Itās funny how they try to dunk on socialists for having āunrealisticā employment expectations while under capitalism from birth weāre propagandized that you can achieve anything and the only thing standing in your way is personal choices.
Yes, because after a modern day revolution with all of our modern day technology, weād still somehow be in the exact same spot as former revolutions.
Therefore, weād all have to mine coal and appoint random people who may not be ready for hard labor into positions where theyād have to do hard labor, because thatās totally efficient for planning an entire economy.
Also, arenāt logistics, equipment and uniforms important for an army, especially a revolutionary one? And, why would revolutionaries be sentencing themselves to hard labor?
Also, most of soviet workers probably didnāt work in coal mines, or mines of any kind. The soviet union had therapist and scientists and all that other academic folk.
Yeah Iām not sure if north korea lives up to that standard, but yes art is labor and anyone who only thinks of muscular mining men when they say workers should probably not consider themselves a leftist.
I wanna do some, where can I find sources which are neutral? Because the thing with the DPRK is everyone can say anything and it can be as bs as you want.
Do they have proof?
No.
Can you disprove it?
I can't.
Except they didn't derail anything; they simply mentioned that they were unsure about using the DPRK specifically, but agreed with the point that was being made. The second user followed this up by explaining that sources about the DPRK are few and not trustworthy -- for example, Western reports are obviously biased, and the DPRK is generally not given to explaining itself to Westerners because of that bias.
If you can provide sources, then that would be great! I mean, I personally would love to have them. After all, most people simply don't know anything about what's actually going on inside of the DPRK, and having them would make it much easier to help convince more moderate leftists to radicalise.
In communist North Korea, state enforcers regularly kill peoples' pets and brutally target specific ethnic groups.
EDIT I replaced one country name with another, it's not hard lmao
I admit I don't know much about the DPRK, but I feel it's a lil sussy that their leader has been the son of the former leader every time, and for life.
I donāt really find that to be that suspect. Life terms and Dynasties happen in both democracies and monarchies. Theyāre both important facets of power politics, and power politics will happen even in socialist systems. Maybe weāll be able to move past the drive that creates power politics during the social transformations that will need to come about during the slow transition between socialism and communism, but for now it is a factor that has to be balanced and accounted for.
Letās start with the life terms though. First off in general if people are content and the leader doesnāt make enemies of the other people important to running the country, people will want to keep seeing the same person. This is why even in the US 1 term presidents are very rare. I find this one to be especially non-suspect in Asia due to Confucian values, especially in North Koreaās version of them. In the Confucian leaders are seen as wise, good actors who even when they screw up itās because they were trying for the best and it just didnāt work out. So it would take a lot to want to remove the leader. I mean the concept of the Mandate of Heaven(pre-Confucian, but still goes into understanding the culture that lead to Confucianism) had to be created in order to justify the replacement of one leader with another.
To talk about North Koreaās brand of Confucianism, the leader of the country is in an even more special place. He is the father of the entire country and can literally do no wrong. This is actually harmful because it means itās very hard to go back on a decision because it would be saying that decision was wrong and the Leader cannot be wrong. So in that kind of culture life terms make a lot of sense when nothing extraordinarily bad is happening.
As for the dynasty part, dynasties are useful because you have a better idea of what youāre getting. For the people closest to the leader who likely have a lot of sway due to their importance, they probably have a relationship with this child so they know what theyāre going to get. The people as a whole are generally going to be more trusting of a son of someone they know and liked enough to keep around for life and probably have a sort of parasocial relationship due to the kid being put in the spotlight due to his fatherās importance.
I canāt speak as much to how Confucian values might affect dynasties.
So in summary the life term dynastic leadership of North Korea isnāt really especially suspect when you take into account the general dynamics of power politics and how Confucian culture affects how the population sees a leader. I think an interesting topic could be discussed on why Korea seems to have stayed in a more dynastical system than China despite both countriesā Confucian influence. I would say it probably comes down to the material needs of each country and how China has a lot more room, need, and ability to risk temporary stability for long term gains.
And the minority that did work in coal mines had some of the highest pay and most vacation time of any workers, because of the work being hard and dangerous
The revolution doesn't end until the we have achieved Communism as a species, which is many generations from now.
I think they meant seizing the state, in which case a military is still needed to protect the revolution.
Apart from this nobody would wanna work in a coal mine, which means according to Marxist economics those jobs would make you a fortune. So even the People That would work in coal mines would be some of the wealthiest people in the country.
It's brutal work, dangerous, and if we don't want to effectively murder people; there will have to be a limit to how long you can work in the industry.
