Isn't Communism a little.. Purposeless?

The idea of a classless, stateless, moneyless society where everyone merely exists to meet each others basic necessities seems a little meaningless to me.

I mean, what would the purpose of it be? Nobody would aspire to do anything great, as everyone would be simply content with existing and meeting needs.

Yeah, it sounds very noble. Nobody would starve, nobody would envy anyone, and everyone will be an equal.

But isn't the beauty of life the fact that we're all uniquely different, and each one of us with our own unique purpose? That would all cease to exist under a communist system, as everyone would be confined to this created belief of "equality," when individuals are actually far from equals.

I don't know, but I can't see how a life without personal goals or achievements has any purpose at all. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

I think you fail to understand what the point is.

In capitalism, because we aren't free to fulfill our desires, we are stunted creatures. In a socialist society, because we're free to follow and have granted our desires, we can be whatever we want. It's socialist society that will enable us to persue our goals.

This is ridiculous.
People would exist, obviously, and they would perform useful labour in order that everyone's needs can be met, and from that point it'd be their own choice of what they want to do with themselves.

Paint the most exquisite paintings? Why not. Go mountain climbing and diving? Could do that. In fact, there's no reason whatsoever why people would be unable to do all sorts of things that could be both fulfilling to them on a personal lever and socially important.

You didn't actually write that you assume that people need to be downtrodden, exploited and oppressed in order to aspire to do something great. That assumption is the only possible one here given the conclusion.

If you do not feel that way, then why the hell would nobody aspire to do anything great?

Nobody would envy anyone? It just might be that you're mistaking communism for a starry eyed utopia wonderland.

No one has a unique purpose apart from the sting of choices and practices in life that can be rationalized as the "meaning of my life" or "my purpose". Are you religious by any chance?

Apart from that, communism would not - how the hell could it - abolish differences between individuals.

The term equality, in political discourse, does not refer to sameness.

Apart from that, how could a belief in equality eradicate personal differences? By some grand, devilish brainwashing process whereby people would be indoctrinated into acting and thinking like parts of a hive mind? I'm afraid that you got your impression of communism from extremely biased sources because this sounds like a crude caricature for anti-communist aims.

And yes, equality is practiced even in captialist society, and it is widely held as an ideal (political equality, equality before the law), so how come people are still different?


If anything, people would be effectively free to: 1) pursue more personal goals of their own due to a low level of labour time required and 2) engage in these practices to the fullest possible extent.

More and more purpose for everyone, as opposed to more and more of toil, something we have now.

You seem to conflate individuality and capitalism as complementing each other; which, when lacked, society would drift off into this malaise where no one aspires to anything. It doesn't make much sense mate. Under communism why would no one aspire to do anything? Simply because people have their needs met do they loose all their imagination and creativity? Is needing to be exploited and forced to be a wage-slave what's keeping the artistic impulse going? No, I do not think so.

Indeed you seem to have a stilted view of what equality means. I think you see equality as a sort of dystopian 1984 type of world where everyone wears, does, and talks the same and everyone has the same boring standard of living. Again this is not the case. Equality to use means social-equality where racism, queerphobia, classism, sexism, and chauvinism have been eliminated.

Things such as wealth redistribution, remedying income disparities, and such are concepts which occur, more or less, as side-effects. These concepts have little to do with the kind of equality we promote.

Didn't Oscar Wilde call America 'the Land of Individuality, where everyone eats the same, dresses the same and thinks the same'?

Or did I just imagine that?

From the comfort of his computer....
But anyway, the point of communism isn't to "advance society" or "make better systemz".

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Everything seems meaningless to me whats your point? lol. Also it isn't just to meet basic necessities lol, are you implying that when there is a communist revolution we are just going to demolish all of the guitar factories and yacht factories? Different people differ about how luxuries will be distributed, I personally feel that they should be dealt with in a sort of Co-op rental sort of way, so that everyone can have equal access to them.

*yawwwwwn* Rightist troll

Leisure society sounds so boring. All that leisure. Why would you want that when you've got the exciting thrills of wage slavery? Your life would be so boring if you weren't striving to keep a roof over your head, you need goals in life.

By that definition, communism sounds a lot like anarchy.

I'm sorry, it's just that I've never been able to see the link between communism and personal freedom.

For example; what if I wanted to travel the world? How could I afford to do so if I had no money? Would the entire world have to be communist as well, and my entire trip around the world be totally free?

