Ofc he doesn't deserve the money

Like

Ts is quite obv

He has already done the work you paid for

He has no reason to know what you'll use the chair for

For what he knows, you need a new chair for your house

(Ofc, unless a contract was made before)

No, besides the carpenter was paid a decent amount to make the chair anyways

What's a bit weird is a collector deciding to buy a chair of all things for that price unless they're just rich

Well, that's what branding and stuffs like that do

Adding value to something ordinary

Like how a painting gets to an absurd amount at an auction

So like those luxury brands

Alright

Oh yh

Kinda

Because someone famous made it, or it has a specific type of art from a specific time...

Like it's not something magical that you apply to it

99% of the time a painting is famous because someone famous made it

Or the story around it

Or who owned it last

Yeah that's the remaining 1%

Yes, but the point is that it's rarely about the painting itself, cuz the value it has was added by an external factor

For old paintings the artist isn't rly famous at that time, tho it depends ig

Funny whole bidding at auction increases the value of a thing

Might start as 500 then end at 10000 because people compete

You mean he opposite? Like maybe for modern paintings it's not known. Older paintings are often made by famous people or by people that worked or studied from said famous people

Math

Idk

Well both, best example I can think of rn is Vincent van gogh

Oh true

Maybe sometimes it's to do with greed and wanting to one up others

Yeah it really depends ig

Not always tho

Still

We all agree that the carpenter doesn't deserve the money he got from the collector, right?

Yh

He was paid a decent amount, and it's not a piece of artwork

It's just a chair

It's a show of power and wealth

If the bid is at 5000, Nd you want to buy it

But just because I want it or just to show I have more money to spend for it. I bid at 10000

Yh and also competitiveness

Yeah. Kinda nice though

Or maybe I just like that chair and I'm willing to spend a ton of money cuz I want it

Fair

yea..carpenter doesn't deserve more money from the chair seller

Oh

So why do people want more money when they work at a salary they agreed on

Let's say, you are working for me and I pay you at a certain fee as per the work agreement

And the total money generated by the whole collective work from all my workers is large,why would you want more

You wouldn't want less if that total money generated is less

Woah woah.... that's a huge profit man....you better not tell the carpenter about this profit 🤫

Well, to get something that was initial made at the price of 60 to that level is work and I took the risk

So unless he can make that same chair Nd sell it at that price himself he doesn't deserve it

Let's say he made two of those chairs, and well he sells one at his place, and I have connection to many big people and I sell the one he made for me to them

Definitely we would get different profits

I get it...and I believe the carpenter should receive the amount of money they agreed to....cause most of the work is done by the seller and he is the one who is taking the risk too so it seems fair to me ngl

yess...cuz that contract was agreed beforehand..so they will only get the agreed upon money

but

after completion of this job

carpenter for next time can ask for

more money for the same job

Unless you disclose your profits

yea but if we talkin bout big corporates here

they have to show their financial statements on regular basis

(not saying those statements cant be manipulated)

Don't tell that to communists. You might break their "brains"😂 😂

"Any profit is equally distributed among all the employees "💀

but yea..employees don't take the level of risk that the company takes

they will get the money no matter what

but the company has a whole always has a uncertainity about profits

Indeed, cuz Bob, despite working 60 hours per week and producing 10x times the amount of products, definitely deserves to be paid the same as Mike, who worked 10 hours per week and barely produced one product.

WELCOME TO COMMUNISM

Or to put it simply

Legalized theft

Thank you, just greedy and jealous people trying to make the rich feel bad 🙂

Okay

Lol

But if the seller is selling the products in the name of the carpenter (maybe the carpenter is skilled and famous) then the carpenter deserves more money

It always makes me remember that "catchphrase" that was like "what do you need all those money for? We'll all be buried in the same place". Like hell nah miss, I'm building a fucking pyramid as my tomb

It depends on the risk level. Let me give an example, I have a company with drivers that work for me and they work alot but that doesn't mean they deserve the same amount of me as the manager, cause of the risk and non visible things I do like taking risk,maintenance also if the business should go down they all get their salaries Nd go their ways while I will be in one in debt

Which communists do u mean, or all

exactly..wages should be fair not equal

Oh, yeah. But I am actually talking about rebranding the product. Surely you can ref the maker of it but that doesn't mean if people buy it at it's place it would make the same profit as it does at mine

Exactly,what you bargain for. Unless you want to work without payment until the total money is generated and you get paid according to a percentage of that. You have to pick one

Oh yeah, but I was also talking between workers. Those that don't woek should be paid less

Wdym?

