askchapo

“You have no excuse to not be a productive member of society”.

I’d love to, but that’s not my decision to make. Take it up with porky, he’s the one who determines who gets to work and who doesn’t.

Ahhhh, yes. The healthy, able bodied person who chooses poverty.

It's true that everyone should be helping out the social whole to the best of their ability but to measure that solely in their ability to do a job making capitalists money then your measurement stick is fucked to begin with.

In a vacuum sure people should share the burden. They, we, have a responsibility to do that. Not fulfilling that responsibility could be called lazy. The idea that a job shows social worth is rooted in the assumption that the job benefits society. That any job does, really.

At the same time if my job is making mustard gas at the death factory then how am I helping society? If my job is selling candy to pre-diabetic kids does me not being lazy cancel out the social deterioration my job causes?

Proponents of capitalism are not qualified to discuss what laziness is because they can't tell the difference between benign and malign activities so long as they make money.

Further, from a Marxist sense, telling someone they are lazy because they don't volunteer themselves into a relationship where the bulk of their labor value is siphoned off so the money can sit in the Cayman Islands or whatever is laughable.

Ask if they would trade lives with the person they're punching down on

They will say no because they think that their labor entitles them to live better than other people and they have afforded themselves their specific treats. It's expensive being poor and nobody is truly living on disability, and deep down they have to know that

There are plenty of "hardworking" people who have a negative impact on society, hell, a negative impact on Earth in general. Measuring someone's worth based on how much they wealth they produce for capital is ignorant of the incredibly complex and interconnected nature of existence. It is, in my opinion, impossible to accurately quantify the value of someone's life because there are simply too many variables and subjectivites involved.

The lazy people living off of our labor are executives, chief officers, board members, stock traders, business owners, landlords, etc.

me when the value produced by my labor goes to non-working poors:

me when the value produced by my labor goes to my lazy, parasitic boss:

A functioning society takes care of everyone wherever they’re at. Don’t let people who’ve succumbed to propaganda pressure you into feeling guilty.

laziness isnt even real. capitalism has tricked humans into thinking wanting to chill like every other animal is always doing is bad. why? because it doesnt make some rich dude more money

You know who works really hard? Cleaners, food delivery drivers and other people who are the most exploited by this system.

Are they rich?

I agree that everyone who's able should contribute to society, and that's why I propose sending all CEOs, investment bankers and venture capitalists into forced labor camps

A society should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. They will always take it a step further with their criteria of who is lazy. Today it may be the unemployed. Tomorrow it will end up being pensioners. Children? None of em deserve to die and we've seen such people vote into being laws that harm all of these groups.

"Yes and"

Unproductive members of society should be removed. CEOs add nothing if value. Sales people. Bankers. Politicans. Landlords. Middle Men. Car dealerships.

Instagram influences at least add beauty. CEOs just leach off the hard work of others. If they didn't show up to work we'd still do our jobs. If the janitorial doesn't show up how long can you work with dirty bathrooms?

From there you can doubble down. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow no? So an investor that doesn't actually work is owed none of the profits.

Capitalists are the “laziest” people in human history, and if those people don’t like being taxed wait until they hear about surplus value

I have an "invisible disability," at least on my better days, so I can see this attitude in some people's faces when they ask me what I do for a living.

And yet. About 30% of all income in the U.S. is unearned. Benefits payments are a small portion of that, and the vast, vast majority of benefits payments like SSI ultimately end up in the hands of landlords. But somehow my disability check makes chuds angrier than the fact that most of that check goes to rent.

The owners of this wealth, or capital, capture around 30 percent of the income produced by the country every year. This income flows to them, not because they work for it, but merely because they own income-generating assets like real estate, equity, and debt. In 2015, total US capital income was around $4.8 trillion.

If this unearned portion of the national income was distributed equally to every individual in society, then each person would receive around $15,000 of income per year in addition to whatever else they receive from working. For a family of four, this dividend alone would bring their household income to $60,000 per year.

$15,000, incidentally, is more than the maximum annual SSI payment. So even if so-called "laziness" were classified as a disability it would actually be the "lazy" who are getting a raw deal.

Able to work, able to get hired, and able to make ends meet are different things. Lots of people want to work, but can't find a job, let alone one that will fully support them.

From each according to their means, to each according to their needs.

You seem like you're in need of a baseball bat.

