Muh reduced income hierarchy

>be in college, studying computer science
>companies are presenting internships
>start imagining what it would be like if we lived in socialism
>"If I worked really hard in these internships, I would barely make more money (or no more money)"
>"If I were lazy, there would be a huge social security net, and I would barely make less money"
Realize how retarded socialism is, even in theory.

Socialism and welfare state are not the same, mutt.

Yeah, so socialism doesn't defend reduced income hierarchy and big social safety nets.
Seems legit.

>socialism
>to each according to his contribution
Are you just really dumb and unproductive or something?

>"If I worked really hard in these internships, I would barely make more money (or no more money)"
Well obviously, because in socialism if you contributed a lot in your internship, you'd actually be getting paid as an intern and not used as free labor, so delta would be marginal because it's just a title change, your actual productivity and contribution would be similar. Under capitalism your internship would be unpaid, so of course the delta is greater.

>"If I were lazy, there would be a huge social security net, and I would barely make less money"
According to who?

>He who does not work, neither shall he eat
>Lenin quoting Paul the apostle
Welfare in socialism means no joblessness, not no work. It's work-for-welfare taken to the extreme. You're given a menial public works or public sector job like New Deal if you can't find something better so at least you're not sitting on your ass all day. If you refuse to work, it's off to the gulags with you.

Why do Americans not understand socialism?

Not to mention how these fucking companies would even exist if they're wasn't a competitive market and private ownership.

How the fuck did you make it to college?
Also nice digits.

>Yeah, so socialism doesn't defend reduced income hierarchy
It does in the sense that is only values productive labor contributions.

>and big social safety nets.
Socialism is a cult of labor. It's not your existence as a human being, but your willingness to contribute to society that entitles you to social security.

You're conflating social democracy and/or welfare state with socialism.

If anything the fault of socialism is worshiping labor to the point where people toil pointlessly because of lack of good direction from above as socialists tend to value worker labor instead of management labor and the contribution of management is difficult to evaluate without a market system, competition and decentralization.

>"Under capitalism your internship would be unpaid, so of course the delta is greater."
Bullshit. These internships are paid. Are you gonna tell me I live under socialism?

Some people really defend absence of currency and universal basic income. And a lot of socialists really do want heavily reduced income hierarchy. To do otherwise is simply admitting how retarded these ideas are, and promoting a heavily tamed version of socialism.

Yes, If I were lazy, it would be easier for me, under socialism, to get a new job.

>Let's conveniently tone down socialist ideas in order to withstand this criticism.

I mean, how the fuck would there even be income hierarchy and the competitive markets that promote these companies under, say, anarcho-communism?

>Bullshit. These internships are paid.
If you say so. They're certainly not paying you the $100k in a good entry level CS job.

>Are you gonna tell me I live under socialism?
No, because you will most likely work for a company to bolster company profits which increases the value of the company shares owned by investors.

>Some people really defend absence of currency and universal basic income.
But what does that have to do with socialism? Unless you mean labor vouchers as absence of currency.

>And a lot of socialists really do want heavily reduced income hierarchy.
I agree, just not in the sense you are thinking of. Socialists want to cut the investors out. They want to be both owner and worker.

>To do otherwise is simply admitting how retarded these ideas are, and promoting a heavily tamed version of socialism.
You seem confused. The welfare state, UBI, etc are watered down socialism in the form of social democracy attempting to patch over the deficiencies in capitalism. Socialism is defined by workers owning the means of production. Anything else is watered down socialism.

>Yes, If I were lazy, it would be easier for me, under socialism, to get a new job.
Yes, but it would be a shit job. You wouldn't be rejected from McDonald's for being overqualified like you would under capitalism. The state would be obligated to find work for you, and not just give you job listings, but actually find you a job, even if it was a shit job, like being a janitor.

You seem to be under the impression that socialism means equality. This is incorrect. Even Karl Marx abhorred equality and thought it was a bourgeois concept. His communist distribution principle, to each according to his need, from each according to his ability, is radically individualistic and acknowledges the differences between individuals. It doesn't say from each the same, to each the same, because everyone is the same.

>Be in industry, working 40 hour week
>"I really don't need this much money. Can I get paid less and work less?"
>"Lol no."
Yeah, fuck the current system OP. And fuck you for defending it.

>Let's conveniently tone down socialist ideas in order to withstand this criticism.
The welfare state is toned down socialism. Actual socialism is much more radical and threatening to capital owners. You are completely confused, most likely due to American indoctrination and thinking Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

>I mean, how the fuck would there even be income hierarchy and the competitive markets that promote these companies under, say, anarcho-communism?
Anarcho-communism is not socialism. Socialism and communism are not interchangeable words.

>extremely retarded picture with an extremely retarded OP post
>extremely retarded discussion in thread

>The welfare state is toned down socialism.
Fuck off, the welfare state was literally created to neuter socialism

By offering the masses toned down neutered "socialism". I don't see how we're in disagreement.

I mean, Kropotkin certainly defends that nobody should make more money than someone else, I've read "the conquest of bread", and I hear ancoms say this shit ALL. THE. TIME.

If socialists really promote income hierarchy then they really need to change their discourse, this is definitely not the idea that I get from the ones I talk to (mostly ancoms).

I also think that socialists really neglect how hard, and how useful it is, to start a company, and even to run one. Starting a company would be harder under state socialism (if you tell me you want there to be a healthy private sector, without large profit taxes, then you are REALLY toning down your "socialism"), and chaotic under anarcho-socialism, seen as you would have "the working-class" up your ass 24/7, making sure you don't do anything by yourself, and collectivizing the results of your labor. I just don't see how the industry would be half as innovative and flexible as it is today.