Oh,the money is not for spending, it's for power Nd status Nd also a good lifestyle I guess

Working less depends on your position

That's not even equality

If you work in a part of the company where you make 100 of a product while I work at a part where I only make one but that one product is difficult to make or market it wouldn't seem like working less

Like there's diff ideas of how communism is implemented cos it's different in practice compared to in theory

I love capitalism

Profit those in control of it, you just need to get in control

Neither is good imo🙃

Just pick the one that benefits you

None

Or maybe a mix

Nope

I'm not a centralist tho

I don't want the betterment of society

I want my betterment

Let's say, giving out free electricity does help the society Nd businesses

Why not close down all power generating competitors

And everyone pays to you

Neither will work in societies which worked with other methods for decades, maybe even centuries

Once in uni there was this question, would Africa work with communism or capitalism better

I said neither, they're both foreign ideas

None. Because society mixes both already

Yet someone kept mentioning 'but within the scope of the question' I mean NONE

People would just go with whichever works best for them in the moment

That sounds like those are the only 2 options when making an economic system

Oh. If that would work for you

I think the only system that is best is the one that works for me

Individualism I'm guessing

Ofc

If we all better our selves and fill out pockets it will be nice

But definitely some people who have to be under some people

It's just part of life

The whole supply Nd demand thing

People need works, you give them works and they make money for yah

While you pay them a percent

It's a 30:70 logic where people would go with the 30 because there are many people who are looking for those 30 even if you don't want it

That works better if it's more of a only u focus

Which others won't usually have, for example having families to take care of or possibly being from a background where it's not possible to gain much income

Oh. . That's the thing

I don't have the mindset of a small business idea so much profit is the plan

There are alot of things that determine profits

Let's say we both have the same business Nd making the same profit

But for me to turn the market in my favour

I find a connection with the government or something like that 🙂. And make my product the main brand in the country

Slowly putting your business down to the ground

It's a game in the market,where we all compete

Nepotism (partly a joke but also counts in real life cases)

Well no one cares about theory. The only important thing is how you practice it

And practice and history shows communist is the deadliest ideology of all times

Oh. I don't ever see it as a bad thing as long as it works in my favour

I basically mean it's practiced differently, soviet type is diff to Chinese for example

I think it can be others too but communism was very prominent and quickly forced on others

Valid ig

No. Both were totalist regimes. The only difference is that one puposely persecuted its opponents and civilians, while the chinese one st@rved them fue to its ignorance

Numbers would like to disagree

Capitalism became more prominent and won against communism as the global main ideology

That has nothing to do with what I said

Numbers show that communism killed more than 100 million people in less than a century

Often directly

U could say f@cism was worse

Idk if it fits to measure death tolls between ideology, besides communist countries had trash management and tbh I struggle to see soviets acc use communism while Chinese leans to more of a mix of diff ideologies

Best example I can give of communism working is probs Kerala, since it's one of India's richest states

F@scism, which was created by Mussolini and operated in Italy and its colonies in Africa:
Estimated d€aths: ~1–2 million
Includes:
Political repression
Colonial viol€nce (e.g. Libya, Ethiopia)

N@zionalsocialism founded by that austrian painter:
Estimated d€aths: ~17–25 million
Includes:
- ~6 million Jews murd€red in the The H* locaust
Millions of:
- Slavs
- Roma
- Disabled individuals
- Political opponents
- Civilian deaths in occupied territories
If you include WWII d€aths caused by N@zi aggression, the number rises to ~70–85 million (global).

Communism:
Estimated d€aths:
~65–100 million
Breakdown examples:
USSR (Stalin): ~15–20 million
Purg€s, Gulags, f@mine (e.g. H*lodomor)
China (Mao): ~30–45 million
Mainly from f@mine during the Great Leap Forward
Cambodia (Pol Pot): ~1.5–2 million
Others (North Korea, Eastern Europe, etc.): millions more
Includes:
- Forced l@bor camps
- Political purg€s
- State-induced f@mines
- Mass ex€cutions

Again, tell me how "f@scism" was worse...

Communism at its base cannot work for a very simple reason

Ok what abt capitalism

It feels entitled to the work of others

That's sl@very

The only way you can accomplish that is with a totalitarian regime

Can't face the brutal reality huh?🤣

Yh it can't work since it works on a decentralised gov yet every prominent 'communist' country has been heavily centralised and led to authoritarian governments

China with famine can't be connected to communism, it was due to a trash use of management and they didn't care basically

No, because as I said it feels entitled to others' work. The only thing you're entitled to is what you create by yourself. Otherwise you're saying sl@very is ok as long as it doesn't hurt you

Well I just wanna see the comparisons

So do u think meritocracy is a better idea, this is smth I mean more to

No, it was exactly due to communism. Because communism works under the idea that the gov is basically god. It decides what must be done and how it must be done. But it obv can't work because people aren't robots, so everyone needs a different type of thing for themselves.

I don't think, history proves it right.

Nature itself proves it right.

If you work, you get the results

Communism is stateless, classless and moneyless so technically they can't even have a government and there is no God to them

If you're a lazy ungrateful fucker like Marx, you start thinking that you're entitled to the work of others because you're too "special" to work

Which is useless since throughout history there's been some sort of system

Idk much abt Marx, what was his whole idea

What ik is he gave a more structured definition to both communism and capitalism, didn't create much

Basically a "classless" society where the citizens are "the gov", and to do that they elect some people that would govern over them (already creating classes btw), with intellectuals bein also a prominent class (this because intellectuals don't thrive with the creation of material things, but ideas, so they inherently feel jealous of those the create material value since it makes them feel like they do nothing, which is often true nowdays).
Most importantly, he promoted violence saying that to avoid communism you are allowed to even use t€rrorism.

Revolutionary terror, so a quick transition into it

Yes, which is t€rrorism