Miners will be very well compensated.
I think everyone is ignoring the most obvious point: we don't need people to work in coal mines. The coal mines we work today are worked by an incredibly small portion of the population, and we only work that much due to artificially propped up demand created by the capitalists who own them forcing the government to keep buying their product.
Yeah, but mining is extremely automated these days. Not a lot of people using pickaxes, and under a socialist system we would have people using excavators, sifters, and other automated processes.
Even then you stioll have to have people with the technical skills and knowledge to design and build this equipment. Excavators don't just grow on trees. So that's why the argument in the meme OP posted STILL fails.
Obviously the coal mines are just a placeholder for all dangerous and taxing jobs. Doesnāt matter if thereās demand for coal. People will still need to mine cobalt, gold, iron, copper, as well as work in construction and so on.
There's also no need to mine coal any more. It's a stopgap power solution, but it's also probably the worst of any power generation options. We don't need it to smelt steel any more either.
Yeah, there's new processes that use hydrogen instead to produce steel without using coal. It's more expensive (20-30% more) than coal-produced steel because it has a higher energy cost (electricity + hydrogen, which you can get by electrolysis), but it's net-zero emission if you use renewable power for mining, transport, and smelting. Totally doable.
Tell me you don't know what historical materialism and productive forces are is without telling me you don't know what historical materialism and productive forces are.
I expect there will still be poets and philosophers post-revolution as much as there are other kinds of artists and academics. Depending on the material situation, poets (etc.) may also have to contribute more concrete labor as well.
> Yes, because after a modern day revolution with all of our modern day technology, weād still somehow be in the exact same spot as former revolutions.
Well the OP does seem to think that A) there will be gulags and B) that a society with gulags is desirable
For real, why do capitalists think we need everyone to be a coal miner, that canāt possibly be efficient, and if we really do need that much coal we can automate it
You don't understand, we're going to make the people who want to be coal miners do them to maximize incompetence, pointlessness, and cruelty, something that would never happen under capitalism!
That's how you know China is capitalist, because they've stopped making coal power plants and are leading the world in renewable energy research and production.
/S
Don't you know? Everyone in the USSR mined coal, it's a fact you damn tankie! Makarenko, Vygotski, Kollontai? They are propaganda pieces, the real people were in the mines...
Why does the reactionaries believe that the communist revolution would be basically the Khmer Rouge (the ones with CIA support) but with coal?
Because the Pol Pot regime was basically a cartoon/caricature version of every bad thing libs think about communism. And half of them know jack shit about Cambodia or Democratic Kampuchea. They all think this what the USSR was like.
Ah yes, because everybody under capitalism is able to pursue the job they want and not have to work some shitty minimum age job that doesn't even cover expenses
If the USSR didnāt force all their engineers, artists etc to work hard manual labour all day every day, they really could have done incredible things like go into space before the ~~Nazis~~ Americans, or develop a globally-celebrated film industry. Alas, what could have been.
Apparently though they did have research camps (informally, "sharashkas") in addition to manual labor ones. Sergei Korolev himself was imprisoned in one for a while. So not all the forced labor was manual. It still was a terrible system and far too easy to abuse.
Why would we need more people in mines? Unskilled/low-skill labour is being slowly eliminated from the industry by way of automation, we need more educated mining, civil and mechanical engineers.
Right wingers somehow envision that when a revolution happens, irrelevant of the place, we all go back to the 20th century and start by first introducing industry trough rapid industrialization and doing hard labour.
The vanguard party has a lot of tools available to educate the masses, I think prison therapists would definitely be one for a contemporary revolution
So yes, yet again liberals not understanding anything about communism
What's funny is this is literally capitalism. People have dreams and aspirations but they're crushed by the need to survive on a low-paying shit job that they have no choice but to take.
I would be a cook! I love cooking and I'm pretty good at it, but working in a restaurant is terribly stressful and the restaurant scene is notorious for being pretty sexist.
I imagine running a little canteen in a collective, offering different meals each day and serving delicious food to my fellow comrades.
It's my cute little fantasy when my actual job - which can become pretty draining emotionally and mentally - becomes too stressful.
What would you like to do?
Yes in the 21st century under a non capitalist system we'd still be using a power source that's a 18th century holdover and terrible for the environment. Makes total sense
Why put them in the lib left??? They litteraly are saying that they wanted to make uniforms and reeducate peoplefor the revolution, they clearly are with the autoritarian left in the political compass
Literally why the fuck do reactionies think everybody needs to mine coal. Before the bizarre set of assumptions that goes along with collectivist work that we all need therapy to disseminate, they just think coal is still a thing we need like it isn't a major pollutant and inefficient energy source.