>I mean, Kropotkin certainly defends that nobody should make more money than someone else, I've read "the conquest of bread", and I hear ancoms say this shit ALL. THE. TIME.
Again, ancom isn't socialism. It's ancom. Your OP was about socialism.

>If socialists really promote income hierarchy then they really need to change their discourse, this is definitely not the idea that I get from the ones I talk to (mostly ancoms).
Ancoms aren't socialists. At best they see socialism as a stepping stone to ancom and have no interest in seeing sustainable socialism succeed on its own merits. They're accelerationalists and don't want to let socialism transition to communism on its own when the material conditions are right.

>I also think that socialists really neglect how hard
Again, ancoms aren't socialists. They're only loosely related because an ancom might advocate socialism because ancom and socialism are in the same direction fromt he status quo. An actual socialist is interested in socialism as a stage and making socialism work, not as a stepping stone or a box to check off.

>Starting a company would be harder under state socialism
What is state capitalism? Do you mean NEP or state ownership of everything. Deng's market reforms are an example of NEP actually implemented for a reasonable amount of time. NEP in the USSR ended because Lenin died. If you mean state ownership of everything, there are other decentralized forms of socialism, although most USSR puppet states followed the USSR's model for obvious reasons.

>(if you tell me you want there to be a healthy private sector, without large profit taxes, then you are REALLY toning down your "socialism")
If by private sector you mean co-ops run and controlled by worker's councils and unions I disagree. That's socialism at work. Socialism doesn't mean big state. I'm also generally opposed to high income taxes. I'm open to high taxes on productivity derived from capital or exploitation.

A) Start or join a labour union.
B) Look for a different job.
C) Citizen activism, promote legislation.

Forcing someone else to accomodate you and you alone is bad for the company and for the other workers.

cont.

It just so happens under capitalism, pretty much the only way you get rich is off of having employees, owning capital which other workers use, or gambling. Maybe being an entertainment star too which I have mixed feelings about.

>and chaotic under anarcho-socialism
You keep saying "your socialism" and then referring to ancoms. I'm not an ancom. Capitalism thrives on chaos. Chaos is not inherently bad, as long as chaos can be channeled productively with guiding principles.

>seen as you would have "the working-class" up your ass 24/7, making sure you don't do anything by yourself, and collectivizing the results of your labor.
This doesn't make it harder to start a company. It makes it hard to claim sole ownership of profits in order to min-max and pay the least while pocketing the most. If you have a good idea and get people to sign on having a stake in the company, then you have a company. It's just not exclusively yours. If it's your labor that counts, then don't get partners. If they try to vote you out because they think your labor doesn't amount to much, then apparently your labor didn't amount to much, or they fail and come begging you to come back with even better terms. If you sit on your idea, then you don't profit.

>I just don't see how the industry would be half as innovative and flexible as it is today.
Start ups require investors, often angel investors that you basically sell all your rights and soul to and they can kick you out of your company. You generally aren't starting a company on your own capital in this day and age. The socialist alternative is you find other co-worker-owners. If you have a limited welfare state, their life isn't ruined if it doesn't pan out so they're more willing to take risks.

There is the concern that workers tend to not reinvest earnings unlike investors. A socialist society needs people to learn their role as a worker-owner, not just a worker.

It might sound retarded but various research points to higher averages of quality of life and "happiness" in countries that do implement these policies effectively.

links to this?

Well, I stand corrected, I guess.
At least you agree with me that ancoms are fucking retarded.

I'm just going to point out traditional Marxism is anti-ancom. Marx got in fights with ancoms during his lifetime and he was called a statist by them because he saw the workers should using the state to empower themselves and create a new society. Ancoms insisted it was the state itself that was oppressive and if you abolished the state things would fall into place by themselves.

People may make fun of the idea that post scarcity is a requirement for stateless communism and say it is impossible, but in a way, Marx's communism that requires a post scarcity economy is the only one that makes and sense. He is saying the you have to set up the conditions where people won't be motivated to fight over limited vital resources for ancom to have a chance.

...

Marx and Engels defended "scientific socialism" and meant for society and the economy to be directed by the inteligentsia. This was in opposition to what they called "utopian socialism" which was basically what we now call anarcho-communism.

realize how op just showed his unwillingness to work in a huge emberassing freudian slip.

What do you do that they don’t let you adjust how many hours you want to work?
I told my boss i needed to cut back to 20 hours to go to school and they did it no questions asked

That show not only that you dumped a ton of money into a college education (which could've been free) but also that you got into your current job not because you liked it, but for money. You would've been better off working at something you really liked for the sake of itself.

You make money off of internships? All internships during college here are unpaid.

They pay for transportation, lunch and for objectives, and I can keep working with them if they like me.

Social science and even non-survey course history generally aren’t mandatory in US universities, so anyone who doesn’t major in those subjects will never really be exposed to Marx’s ideas and asked to think critically about capitalism. Thus you have a bunch of commie anthropologists, political scientists, historians, sociologists, and psychologists, and then everyone else sits around scratching their heads wondering how anyone could believe in (insert whatever dumb meme their parent/high school teacher taught them about communism).

That's not a paid internship, that's an internship with a stipend. I don't know where you live, but it's generally illegal for companies to give internships with the promise of a job at the end.