/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>465340
This is an example of a circular logic fallacy.
You put it in the premise and the conclusion that Society B is richer.
This makes your thought experiment a pointless exercise.

Wealth inequality does not mean that a society gets richer. Societies get rich if they invest surplus into productive investments like a machine that makes it easier to plant and harvest apple trees.

A society that has a more equal distribution of wealth can achieve a higher maximum overall quantity of wealth.
Class-less societies can invest more into leveling up productivity because they do not loose surplus to ruling class spending for ruling class luxury, ruling class political control and ruling class warmongering.

>>465342
No, from a moral standpoint it's a matter of interpretation. The answer would obviously depend on if you value equality or absolute material quantity more. I even gave examples of why society A would be better despite producing less. Quit being a redditfag.

>>465348
>No, from a moral standpoint it's a matter of interpretation.
Bullshit. It is a fantastic scenario that assumes its own conclusion.

>lets assume muh trickle down
*Yawn*

also I unironically would chose 1 apple if it gets me to influence the conditions of production

2 apples is not enough to boss me around you capitalist fuck
I wanna at least a 50% cut of what I produce 100/10*0.5 = 5 apples, as I imagine it takes much higher intensity of labor to produce 100 apples, especially in agriculture

also, what are you gonna do with 82 apples? staff them in your ass you sick fuck?

This is a retarded thought experiment. Any society producing something has a method by which it is done. The bourgeois man in the desert fetching a water merchant is a thought-terminating exercise, a middle class "me wantee" sop intended to justify human stupidity. If you understood what economics was pointing to, you would see this.

Grossly unequal societies are not interested in productivity. The objective of rulers is not to produce things as if they were thoughtless, but to rule. Monopolies will never produce things out of some altruistic sense for the people, and this is one of the great retardations that are taught by the Austrian School fags. The incentives of a monopolist are the opposite, which is why the ruling class today talks all the time about growth being evil and crises of overproduction. The crisis of overproduction is something Marx noted as madness within the moral logic of capitalism - that it would be to the benefit of capitalists to not produce things which are useful, because the incentives tell them to cut their labor expenses to the bone more than they convince anyone that giving workers good things is beneficial. The purpose of the capitalist is to win the game of capitalism, so that money is translated into political power and the command of things the capitalist wanted in the first place. If you're a capitalist, you abhor producing things, especially when you can just charge rent which is what every economist dreads if they know anything about anything.

So the grossly unequal society wouldn't want to produce 100 apples, or any more apples than the egalitarian society. The market demand for apples, or any other product, is lower in unequal societies, because the people don't have money to pay for the goods. The more productive society that is unequal would not be producing a mountain of apples, but would produce exorbitant luxuries for the favored class. This typically comes at the cost of building police to suppress slave workers, and it is morally necessary to pay the cost of slave suppression even if paying wages would have been cheaper. If the workers get anything at all, they're going to demand security which means they are in competition with everyone else. The nature of oligarchy and unequal societies is conflict in every social sector, amplified to its maximal state for no apparent reason. That's what Nazism and Austrian School faggotry suggest to do, maximal waste and struggle for its own sake. In past times, this was clearly undesirable. The only reason you would do the Austrian School faggotry is if you valued depopulation and an active war against humanity over any productive goal, and eventually the value system of such a society praises destruction for its own sake as the chief value. That's why you get fags talking about "creative destruction" which is pure pants on head Germanic retardation.

Anyway, if you are arguing that equality is purely reducible to arbitrary kindness and sentiment, that's eugenic creed and retarded, and eugenism does that all the time. The argument for egalitarianism, or the argument for freedom, are not that those things are sentimentally valuable, but because we have lived through the alternative and see the great stupidity of it. Slave societies, tyrannies, aristocracies, and imperious and invasive institutions are very expensive and very painful. Whether you consider those things good for their own sake doesn't make them any cheaper or more productive.

If people were truly free, they would be free to cooperate if they so chose, and they would recognize that grossly unequal societies create greater costs than anything the favored classes gain. It would be very easy if the rulers just paid workers the thing they wanted in the first place and let us live. If the people were free to make their own decisions though, they wouldn't work in slave conditions to produce luxuries for the favored classes. This is a problem that was noted with the republican idea going way back, the problem of luxury and conspicuous consumption of elites. The science of productivity has nothing to do with management. Management has always been a burden on any productive enterprise you could do, and the most effective managers can command through virtue people to want to work of their own volition. No amount of virtue is going to suggest that the purpose of your life is to feed a few inbred royals sex slaves and opulence, and that's what the productive and grossly unequal society does. They explicitly don't want to produce anything that would contribute to a rise in the standard of living, and this is what Malthus was about.

>>465379
And do you know how much waste is enabled so you can have that iphone, and can't have quality food? Do you know how trivial it would be to not do that, given the technology available today? Computerization is used now to control people, rather than do things that we would have and could have done with it from the start. That's why you have a million different lockouts. It's designed to work against the user, and anyone with any knowledge of this area can tell you technophilia is a lie.
Fag.

If someone wants to use the "durr durr capitalism gave you an iphone", I study computer science and come from a family that has worked in that area since IT became a thing. You're an idiot if you actually believe the ideology of liberal techncracy. That shit is for the slaves and the fags.

>>465381
>Omg, my brand no phone is a commodity and requires a service package. Why can't we have a perfect world like I imagine. I hate capitalism!!!
Maybe you're just dim and naive?

>>465382
No, simply staying that it wasn't an alternative egalitarian mode of production which supplies those things.
>I wonder why the world isn't perfect
Literally naive

>>465384
What the fuck is this faggotry? Computers exist in the first place because there were people who understood the market is not made of magic. That phone and that computer exist because someone figured out that letting petty-managers rule was stupid, and so they turn to the machine god since these managers are too fucking incompetent to manage effectively, and absolutely refuse to do basic shit. People like you are nothing but a cancer on anything we would want to produce, and you do it purely for the faggotry.

>>465388
I'm arguing with an emotional child

>>465390
You are not arguing at all.