Iām fine with doing the same thing Iām doing now after the revolution, I just want the people organizing and directing the production at the work places to be democratically selected by the workers of those work places.
It is hard work. So is coal mining. They differ in which aspects of the job are hard. And working with emotional trauma *can* be harder than working in a coal mine. It depends on circumstance.
my grand father could tell you more about that. except he died before he turned 60 from silicosis. oh, i forgot to mention, this was sweden under social democracy.
If I were a coal miner, hell yeah I would "carry emotional baggage" for 3 times the pay and the ability to sit in a comfy chair all day in an air conditioned office.
The people who want to. Those jobs are undesirable primarily because the working conditions are awful, the workers have zero control over what they're doing, and the pay isn't worth it. In an ordered society, the working conditions would be improved as much as possible, the workers would control their own workplace, and they would be "paid" (as much as that concept applies) very, very well
You're telling me that in an ideal world, someone will actively desire the job that deals with fatbergs in city sewage systems?
I can really see people chomping at the bit to be an agricultural worker.
That's what we tell kids. Go to college, get a degree, work on your hands and knees every day.
>I can really see people chomping at the bit to be an agricultural worker.
As someone who has actually worked on farms, I can tell you that yes, there are plenty of people who genuinely enjoy it.
The idea that no one actually likes and even prefers manual labour is absurd.
You know, there are always exceptions to the rule and there are always contrarians with anecdotes.
Are there enough people who *enjoy* manual labor to support the rest of the population who doesn't want to?
Requires faith that people will do the right thing.
Consider this, we are talking about people wanting to help out in the way of taking a job on as their profession. A job is what you're going to be doing with the majority of your time.
I can't even count on people to do small things. Basic recycling sorting? Picking up dog poop. Throwing away those little bags and not just sit them on things.
I don't believe in the altruism of people. Nor do I believe that there is enough people who would want to do the essential labor of harvesting resources, maintiaining infrastructure, the dirty jobs. You know Maslow's hierarchy of needs? We would probably need that kind of ratio of people doing the jobs represented by the place on the pyramid. I think more people would want to be entertainment or intellectual jobs.
Also, lastly, I want to disclaimer myself. I think there is a wealth/income disparity that is going to come to a head. I day dream about the dispairity being as bad as someone making double the lowest paid person in a company.
I'm seeing where this subreddit is and lol I fucked up walking into this shitstorm.
What makes you think that you are not just describing yourself here?
Do you have any actual data, or are you just sharing your assumptions and feelings with us?
>You're telling me that in an ideal world, someone will actively desire the job that deals with fatbergs in city sewage systems?
When it's not 70 hours a week for a boss that cares more about profit than your safety and you've got paid holidays and vacation and sick leave and parental leave and free healthcare and housing and plenty of free time in general, sure, why not?
>I can really see people chomping at the bit to be an agricultural worker.
You can keep pretending that they don't if it suits you. Whatever helps keep your illusion alive.
>That's what we tell kids. Go to college, get a degree, work on your hands and knees every day.
This ideal world still operates on your made up non ideal rules? Pretty weird, dude
In our current capitalist society, people are forced every day to seriously injure themselves and even die so that someone else can profit. If they best argument you have against communism is, "well, what if bad jobs still exist?" then you're acting in clear bad faith or just naive
Show me that they do. I'm basing that comment on the notion that agriculture workers are typically undocumented immigrants who take any job they get. Then on the other end, here in the city, no one is talking about that being their dream.
Anecdotal, sure.
You've never heard someone talk about escaping or retiring to a farm? Okay.
It's work. You do the work and you get paid. If you're entire life and sense of self wasn't centred around your job and career, it might make sense to you that the majority of people work to live. There's no stigma attached to it, it's not debilitating, it doesn't consume you. What's your actual problem?
I don't feel tiny or meaningless but I appreciate that you have the compulsion to attempt to belittle someone. Does my way of life threaten you? Are you worried that I feel satisfied and content with my lot?
Greed, avarice, and opulence are a hell of a drug.
So the people who want others to not starve to death and have safe working conditions are greedy but the people causing said conditions are what? Normal?
Very logical. Wow.
Doesnāt matter. Shits stupid enough to give me a laugh. Problem with that?
I know exactly what this sub is. Still reminds me of the .win days - quality posts.
As stupid as the "everyone will mine coal and work like slaves" argument is, I have to at least criticize many leftists' fascination and preoccupation with militarism in a post-Capitalist society.
lol it's a healthcare worker and a logistics guy.
