart part, it can only happen if you beat the market average which means you must be doing something right

Damn straight, and the nature of a consumerist society means that even vast inherited wealth doesn't tend to last too long.

The advantage of Capitalism is that the "nobility" of our system tends to refresh itself every 3-4 generations at the outside.

No, the difference is about who reaps the benefits of your work. You or the man that owns the capital.

> Western companies pirate Tetris
> evil Communists stole the fruits of that labor
Yep. Nothig to see here.

P.s. you are a retard if you think that copyright is somehow "fair".

Alexey Pajitnov did not receive royalties for Tetris because he was an employee of the Soviet Government. It was licensed and owned by the Soviet company ELORG specifically for the purpose of export.

In 1991, Pajitnov moved to the USA.

You were saying I was retarded?

> The advantage of Capitalism is that the "nobility" of our system tends to refresh itself every 3-4 generations at the outside.
Myth.

> It’s a question that two Bank of Italy economists, Guglielmo Barone and Sauro Mocetti, attempted to answer. Focusing on the wealthiest families in 15th-century Florence, they compared newly digitized records of Florentine taxpayers way back in 1427 to those from 2011. By comparing the wealthiest people centuries back to those with the same last names today, they found that the richest families in Florence mostly remain the same.
> In other words, these families have kept their grip on wealth — and presumably the prestige and power that accompanies that wealth — for 600 years.
> "The top earners among the current taxpayers were found to have already been at the top of the socioeconomic ladder six centuries ago," Barone and Mocetti write in their research article published at VoxEU.
>"Societies characterised by a high transmission of socioeconomic status across generations are not only more likely to be perceived as ‘unfair’ they may also be less efficient as they waste the skills of those coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. Existing evidence suggests that the related earnings advantages disappear after several generations. This column challenges this view by comparing tax records for family dynasties (identified by surname) in Florence, Italy in 1427 and 2011. The top earners among the current taxpayers were found to have already been at the top of the socioeconomic ladder six centuries ago. This persistence is identified despite the huge political, demographic, and economic upheavals that occurred between the two dates. "

Maybe the rest of the people dont work as "smart " a they do.

> Alexey Pajitnov did not receive royalties for Tetris because he was an employee of the Soviet Government.
Because he was an employee. Period.

Learn the goddamn laws first: intellectual property that is created in the course of employment is owned by the employer.

That's 100% Western Capitalist law. If you have problem with it - you are a filthy commie scum. Is this simple enough?

> You were saying I was retarded?
Yes. Because you are.

>that pic

So what you're telling me, is that Stalin had a skull under his face? STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!

> Maybe the rest of the people dont work as "smart " a they do.
Sure. Having two Bushes as presidents (and third almost getting in), as well as potentially second Clinton proves that smartness is clearly genetic and is not based on wealth, connections or nepotism.

But the wealthy still don't "refresh", eh?

P.s. that was sarcasm. All of it.

No?
did you read the Manifesto? Or at least looked it up? It's all about how people are working too much and it's unnecessary and people should work less and enjoy leisure more. Basically Marx wrote a whole book about why it's okay that his neckbeard ass is sitting in his buddy Engels' basement doing fuck all.

Is this as a general statement or reality? In reality the only way to get ahead in any system is to work smart. Example is the Politburo was made up of a majority of Engineers who still had to play politics to obtain power.

>all these fucking revisionists ITT

lmfao that pic is so fucking fake

Marxism is more about showing up, while Capitalism is actually about doing it well

> obtaining it in the first place was the smart part
Buying a factory? Smart? Oh, why didn't any of those dumb workers consider buying factory? They could've been so rich...

Except not. They don't have the money to buy factory in the first place.

> who was Stakhanov