Again, this is all very new to me.

I also see you have capitalism associated with wage slavery. Why?

Why is a person a wage slave, if not by his or her own choice? For example; I've worked a job where I busted my behind and felt exploited. So I quit. I was only a wage slave if I chose to be. Everyone has that choice. In fact, I know many people that choose to be wage slaves, and don't mind it at all. But nobody is forced to continue that "slavery."

Anarchy is essentially communism, so you are correct. However I am interested to know what your definition of anarchy is.

Yes, the whole world would have to be communist: the world would would have to achieve socialism then transition through communism. However, your second point is incorrect in its logic: abolishing money does not mean some have money and some do not, all of it is gone because it has become absolute. The world no longer runs on money, it runs through mutual exchange, what some might call, I believe, a "gift economy". If you wanted to travel the world you would be able to. I am hesitant to call it free since there are no prices and such but technically speaking it would be "free". However such a trip would have to be planned in advance so that another person's labor can fill in for your missing slot.

I have heard this same line from libertarians and it doesn't compute (as the robots say). You are a wage slave because in order to make a living in capitalist society you are forced to sell your labor power to capitalists; if you do not do this day in and day out than you loose all those cozy privileges we like to have (such as living indoors, eating fine foods, having electricity, etc). The fact that you can leave that employer for another doesn't change the fact you are compelled to continue selling your labor-power in exchange for personal living freedoms. If you are so inclined you do not have to sell your power but if you choose that I simply hope you have some friend or family you can live with that has no problem with paying for all your needs and loves you staying underneath their roof for nearly nothing in exchange.

My definition of Anarchy is a society without rules or authority. Primarily because there is no state to enforce anything.

If you say that there would be no state under communism, what's stopping someone from being a capitalist? I understand there would be no money involved, but as humas we will surely find something to exchange.

I was under the impression that communism needed a very oppressive government to keep people in line.

And about my last point about wage slavery; isn't it the same under communism?

So you're saying that in a capitalist society, you are forced to work in order to afford basic necessities, right? And if someone were to stop working, he or she would be kicked onto the street.

What if a person stopped working in a communist society? Would his/her neighbors work a little extra to support that person?

Also, if money goes away and everything becomes a mutual exchange, what happens to innovation? For example, how would the plane, electric light, gasoline, the automobile, ect.. have been invented under communism?

No, right now people don't have a choice but to be discontented with struggling to exist and struggling to meet their needs which often times don't get met which places them in a position to question their existence as a human, humiliation and misery and the more tangible result being poverty, declining health etc.. Post revolution there would be (there'd better be) the opening of free time to pursue whatever people want, occupation or fun, without the constraints of capital, hierarchy, 'authority'.

I can't think of a better reason for a global insurrection than because, despite how much we may have in common with a lot of other people, we are not homogenous workerbee slaves to be violently confined by class and social categories.

The nightmare you're describing is what we're living in and fighting against now.

You'll get a bunch of different replies to this but I think the absence of capital and the general atmosphere of resistance against capitalism will probably make it nearly impossible. I'd imagine a revolution will be at some point armed (looking differently depending on who you talk with) and if there are counter revolutionary attempts to reinstate the former systems of oppression they will probably be overthrown. Theoretically speaking I'd like to see a few capitalists attempt to re-enslave workers in that kind of atmosphere I think their failure would be rather amusing to watch with the level of resistance and outright non-cooperation floating about.


Some authoritarian elements would probably hang onto the state or some form of it and kick their feet back and they'll deny this right now but this isn't representative of communism across the board.

I'm opposed to forced work cause it feels like a recreation of the same elements of production, distro/exchange that I currently cannot stand. Arguably the working days/weeks would be much shorter with lots of vacation and free medical options or whatever

I'd hope they'd still have access to everything anybody else had.



Why would inventions be different under communism? In theory, more free time, less stress, more discovery and creation without monetary incentive to do so. Less, if any at all, cut throat cloak and dagger industry shit.

So in essence, communism is anarchy without money. Then is socialism the "stepping stone" to achieve this? Because you can't expect to enforce communism without a state.

Socialism would have a big state, steep progressive taxation, massive wealth redistribution, and then communism would come along and abolish the monetary system as well as de-instate the state. Am I close?

