>>82572
People are given money not to work in many first world countries. Guess what, people still work. Being a neet is not very fulfilling.
I'm sure there will be people who want to slack off, especially because capitalism teaches us that work is awful and doesn't benefit ourselves, but we can manage some leeches. At least they don't get as much as the capitalists do now.
>>82615
>You want good karma? You want to be good in Gods eyes?
You're missing the point so hard. This is not about being good and making jesus love us, it's about living under a system where people aren't dumped under the bridge for not being productive enough. It's a very pragmatic position, because I know I could one day lose my arm and end up needing welfare, or something could happen to my family/friends.
You want to feel good giving homeless people food yourself? Go ahead, but don't force your anarchy onto the civilized in society.
>What if they're Kulaks though? :^) Really damn tired of you niggers moralizing on me.
Then their land will be collectivized to be worked by the Kulak's workers. The Kulak can work on equal footing with his previous workers or he can fuck off.
>Why did they stop producing under communism? Small correction. If you want empirical proof, you got it. Farmers in the USSR stopped producing, and farmers in Jamestown stopped producing back when the colony was ran as a socialist economy
When you say farmers stopped producing, do you mean Kulaks or actual farmers? Farmers in the Sovjet Union were much better off than they were under the Tzar, and produced much more (especially with the fast mechanization by the government).
I don't know anything about Jamestown. Do you have any reading material?
>Turns out that when you force people to share equally with their peers, they will be inclined to work as little as possible, because they will only get a fraction of what they produced. Only in small and intimate groups can you avoid this, and even there, you often have a head, like the parents in a family.
We don't expect people to go from a capitalist economy straight to a communist one, where everyone gets gibs. To quote the big boy himself
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division
of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor
has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased
with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more
abundantly – only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and
society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
>The labor theory of value was a stillborn theory, and Marx adopted it uncritically. Read Adam Smiths original reasoning on it and tell me it's not filled with non sequiturs.
Can you make an argument for this or give me a short text to read? Not particularly interested in reading Adam Smith just for the sake of this debate.