Tell them that you fully agree, and that's why you want to abolish capitalism and follow a model like that of the Soviet Union, where unemployment was abolished and every able-bodied person worked, and the average time spent looking for a job after losing one was 2 weeks. Tell them that there was no unemployed in pre-agrarian societies or in feudalism, that unemployment is just a byproduct of capitalism and that people inherently want to contribute to society, and that's why we want a collaborative society with guaranteed employment for everyone.

The world is in a climate crisis because of a crisis of overproduction. In that context in particular, more "laziness" (the desire to chill and enjoy life instead of toil for wealthier people) would benefit the planet.

For the libs a utilitarian counter to this would be "because not providing support will give you crime instead".

And then you put them in prison and you're now paying significantly more for them than if you'd had benefits and systems in place to get them back into work more gently.

The current system got to this point by slow evolution from significantly less support because this is more cost efficient than what existed before.

Have you suffered enough to justify your existence today?

I feel that way about the rich. If I have to pay 33% on every fucking dollar I earn then so should they.

honestly, if you want to take the financial angle, it's just cheaper to give struggling people money

I think the USSR used to just give you a job, shelter, medical care and support but they did expect you to work barring disabilities that prevented you from doing so.

These posts and comments as you've presented them are just general misanthropy hidden behind assigning social worth to labor to wages, a rant on their learned helplessness to the sentiment of : why don't I receive help? Why is my life so hard?. It is the cry of the alienated capitalist subject.

It clearly isn't effective to keep a person in a deep hole if you want them to be "productive". Bad times don't make "strong men", adequate nutrition, enrichment, stability, support, and education makes "strong men" (and women, NBs, etc). and those people make a strong society.

How long should someone with no physical or mental disabilities be allowed to remain on benefits?

What is the industrial reserve army

if you own more than 1000 in 30 years treasuries, you get a wall as a lazy bum. but for real, the goal of socialism is to work less, have control over what you work for and how much you work. As we don't have full automation, edge case (able bodied, physically, mentally, socially) and not looking for work person shouldn't automatically be considered a person we should fight for (i for one think those people are actually very rare, cause it's boring as shit). Somebody grown and milled the flour you eat, you have to give something back (or you can do coop living, but have fun explaining there why you don't want to do anything). Or you can live in log cabin with a gun, but that's another thing, and not something those people would call lazy.

Now, there is a lot of work society doesn't deem profitable and thus not compensating (be it elder care or young people care, home work etc), so again you can construct argument around that person not being "lazy" actually.

The danger of this argument, appearing reasonable on its face, is constructing labyrinth of means testing which hurts more people than it helps.

But when people imagine this type of person, they are doing some sort of reagan "black people in cadillac", and likely being racist as well.

so choose your thingy as counterargument (means testing hurts more than helps, finance bros are more dangerous, caring for kids is work actually, "how did that work out for y'all since 80s, crackers?" - don't work on people on the internet, cause it's upper quintiles, "natural unemployment rate" is a thing they decided to accept)

also poster nr2 probably pays more to his owners than taxes, the little crab in the bucket.

because under capitalism getting a job is kinda difficult, painful process, so even many the 'voluntarily unemployed' may take up part time jobs if they had the chance and if it were provided for by the Government.

It is genuinely heartbreaking we can’t divide the world in two and let everyone who thinks this way live on their half while we get to point and laugh from our half

fuck em, pigs don't get to judge people

I assume this is in relation to the BB bill that cut medicaid? Arguing in this line would put you in a difficult spot. Instead you should shift to talking about how these cuts are done on purpose to give a tax break to corporations. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't have needed to pass the cuts.

As someone who would "happily" be lazy and sit around scraping by on welfare... People aren't like that because they're well.

I havent worked for monthsi Hopefully what I have been doing instead will turn out useful.

That argument always gives me vibes of "but I've had to go through corporeal punishment when I was a kid, it's not fair that children now should have it easier".

"Things were bad for me and I still made it, I don't want it to be easier for other people or it makes all I've gone through feel worthless"

Your money is already going going to assholes who don't need to do shit because they just happen to own the company you work at. Why be mad if that money was spread around to people who actually need it instead of just going to a few billionaires? You hate people you consider "lazy" enough that you think they should starve and that it's not worth helping anyone else if it means helping ONE "lazy" person?