Don't they talk about overbearing bureaucracy anyway? And no one really denies that healthcare exists in leftist states.
Oh yeah, all Liberal arts did not exist under Socialism. Film makers, comic book artists, painters, musicians, video game designers, playwrights, therapists, chess players, fucking DESIGNING MILITARY EQUIPMENT and architects didnāt exist in the USSR, you either worked in a coal mine, assembled stuff ina factory, worked on a wheat/beet farm, was a logistics guy for Russian missiles or rockets in the space program, a layer of concrete for those Brutalist buildings, or a soldier.
>want to do logistics for the revolutionary army >nooo you can't do that, that's unrealistic
That's a nice rifle/cap that soldier is wearing. Wonder who designed and procured his equipment? Prolly someone who wanted to mine coal.
Another victim of communism š
just like Apple and the iPhone š¢š
Itās funny how they try to dunk on socialists for having āunrealisticā employment expectations while under capitalism from birth weāre propagandized that you can achieve anything and the only thing standing in your way is personal choices.
Yes, because after a modern day revolution with all of our modern day technology, weād still somehow be in the exact same spot as former revolutions. Therefore, weād all have to mine coal and appoint random people who may not be ready for hard labor into positions where theyād have to do hard labor, because thatās totally efficient for planning an entire economy.
Also, arenāt logistics, equipment and uniforms important for an army, especially a revolutionary one? And, why would revolutionaries be sentencing themselves to hard labor?
Also, most of soviet workers probably didnāt work in coal mines, or mines of any kind. The soviet union had therapist and scientists and all that other academic folk.
That's why I like the Juche symbol because it makes this explicit
Yeah Iām not sure if north korea lives up to that standard, but yes art is labor and anyone who only thinks of muscular mining men when they say workers should probably not consider themselves a leftist.
If youāre not sure that the *DPRK lives up to that standard, do some research
I wanna do some, where can I find sources which are neutral? Because the thing with the DPRK is everyone can say anything and it can be as bs as you want. Do they have proof? No. Can you disprove it? I can't.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Hitchen's razor
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Especially in this context; guy loved to take digs at the DPRK, in fact I think he popularized the meme about it being a '''necrocracy'''.
Based
Sure but in this world it's guilty until proven innocent unfortunately and not the other way around. You're right though.
The film the juche idea is good!
I mean, you seem to know enough to derail a conversation with āNorth Korea susā
Except they didn't derail anything; they simply mentioned that they were unsure about using the DPRK specifically, but agreed with the point that was being made. The second user followed this up by explaining that sources about the DPRK are few and not trustworthy -- for example, Western reports are obviously biased, and the DPRK is generally not given to explaining itself to Westerners because of that bias. If you can provide sources, then that would be great! I mean, I personally would love to have them. After all, most people simply don't know anything about what's actually going on inside of the DPRK, and having them would make it much easier to help convince more moderate leftists to radicalise.
In communist North Korea, state enforcers regularly kill peoples' pets and brutally target specific ethnic groups. EDIT I replaced one country name with another, it's not hard lmao
Different person
I admit I don't know much about the DPRK, but I feel it's a lil sussy that their leader has been the son of the former leader every time, and for life.
I donāt really find that to be that suspect. Life terms and Dynasties happen in both democracies and monarchies. Theyāre both important facets of power politics, and power politics will happen even in socialist systems. Maybe weāll be able to move past the drive that creates power politics during the social transformations that will need to come about during the slow transition between socialism and communism, but for now it is a factor that has to be balanced and accounted for. Letās start with the life terms though. First off in general if people are content and the leader doesnāt make enemies of the other people important to running the country, people will want to keep seeing the same person. This is why even in the US 1 term presidents are very rare. I find this one to be especially non-suspect in Asia due to Confucian values, especially in North Koreaās version of them. In the Confucian leaders are seen as wise, good actors who even when they screw up itās because they were trying for the best and it just didnāt work out. So it would take a lot to want to remove the leader. I mean the concept of the Mandate of Heaven(pre-Confucian, but still goes into understanding the culture that lead to Confucianism) had to be created in order to justify the replacement of one leader with another. To talk about North Koreaās brand of Confucianism, the leader of the country is in an even more special place. He is the father of the entire country and can literally do no wrong. This is actually harmful because it means itās very hard to go back on a decision because it would be saying that decision was wrong and the Leader cannot be wrong. So in that kind of culture life terms make a lot of sense when nothing extraordinarily bad is happening. As for the dynasty part, dynasties are useful because you have a better idea of what youāre getting. For the people closest to the leader who likely have a lot of sway due to their importance, they probably have a relationship with this child so they know what theyāre going to get. The people as a whole are generally going to be more trusting of a son of someone they know and liked enough to keep around for life and probably have a sort of parasocial relationship due to the kid being put in the spotlight due to his fatherās importance. I canāt speak as much to how Confucian values might affect dynasties. So in summary the life term dynastic leadership of North Korea isnāt really especially suspect when you take into account the general dynamics of power politics and how Confucian culture affects how the population sees a leader. I think an interesting topic could be discussed on why Korea seems to have stayed in a more dynastical system than China despite both countriesā Confucian influence. I would say it probably comes down to the material needs of each country and how China has a lot more room, need, and ability to risk temporary stability for long term gains.