And I'm curious as to why you think that a person that stops working should continue to enjoy the benefits provided by the ones who do work. What if everyone stopped working? Think about it; if one person does it, and then another, I don't think that would go very well by those that do work. Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to work if I could stop and continue receiving benefits; specially if others were already doing it.

And you mentioned we're free to pursue our hobbies.

My hobbies include building computers and cars.

Under communism, how would I get the computer hardware? Who would "pay" for it? Could I just walk into a store, pick out the parts I want and leave? Who would even manufacture the computer parts?

The same goes for cars. Who would manufacture them? How could I get one? If there's no money, what would be a comparable "favor" in exchange for a car? Or would there simply be no cars in communism?

Would we be limited to simple hobbies like climbing trees, flying a kite, cooking, ect..?

I'd say there are a fair few anarchists who would argue against currency, as well. Myself among them.

The idea is not to "enforce" communism, since you can't force anyone to be free. Libertarian socialists generally agree that communism should come about because that what's in the best interests of the working class in the short term and all of humanity in the long term.

If you assume we're social democrats. Which we're not. We're revolutionaries, which means we advocate the working class seizing the means of production.

Why would everyone stop working? If they were to do that, then their quality of life would according decrease. Most people want a better quality of life, in my experience.

So how would you occupy your time? Wouldn't you get bored, at the very least?

Well, there you go then. There is something useful that you enjoy doing.

Other people who have an interest in designing and producing computers, of course. Production is a social rather than individual phenomenon, even under capitalism.

As above.

I don't see why we should be limited in such a manner.

I think it should also be pointed out that we are capable of producing an incredible amount with very, very little labor these days. With a society that gears production towards meeting need and wants, I'd say it wouldn't be long before the question of "who will make the stuff" is just a minor detail.

I believe inventions would be very different without capital.

Where would you get the materials for your inventions? Where would you find all the supplies you need? And more importantly than that, where is the need to innovate?

I'll give you an example.

Computers have come a long way since they were created. Processors are getting faster and better every few months. Why? Because of competition. If Intel releases a faster processor than AMD, AMD would have to innovate other wise they'd go out of business. Hence, we get innovation.

Under communism, why would they feel the need to innovate further? And if they did, how would they fund their innovation?

The same can be said about any field. Medicine for example has advanced partly because of the advances in technology. Better, faster, more advanced computers have significantly shaped the face of medicine today.

And all those advances and innovations were made because of a profit incentive. Call it immoral, but thanks to it we have the medical system we have today. How would you say that would all operate under communism? And again, the same could be said about every industry. Henry Ford for example redefined the auto industry and how automobiles were made. How would he have accomplished that under communism?

It seems to me as though communism is a very primitive idea, and can only truly exist without technology, things that require complex innovation, and human's natural tendency for competition.

The majority of progress with computers was made as a result of the military-industrial complex. Computers were designed as devices to make calculations on the first atomic bombs and functioned as ballistics calculators. The internet was of course a military communications network. Even the first video game "Space War!" was developed on a WWII radar screen at MIT, which was funded almost entirely by the Department of Defense for a while. Sometimes the military goes to the private sector to meet their needs, thus "military-industrial."

The story about capitalistic technology being the result of our brave, heroic innovators is a myth on par with the stories of ancient Greek demigod warriors.

This troll is rubbish. Seems to have no reading comprehension. Repeats self frequently, asks the same questions that have been answered, seems unable to creatively apply the answers in any reasonable way, presumably because it is either here to raise some noise or because it's too stubborn to care, in either case it's obviously pointless to try to argue with it.

I mean, go ahead and do it, it is amusing, but have no illusions about sincere intent from our esteemed guests side!

But innovation isn't a "need" or a "want."

Innovation is directly proportionate to competition. That's the same reason monopolies stifle growth; because they don't need to.

For example, the electric light. Did people want electric light? No. Did they even know what electric light was? Not even close.

How did they get it then?

Well, a very greedy man by the name of J.P. Morgan decided he wanted to build his own empire. He saw an opportunity with Thomas Edison and pursued it. This involved him investing millions of dollars into this "idea" that nobody really needed or wanted. Why? Because he wanted to make a profit.

The same could be said about almost every single significant example of innovation.

Why did John D. Rockefeller start producing gasoline? Because Morgan forced him to innovate, otherwise his kerosene empire would have crumbled.

Now, you will argue that these men exploited their workers inhumanely. This is true. But that doesn't change the fact that these great innovations we have today are because of the personal incentive present to those that achieved them.

