• @loxdogs
    link
    -510 months ago

    In a world of Ayn Rand everyone also works together. She wrote, that people should work with each other. They will benefit from this. One person is not capable of doing everything. However, you can choose who to work with. You would always want to work with someone who does everything right and in time.

    All people are not equal, and that is a fact, but in rational world they can work hard to be noticed by another rational person. You don’t judge by the look of their skin, cloths or fortune. You judge by the way they think. There would be no slaves, those who worked hard would earn more.

    The machines are built by workers, but who made the blueprint? They sold it or shared it to make life more comfortable for themselves, thus making the progress. You will end up with better and more goods. This is one of the reasons you must value yourself.

    Money is virtue, because it’s one of the least thing people agreed on as equal value to something. I really don’t want to barter for the new phone, to be honest.

    It’s a problem, that you are not getting paid enough, but that’s not problem of the money, that’s people who are paying less are a problem.

    Communism isn’t equal too. You, in fact, would get paid the same amount as everyone else. What’s the point of doing better and more, if you get paid the same?

    So I still don’t understand to be honest, are there other explanations? With all my pleasure, if everything is shared, I do not want to share my woman with someone, who needs it more. Share my workplace with someone who needs it more, but I will give it to someone, who’s better than me. Share my payment, because someone needs it more. If I want to, I have some surplus and I won’t need it, than sure, I will share. I won’t do it mandatory.

      • @loxdogs
        link
        -210 months ago

        Sorry, by saying “in a world of Ayn Rand” I meant her philosophy. That’s my mistake and I will try not to do it again.

        Well, the true communism is achieved when everything is everyone, all are equal in their, including people. You can have sex with whom you want. If someone, doesn’t matter who, can sex with another person, so can you. I maybe mistaken, but book “we” explains it greatly.

        Few people earn all their surplus honestly, and I am sure you have nothing against those. Others who don’t(stole, lie, decieve) to achieve fortune are not objectivists. They are one of many reasons people hate capitalism in fact and I agree with this.

          • @loxdogs
            link
            010 months ago

            Sorry, I didn’t understand your take about private property. You saying, that we can’t built our philosophy on top of this concept, because we don’t have scientific research on this matter?

              • @loxdogs
                link
                010 months ago

                It is not about holding it as sacred things, that is not the final goal, even thou it seems otherwise. The main goal is life, you should value it the most. You do what you love the most. You yourself is a goal.

                You probably have an interesting workday, if you can write those huge comments. (;

                I don’t think example of “sacred” is necessary. Jim Taggert is example of this in full scale. Him and all his friends. The pursuit the fortune as a goal. It was never clear, so it led to whole country collapse.

    • @masquenox
      link
      510 months ago

      So I still don’t understand to be honest,

      No, you understand perfectly well - you are a simp for parasite ideology. Just like Ayn Rand was.

      • @loxdogs
        link
        -310 months ago

        That’s not an explanation… I am only asking to explain in other way, I could understand. I can admit, that I am wrong, if objective reasoning is heavy enough for me to say “yeah man, whis Ayn Rand is such a parasite”, but I don’t see it, or don’t understand

        • @masquenox
          link
          410 months ago

          You don’t understand how capitalism works?

          • @loxdogs
            link
            -210 months ago

            Well, you are getting paid for your work, by someone who managed to get the business going, all hard things aside.

              • @loxdogs
                link
                -110 months ago

                Can you please explain me than? Seems I was wrong all this time…

                • @masquenox
                  link
                  210 months ago

                  Sure.

                  (Just in case you thought I had forgotten about you.)

                  • @loxdogs
                    link
                    010 months ago

                    If workers want to, that could increase their professional aptitude to be able to maintain or work with new machines, making them more valuable and increasing their wages. If you are valuable you and your manager understands this - It’s in his self-interest to keep you on a workplace

                    In objectivism, you don’t encroach on others right to live, so the last one is obscure

                • Cowbee [he/they]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  110 months ago

                  Capitalism isn’t wage labor, it’s a specific mode of production by which individual Capitalists buy and sell Capital, then pay Workers wage labor to use said Capital to create commodities.

                  If the entity is Worker Owned, it’s Socialist, as Capitalism requires Capitalists.

                  • @loxdogs
                    link
                    010 months ago

                    In other words, worker is getting paid for creating goods/services for entity owner(capitalist in our case)?

            • @masquenox
              link
              210 months ago

              How much did you pay your mother for having you?

              • @loxdogs
                link
                110 months ago

                Firstly, that’s rude. Secondly, the only possible way I can pay her back is give someone else another life.

                • @masquenox
                  link
                  1
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  No, it isn’t.

                  Did you or did you not pay your mother for all the services she has rendered to you?

                  You can’t even apply Rand’s objectivist bullshittery to your own existence - yet here you are pretending you can apply it everywhere else.

                  Put up or shut up.

                  • @loxdogs
                    link
                    -110 months ago

                    If you read about Rand’s philosophy, it is not a sacrifice to do something for the loved ones for free. Their happiness is your happiness, so it’s in your interest to make them happy. My mother never asked me to pay her back. I payback to foreigners and friends for their services. I don’t ask people to do something for me free, nor do something to others for free.

      • @loxdogs
        link
        -510 months ago

        If by workers we consider everyone, who’s working with their hands and minds, getting paid for this, than I agree. It’s not different from Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

        If by workers we consider only people who work with hands on a factory, than no. Without proper education, you can’t make blueprint of machine. To be more clear - good machine.

        If none of this, I am ready to listen to your explanation

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          610 months ago

          White and blue collars are both working class, working class doesn’t mean poor or manual labour. Either you have to work to sustain yourself or you own the “means of production” e.g. parasitic owner class, these don’t do any meaningful work especially not designing complex industrial blueprints.

          • @loxdogs
            link
            -110 months ago

            Wait, so if a person pays government to buy land, pays architect, providing him a job, to make a project of a factory, pays construction company to build factory, pays other different factories to buy machines for his factory, hires workers and pays them to work and produce goods is being parasite? Did I get it right?

              • @loxdogs
                link
                -210 months ago

                Ayn Rand’s philosophy doesn’t support ill-gotten riches in anyway.

                Can you elaborate on labour please? If you don’t like the place you work at, you can always leave and find a better one! Will it be tough? Absolutely. Will it get better? Probably yes.

                How’s making products is detrimental to the rest of human society? I am sure, whatever you are using is a product of filthy capitalists. They didn’t make it themselves, but have invested, organised project and manufacturing. They are on top of this product chain. By themselves those workers wouldn’t be able to do this massively.

                  • @loxdogs
                    link
                    110 months ago

                    About products, I know you said it’s for another time. The fact is, capitalists provide us with workplaces and products. They not doing it themselves, but the trunk of the tree. The root cause is people needs. I can’t call them parasites or robbers if they earn it honestly.

                    Well, I am not a materialist, so I can’t support you with “material conditions prevent”. In my opinion, if you free and nobody forces you, than it’s not labour. You can live whenever you want, or change something you don’t really want.

                    It’s cool, what you are doing, hope this gets recognition! Maybe one day you’ll be as someone, who changed the way we see product production.

                    Maybe one day I will understand your saying about ideology, but I really don’t. For me Rand’s philosophy is really the best, cause it’s simple and answers all of my questions. Do whatever you want with respect to other people right to live. I can’t call it ideology, like can’t call Buddhism a religion. Both I classify as philosophy. And mostly I unintentionally followed Rand’s without knowing it.