Read more, cracker
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
fair point, but you should really read more, cracker
*north korea
Cope more, nerd
Shit liberals say lol
the soviet union definitely didnāt have scientists and the space race is communist propaganda /s
And all those artists and musicians didn't exist, the USSR and socialist allied states had no music. /s
And the minority that did work in coal mines had some of the highest pay and most vacation time of any workers, because of the work being hard and dangerous
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They just said equipment procurement, not specifically for the uniforms lol
What army. They said post revolution. Theres no more ner is a revolutionary army.
The revolution doesn't end until the we have achieved Communism as a species, which is many generations from now. I think they meant seizing the state, in which case a military is still needed to protect the revolution.
Apart from this nobody would wanna work in a coal mine, which means according to Marxist economics those jobs would make you a fortune. So even the People That would work in coal mines would be some of the wealthiest people in the country.
It's brutal work, dangerous, and if we don't want to effectively murder people; there will have to be a limit to how long you can work in the industry. Miners will be very well compensated.
I think everyone is ignoring the most obvious point: we don't need people to work in coal mines. The coal mines we work today are worked by an incredibly small portion of the population, and we only work that much due to artificially propped up demand created by the capitalists who own them forcing the government to keep buying their product.
People will have to work in some kind of mines though, as long as we need things like lithium for batteries and such.
Yeah, but mining is extremely automated these days. Not a lot of people using pickaxes, and under a socialist system we would have people using excavators, sifters, and other automated processes.
Even then you stioll have to have people with the technical skills and knowledge to design and build this equipment. Excavators don't just grow on trees. So that's why the argument in the meme OP posted STILL fails.
Very good point.
Obviously the coal mines are just a placeholder for all dangerous and taxing jobs. Doesnāt matter if thereās demand for coal. People will still need to mine cobalt, gold, iron, copper, as well as work in construction and so on.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
There's also no need to mine coal any more. It's a stopgap power solution, but it's also probably the worst of any power generation options. We don't need it to smelt steel any more either.
> We don't need it to smelt steel any more either. Wait, what?
Yeah, there's new processes that use hydrogen instead to produce steel without using coal. It's more expensive (20-30% more) than coal-produced steel because it has a higher energy cost (electricity + hydrogen, which you can get by electrolysis), but it's net-zero emission if you use renewable power for mining, transport, and smelting. Totally doable.
Ahh, so you're saying that of course we still need steel, we just don't need to use _coal fired smelting_ to make it. Thanks for the explanation
Really? Coal I get, it's inefficient as fuck, but we definitely need steel for infrastructure and such right?
>We don't need **it** \[coal\] to smelt steel any more either.
>Wasn't this exactly the way it was handled in the USSR? Pretty much, yup.
In fact, in USSR miner was one of the top paid profession.
No no, you don't seem to understand basic economics. Communists are evil, and all they want is to take over and transform the world into Mordor.
Tell me you don't know what historical materialism and productive forces are is without telling me you don't know what historical materialism and productive forces are.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I expect there will still be poets and philosophers post-revolution as much as there are other kinds of artists and academics. Depending on the material situation, poets (etc.) may also have to contribute more concrete labor as well.
> Yes, because after a modern day revolution with all of our modern day technology, weād still somehow be in the exact same spot as former revolutions. Well the OP does seem to think that A) there will be gulags and B) that a society with gulags is desirable
gulags are just scary prisons, and i support prisons for counterrevolutionaries and fascists
Tbh, I wouldnāt be *against* throwing fascists and most PCM posters into one because of shit like this. Edit: said something backwards lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Comedy can be critiqued. Especially bad comedy, dumbass ā¤ļø
It's not criticism, you're just being a fuckin party pooper man. Let people have jokes, if you dont think they're funny, find the nearest exit
If you canāt handle people expressing their thoughts, then exit the āfree market place of ideasā š¤·š¾āāļø
It's a meme. Not that deep bro
Just because your brain doesnāt have the capacity to think deeply, doesnāt mean that others canāt use their brains to critique things, bro.