The more I read, the less it all seems to make sense. :lol:

So you only care about the lives of great individuals then, is that right? To hell with the workers who had to deal with actually making their shit, to hell with the millions of people who to this VERY DAY still do not have electricity in their homes (if they own one), all that matters is the precious Morgans and Rockefellers of the world. To hell with the billions of people who don't go after a job because of "innovation" or "creative desire" but because they'll starve if they don't.

I'm sorry if that's not what you're trying to say, but it sure as hell seems like it.

And to hell with the thousands of people that were employed, and paid a generous wage by Henry Ford as well, right?

I'm not defending what those men did. Had I been in their place I would have done things differently. I believe Henry Ford came along and did it right.

But what I am saying is that because there is competition and because individuals have a personal incentive to produce, create, and succeed, we have some of the greatest innovations in the world.

How do you know what innovations people would have come up with had they been free to do so?

No, I prefer to say to hell with the system that forces them to trade the time of their lives for a wage. But you can continue to lick the boot that kicks you in the first place if you want.

I'm glad you view that Nazi as a heroic figure, but the fact of the matter is that the aspirations of individuals matter very little in capitalism compared to its own systemic logic.

Yes, capitalism does a very fine job of meeting its own needs. That's why every factory contains the glorious lighting provided to us by JP Morgan, while things such as a cure to cancer or free housing for all still elude us.

But you're still taking the best examples of capitalism and ignoring all the rest. I'd even say you're being inadvertently racist by assuming that first-world nations such as the USA are enough to excuse capitalism even if the majority of the world is still pretty shitty.

No, but innovation is necessary for better meeting needs and wants. If you want or need something, odds are good you'll have to innovate in some fashion in order to get it, because a lot of human-made stuff doesn't simply grow on trees.

Monopolies are a market phenomenon. They don't innovate because they already dominate the market and are making a tidy profit, and innovation could damage that. In a moneyless economy, there is no danger of new products doing that.

So wait a minute. Are you saying nobody would be interested in safer and more efficient methods of lighting in any kind of society? What you describe is how innovations become widespread under capitalism, not how they come about in the first place. Joseph Swan would have still invented incandescent lighting even if Edison had never even contemplated it.

Nope.

Again, that's simply not true. Nobody is forced to do anything under capitalism.

Heck, there are even many communist communities within the USA, which is a predominantly capitalist country.

If a worker decides to quit his job and go to work for himself, he can do that. It sure as hell isn't easy, but there's no reason it should be a walk in the park either. And some people simple prefer to work for someone else and not have to worry about the responsibilities that the "capitalist" he's selling his labor to has to deal with.

Again, nobody is forced to be a wage slave. Although it's much easier to remain an employee, it's far from mandatory.

You will hear differing views on this, but I argue that socialism and communism can be used interchangeably and that the "stepping stone" to communism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Again, views on this differ between various tendencies.

Expand on your reasoning here so we can adequately debate this view. I would argue that you can't expect to enforce capitalism without a state.

No

Society is broken down, basically, between 2 main and antagonistic classes called the proletariat (or working class) who produces for the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) who own the means of production and exploit the labor of the proletariat.

The state is an organ of class rule. The state came into being to try to hold class antagonisms in check, but because it arose in the conditions of conflict between these classes, it is the state of the dominant class. So, the state has worked in the interests of a certain class against others. In the past, it's worked for feudal lords, in modern times (especially since the French Revolution) it has worked in the interests of the bourgeoisie (or capitalists).

Because the state works in the interests of one class, every state is a dictatorship of one class. Right now, we would argue, we live under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not synonymous with "one-man dictatorial rule" but can be understood in class terms. The dictatorship of the proletariat is nothing more than the proletariat organizing itself as the ruling class. This part is important, because classes (and therefore the state) do not go away overnight. Elements of the bourgeoisie will (and have) exist after the success of the proletariat. The proletariat needs to defend the gains it made during the revolution.

It should also be remembered that many communists argue that the proletariat should directly administer it's own class dictatorship through various organs of proletarian class rule (such as the soviets, etc.) That is why Marxists, such as Engels, argue that such a society isn't even a state, but a semi-state that is in the process of destroying the basis of the need for a state (class society, generalized commodity production, etc).

EDIT: A big state, progressive taxation, and redistribution can all exist within capitalism. These things are not inherently socialist.