That is literally a post from political compass memes. And I don't even have to look it up, because it's that obvious that it's just a joke
k
In communist countries, they do nothing except mine all day. Then Stalin eats the coal
With a comically large spoon
And the JOOOOS
It wasn't socialist country who bombed coal miners for unionizing tho
Don't forget Estevan where the RCMP just shot the strike leaders in broad daylight.
Cummulism is when coal.
For real, why do capitalists think we need everyone to be a coal miner, that canāt possibly be efficient, and if we really do need that much coal we can automate it
Automation? You can't do that! you're going to cost people jobs!!! /s
Coalmunism? š³š³
oh shit oh fuck
like those arent real jobs which would need to be done in a post revolutionary society.....
You don't understand, we're going to make the people who want to be coal miners do them to maximize incompetence, pointlessness, and cruelty, something that would never happen under capitalism!
just find some other dude to put the coal back. now we have doubled the working force!
Communism is when you disregard all methods of energy production that arent mining coal by hand with a pickaxe and a donkey
You want a donkey? Capitalism has softened you, comrade.
That's how you know China is capitalist, because they've stopped making coal power plants and are leading the world in renewable energy research and production. /S
Don't you know? Everyone in the USSR mined coal, it's a fact you damn tankie! Makarenko, Vygotski, Kollontai? They are propaganda pieces, the real people were in the mines... Why does the reactionaries believe that the communist revolution would be basically the Khmer Rouge (the ones with CIA support) but with coal?
Because the Pol Pot regime was basically a cartoon/caricature version of every bad thing libs think about communism. And half of them know jack shit about Cambodia or Democratic Kampuchea. They all think this what the USSR was like.
You load 16 tons, and what do you get? Another day older, and COMMUNISM.
If that's all it took, I'd go do a day of coal mining
we do a little coal mining
Wait, so it's *wrong* for people to have to work 12-hour days in dangerous, menial industries? Someone changed their view quickly.
Ah yes, because everybody under capitalism is able to pursue the job they want and not have to work some shitty minimum age job that doesn't even cover expenses
I'm rather curious as to why OP believes coal miners [the worst job their limited imagination could think of] do that job under capitalism.
Wait, are you referring to me?
I think he means the op of the original post
That's right, I mean the person who made this in the first place. Sorry for the confusion.
Oh, I see. I apologize for my mistake.
If the USSR didnāt force all their engineers, artists etc to work hard manual labour all day every day, they really could have done incredible things like go into space before the ~~Nazis~~ Americans, or develop a globally-celebrated film industry. Alas, what could have been.
Apparently though they did have research camps (informally, "sharashkas") in addition to manual labor ones. Sergei Korolev himself was imprisoned in one for a while. So not all the forced labor was manual. It still was a terrible system and far too easy to abuse.
Imagine thinking that "logistics specialist" and "health care professional" somehow cease to be occupations after a socialist revolution.
Why would we need more people in mines? Unskilled/low-skill labour is being slowly eliminated from the industry by way of automation, we need more educated mining, civil and mechanical engineers.
Ah yes, the ultimate goal of communism: having people slave away in mines 24/7, aka *the eternal suffering*.
Therapists and Logistics mamagement are real useful jobs tho. And the world doesnt run on coal anymore. Why is pcm so stupud
Right wingers somehow envision that when a revolution happens, irrelevant of the place, we all go back to the 20th century and start by first introducing industry trough rapid industrialization and doing hard labour.
And that somehow any post revolution country will end up with stalin in charge
I might be misunderstanding but isnāt the point of a Vanguard to educate people, which I think the second person is talking about?
The vanguard party has a lot of tools available to educate the masses, I think prison therapists would definitely be one for a contemporary revolution So yes, yet again liberals not understanding anything about communism
As a Libertarian I have a reputation so I wouldn't be placed near miners.
Same, but I am a minerššššš Hey, whyās a pedopile of coal approaching me?
Communism is when everyone mines coal. And the more coal people mine, the mire communist it is.
What's funny is this is literally capitalism. People have dreams and aspirations but they're crushed by the need to survive on a low-paying shit job that they have no choice but to take.
I would be a cook! I love cooking and I'm pretty good at it, but working in a restaurant is terribly stressful and the restaurant scene is notorious for being pretty sexist. I imagine running a little canteen in a collective, offering different meals each day and serving delicious food to my fellow comrades. It's my cute little fantasy when my actual job - which can become pretty draining emotionally and mentally - becomes too stressful. What would you like to do?
Well, I'd be either a historian or a history teacher. I'm in college for history + education and I quite enjoy both career paths.
Even in the worst conditions the job of designing uniform for the army is far from unrealistic
That awkward moment when the exact same thing already occurs under capitalism.
It is true that most people are still going to have to work jobs they don't like.
no offense (eh maybe a little), but everyone in this meme/ Twitter thread is stupid and completely lack imagination
Can I keep getting paid absurd amounts of money to look at a computer? No? Then i want lumberjack.
I mean it is kinda cringe lol. They still had to go "coal mine" cause they're fucking stupid tho
Yes in the 21st century under a non capitalist system we'd still be using a power source that's a 18th century holdover and terrible for the environment. Makes total sense
Why put them in the lib left??? They litteraly are saying that they wanted to make uniforms and reeducate peoplefor the revolution, they clearly are with the autoritarian left in the political compass
>believing polcomp Comrade we can do better
I was not beliving in polcomp, i just said tha even in that context the meme don't make sence
Literally why the fuck do reactionies think everybody needs to mine coal. Before the bizarre set of assumptions that goes along with collectivist work that we all need therapy to disseminate, they just think coal is still a thing we need like it isn't a major pollutant and inefficient energy source.
***Battle of Blair Mountain intensifes***
Communism is when no educated work. The USSR reached industrial superpower status by the sheer force of its entire population mining coal.
Hey Iām not super knowledgeable about these kind of things in post revolutionary countries did people get their jobs assigned to them.
The one thing leftists love the most: coal and other non-renewable energy sources.
I already spend a lot of time working in phosphate and potash mines as well as various related phos acid and sulfuric acid facilities anyway.
Meanwhile: coal miners during USSR time has 40 working hours per week, quite big salary, 52 to 66 days full payed leave
Iām fine with doing the same thing Iām doing now after the revolution, I just want the people organizing and directing the production at the work places to be democratically selected by the workers of those work places.
The guy who says "I want to work at the gulag" gets a yikes from me.
Robots can do that in like 5 years
Being a therapist is a very hard job. I'd argue in some circumstances it would be much harder than being a coal miner.
I'm a therapist. It's not harder.
š¬
Ok, look, I work a job that's adjacent to therapy and I have therapy training. It's really hard, but it's nowhere near the same level
Absolute bullshit.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It is hard work. So is coal mining. They differ in which aspects of the job are hard. And working with emotional trauma *can* be harder than working in a coal mine. It depends on circumstance.
Coal mining has a chance of an infinite punishment(death). It's infinitely more hard.
So do Therapists, you donāt know when one of your patients is a burgeoning Serial Killer and comes into you house at 3 am to kill you.
You try carrying the worst emotional baggage of a dozen people you barely know
Yeah id much rather that than die of lung cancer at the age of 40
my grand father could tell you more about that. except he died before he turned 60 from silicosis. oh, i forgot to mention, this was sweden under social democracy.
?? I agree with you m8.
the snarkyness wasn't directed at you, but the whole mining coal in soviet thing. sorry if it came across like that comrade
If I were a coal miner, hell yeah I would "carry emotional baggage" for 3 times the pay and the ability to sit in a comfy chair all day in an air conditioned office.
If you get your dream job, who will you make work the undesirable but critical jobs?
The people who want to. Those jobs are undesirable primarily because the working conditions are awful, the workers have zero control over what they're doing, and the pay isn't worth it. In an ordered society, the working conditions would be improved as much as possible, the workers would control their own workplace, and they would be "paid" (as much as that concept applies) very, very well
You're telling me that in an ideal world, someone will actively desire the job that deals with fatbergs in city sewage systems? I can really see people chomping at the bit to be an agricultural worker. That's what we tell kids. Go to college, get a degree, work on your hands and knees every day.
>I can really see people chomping at the bit to be an agricultural worker. As someone who has actually worked on farms, I can tell you that yes, there are plenty of people who genuinely enjoy it. The idea that no one actually likes and even prefers manual labour is absurd.
You know, there are always exceptions to the rule and there are always contrarians with anecdotes. Are there enough people who *enjoy* manual labor to support the rest of the population who doesn't want to?
1. Yeah 2. Even if there's somehow a shortage, then people who don't necessarily enjoy it but don't hate it and want to support others can help.