In a society where you need workers creating the products, yes, some people are forced to be wage-slaves. If everyone instantly decided at the same time to start their own business, the economy would come to a standstill.

"It sure as hell isn't easy" is quite an understatement when statistics show that close to half of small businesses (Maybe even more, it's been a while since I've looked) have gone bankrupt in America in recent years.

What are these "communist communities" that exist within America that you're referring to?

And again all this talk of people starting their own business is still exclusive to first-world nations such as America.

I don't think people naturally gravitate towards competition. I think that people gravitate towards problem solving. Given the system we live in, competition is solving a problem that we've been given by a very few rich folks and it works only to their advantage. That is a route though, but it just reciprocates poverty via wage and that illusive ladder that so few people actually get far climbing. There is another route, a more social route. In the capitalist system we live in, with all the other issues of authority and hierarchical power structures providing immense hurdles in our lives the darkest and hardest times are only momentarily remedied through more social acts of outreach and solidarity and such networks we construct ourselves, even if in some situations they only serve a momentary purpose.

As for where we will get our materials it's the same answer as where we get them now. We mine them, refine them, ship them, receive them. People can create and alter and improve things on their own without monetary incentive. This is especially true for basic needs, we can make it happen. If for some reason, post revolution, nobody wants to produce something, then perhaps the need isn't there. If people want something produced or need something produced, I think it's feasible to think that it will be produced, or it won't and that's the world we'll live in until someone does.

True enough. Can you define Capital though?

Inventions rarely require materials outside of thought. Goods do and I presume the materials would be fetched where they are located, given the process of getting them there is feasible and sustainable.

You seem to think that innovation for the sake of innovation is some transcendent good. Why?

As for if new things will come around, humans figure stuff out to solve their problems, the incentive being the problem. A practical example would be primitive communism and its highly influential invention of flintknapping.

Can you substantiate why this is this case and, more importantly, why this is 'good' in and of itself?

Hardly. The market for processors is very diverse and pure processor speed is but one aspect in which to specialize. The idea that 'compete or sink' rules markets in an instant is quite naive.

Why is funding a necessary component of creating a product? In eras where Capital did not yet dominate class society (ie. Feudalism, Slave societies, 'asiatic despotism') goods were produced without Capital being a significant factor (or a factor at all), never mind primitive communism's subsistence non-economy. Goods get made because people want to see them made. Even in this day and age where Capital rules everything around us, there's tons of goods (material and immaterial) which come into being without 'funding', from open source software to art or other such things.

Not and that would be a good thing. The world would look so radically different under communism that its bullshit to speculate what an instance of capital's development would look like under communism.

How is this tendency natural? A species with so few physical qualities, so dependent upon its mental faculties which are fostered in a social context and so dependent upon collective social facilities as our own has, even in the face of a radically divisive class society, relied more, historically speaking, on collaboration than upon inter-individual competition. In fact, individual competition is a rather minor footnote in all of evolutionary history as the individual, however grand he or she might deem him or herself, is largely irrelevant to the species.

I think this is where we'll ultimately always disagree.

You see "wage labor" as something immoral. I don't see anything wrong with it.

I believe that if someone works harder and smarter than others, he should be compensated accordingly. If someone is unwilling to work or produce, he or she should be allowed to starve, as cruel as it may sound.

I suppose you'll argue that many CEOs don't produce anything and simply profit off the labor of others. Again, I see nothing wrong with that. He's responsible for providing jobs that keep people off the street. And not everyone knows how to (nor wants to) run a company, which is why they shouldn't receive the same compensation as a CEO.

Again, these are just the things we won't agree on, so ultimately our beliefs will be different, although I understand what your objective ultimately is.

Also, I don't see how removing the monetary system would solve anything. What's to stop someone from hoarding apple pies, logs, or other things that would give him or her an advantage over his or her neighbors?

It seems as though eliminating currency is merely symbolic, because people will ultimately trade something, making whatever they trade effectively "currency."

In fact, looking back at history you'll notice that currency was implemented to make trading easier. Removing it (in my opinion) would only make things harder, as we'd simply use other things as "currency."

Anyway discussions like these show why i'm usually not interested in 'convincing' people about 'the cause' or other bullshit. If someone has no quarrel with capital and domination, fine, do whatever you want, I sure as hell won't be stopped by arguments to the contrary. But don't come whining about when you get shit in the face, at that point, come around again and talk.

I'm actually glad I came, as I have a better understanding of what "true communism" really is. Not what I believed it was before (Cuba, ect..)

I probably won't stay too long, as I didn't come here to convince anyone; just to get a better understanding of what the radical left is all about, since everyone seems to have a different view. I respect everyone's beliefs and opinions, even though I don't agree with them.

Yeah, they can just die, right? No bother about paying the rent and feeding the kids, we are all "Free!"...
The Proletariat, the working class of Capitalism, do not own anything but their labor and are forced to sell it to those who do own.
The point of Communism is to get rid of all the Parasites who have caused so much immeasurable suffering to countless humans and who have sent billions into their deaths in their crusades, their colonial exploits, world wars and imperialist interventions: the Patriarch, the Slave Masters, the Kings, the Barons, the owners of Industry, the Usurers, and to create a society where everyone does work and is equally in control over the distribution of the surplus, the 'profits', his toil produced.
But the only thing standing between humankind and true freedom - where rising productivity of Labor is not used to fill the insatiable want of the Capitalists but to get rid toil, where the social is political: when homelessness, Hunger, unemployment, addiction, insecurity and other thousand year old social ills are combated instead of produced, where the class which rules and controls and drives all of society is the common man! - is the Class Enemy.

People aren't dogs. They are capable of doing things without expecting to be rewarded for it. The Free Software movement is an example.

Sounds? It is cruel. Doing nothing is sometimes better than doing anything.

Industries are made up people. Why can't those people dispense with the parasitical managerial types and run things collectively?

So why do you have these opinions? How do you think the current socioeconomic arrangement benefits you? What makes you certain you wouldn't be better off in a more egalitarian society?

You still need to answer the question of why anyone would do that in the first place. What good is hoarding more apples than one could ever possibly eat, if everyone else can just go down to the nearest collective store and pick up an apple for themselves?

Exchange would occur, but it would be for the purposes of ensuring that needs and wants are met, not for profits.

Just because something is invented at one point doesn't mean it can't become obsolete latter. For example, millstones or waterwheels for grinding wheat have been made obsolete by electrical machine that do the job faster and more effectively.

These discussions take place in public. While the person you are debating with is unlikely to be swayed in the course of a single debate, there is still the audience to consider.

I think you're misunderstanding what we mean when we use the term wage slavery. Wage slavery is an integral aspect of capitalism, therefore it exists at just about every level of society. It's not a matter of quitting your job and - boom! - you're no longer a wage slave. As far as I can tell, you still must sell your labor power to someone in order to afford even the basic necessities - food, clothing, a roof over your head. Furthermore, you don't even see the full result of that labor, much less receive it; you're reduced to a mere fraction of the wealth you've generated, the rest going to line the pockets of the people or person in charge.

Wage slavery is an instrument of exploitation and a tool of social stratification, constraining one in what they can do. If you're just trying to stay afloat or keep your home, your entire livelihood will depend on the wages you receive as a result of your labor power (however meager). Within capitalism, wage slavery has naturally arisen due to the existence of private property and its concentration into a few hands. Similarly, capitalism produces what Marx and others identified as labor's 'reserve army', or the unemployed. Their existence further cements the necessity of selling one's labor power in order to compete with others for a job. If your in a precarious job position you'll be less willing to organize for better wages or benefits, even workplace safety. To use a present day example, warehouse workers indirectly employed by Walmart in southern California and Illinois walked out last year against what they called unsafe working conditions:

This resistance didn't build overnight. These workers have suffered in these conditions for years, but were afraid of speaking out because of Walmart's retaliatory policies that punish or fire workers for protesting. These were people who didn't even have homes to go back to after work:

This is what wage slavery looks like. It's a vital aspect of capitalism, wherein workers must compete to sell their labor for a job as dehumanizing as what I quoted above. Under capitalism, we have no choice but to do this. Without steady wages, we are unable to purchase or afford even the simplest necessities. Without wages, we find ourselves tossed out into the sea of the unemployed, the homeless and the vulnerable. But the conditions of wage slavery can also force people to organize, spurring them to resist and fight those who sit above and behind the laborer, who take their share of the profits without contributing to its basic production.

If that were the case then these kids should be billionaires.
http://www.newstimeafrica.com/wp-con...n-Zimbabwe.jpg

Man those are my favorite videos... They aren't pointless.

Perhaps one day they'll come to America and become just that.