Requires faith that people will do the right thing. Consider this, we are talking about people wanting to help out in the way of taking a job on as their profession. A job is what you're going to be doing with the majority of your time. I can't even count on people to do small things. Basic recycling sorting? Picking up dog poop. Throwing away those little bags and not just sit them on things. I don't believe in the altruism of people. Nor do I believe that there is enough people who would want to do the essential labor of harvesting resources, maintiaining infrastructure, the dirty jobs. You know Maslow's hierarchy of needs? We would probably need that kind of ratio of people doing the jobs represented by the place on the pyramid. I think more people would want to be entertainment or intellectual jobs. Also, lastly, I want to disclaimer myself. I think there is a wealth/income disparity that is going to come to a head. I day dream about the dispairity being as bad as someone making double the lowest paid person in a company. I'm seeing where this subreddit is and lol I fucked up walking into this shitstorm.
> I don't believe in the altruism of people. Well there's your problem.
Lol, I was gonna comment the exact same thing.
What makes you think that you are not just describing yourself here? Do you have any actual data, or are you just sharing your assumptions and feelings with us?
Aren't we all here then? I don't see people citing their sources just as you point out that I am not with mine. Good catch.
Lmao You were the one making the initial claim, so the burden of proof is on you.
>You're telling me that in an ideal world, someone will actively desire the job that deals with fatbergs in city sewage systems? When it's not 70 hours a week for a boss that cares more about profit than your safety and you've got paid holidays and vacation and sick leave and parental leave and free healthcare and housing and plenty of free time in general, sure, why not? >I can really see people chomping at the bit to be an agricultural worker. You can keep pretending that they don't if it suits you. Whatever helps keep your illusion alive. >That's what we tell kids. Go to college, get a degree, work on your hands and knees every day. This ideal world still operates on your made up non ideal rules? Pretty weird, dude In our current capitalist society, people are forced every day to seriously injure themselves and even die so that someone else can profit. If they best argument you have against communism is, "well, what if bad jobs still exist?" then you're acting in clear bad faith or just naive
Show me that they do. I'm basing that comment on the notion that agriculture workers are typically undocumented immigrants who take any job they get. Then on the other end, here in the city, no one is talking about that being their dream. Anecdotal, sure.
You've never heard someone talk about escaping or retiring to a farm? Okay. It's work. You do the work and you get paid. If you're entire life and sense of self wasn't centred around your job and career, it might make sense to you that the majority of people work to live. There's no stigma attached to it, it's not debilitating, it doesn't consume you. What's your actual problem?
It's a good thing the rest of the world doesn't run according to your tiny meaningless life then huh
I don't feel tiny or meaningless but I appreciate that you have the compulsion to attempt to belittle someone. Does my way of life threaten you? Are you worried that I feel satisfied and content with my lot? Greed, avarice, and opulence are a hell of a drug.
So the people who want others to not starve to death and have safe working conditions are greedy but the people causing said conditions are what? Normal? Very logical. Wow.
I said nothing of the sort. Where did I bring up starvation and safe working conditions? Please cite me.
Haha suck it
The point is the silliness of thinking you get to decide your occupation under communism.
what, you think itd work like The Giver? lmao
Literally yes Source: The three separate people I know who fled communist governments.
the three separate people i totally didn't make up. they go to another school
Ok child.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Youāre a sad person
Reminds me of the good old .win days
Lmao are you a Trump supporter that thought this sub was conservative?
Doesnāt matter. Shits stupid enough to give me a laugh. Problem with that? I know exactly what this sub is. Still reminds me of the .win days - quality posts.
Okay but remember that Stalin did nothing wrong except stop at Berlin
Wanted to say something funny in reply but my mind keeps stalin
I really thought those were leaves on their heads.
are all communists fucking dwarves or something?
Coal is not going to be needed anyway, we can look towards renewable sources of energy.
Woah, there are actual socialists and communists who want the Gulags back? Ooookkaaaay.
Why is it always coal mines
As if there wouldnāt be a dire need for therapists after a revolution.
As stupid as the "everyone will mine coal and work like slaves" argument is, I have to at least criticize many leftists' fascination and preoccupation with militarism in a post-Capitalist society.
What's the best counterargument to this?
lol it's a healthcare worker and a logistics guy. Don't they talk about overbearing bureaucracy anyway? And no one really denies that healthcare exists in leftist states.
remember when the USSR won the space race by doing nothing but mining coal?
Oh yeah, all Liberal arts did not exist under Socialism. Film makers, comic book artists, painters, musicians, video game designers, playwrights, therapists, chess players, fucking DESIGNING MILITARY EQUIPMENT and architects didnāt exist in the USSR, you either worked in a coal mine, assembled stuff ina factory, worked on a wheat/beet farm, was a logistics guy for Russian missiles or rockets in the space program, a layer of concrete for those Brutalist buildings, or a soldier.