Raymond Land

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@joeroganhq

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

Farage Addresses the Nation on Henry Nowak's Murder. https://t.co/vykbBnv6L6 via @YouTube

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@alluringmedia Error correction: …they would donate it…

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@alluringmedia If they were progressives, they wouldn’t be billionaires. They certainly would never earn a billion on their own and, if inherited, they wouldn’t donate it to the NGO’s that fund Democrat candidates.

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

Irrefutable proof that the alleged murder of indigenous children in Canada is fraudulent.
https://t.co/HHOczlThJw via @YouTube

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@OliLondonTV

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@KaeleyT

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

In a pure communist system (as theorized by Marx and Engels), the concept of “getting a job” in the capitalist sense largely disappears. There is no private ownership of the means of production, no labor market where workers sell their labor power to employers for wages, and no profit-driven hiring/firing. Instead:
• Theory: Society collectively owns the economy. People contribute labor “according to their ability” and receive goods/services “according to their needs.” Work is organized through central planning for societal benefit, not individual profit. In the higher stage of communism, labor becomes a voluntary, creative activity rather than a coerced necessity. Unemployment is eliminated because the state plans production to use all available labor.
In practice, no country has achieved “pure communism” — all historical examples were socialist states under communist parties (e.g., USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, Vietnam, Eastern Bloc), operating command economies with state ownership of most industry and agriculture.
How It Worked in Practice (Especially the Soviet Union)
• State guarantee of employment: The constitution often guaranteed a job. Refusing work or being unemployed long-term could be illegal (parasitism laws). This created near-full employment but also overstaffing and inefficiency (“They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”).
• Assignment mechanisms:
• For graduates: “Job by distribution” (rabota po raspredeleniyu). After university or technical school, a commission assigned you to a position (often in a remote or priority area) for 3–5 years. You had limited choice and were obligated to go. 
• For workers: Many applied directly to state enterprises, factories, or farms. Local labor offices or ministries matched people to needs. Connections (blat), party membership, and political reliability helped secure better positions. 
• Central planning: Gosplan (in the USSR) and similar bodies set production targets, which determined labor needs. Ministries and enterprises requested workers, and labor was allocated accordingly.
• Party influence: Communist Party membership (or loyalty) was crucial for advancement, desirable jobs, or promotions. Dissent or low political reliability could limit options or lead to worse assignments. 
• Mobility: Changing jobs was possible but often restricted (especially during Stalin-era controls). Housing was frequently tied to employment, making moves difficult.
Variations in Other Countries
• China: Historically more rigid (danwei work units assigned jobs lifelong). Post-Mao reforms introduced market elements, so today many jobs function more like a mixed/capitalist labor market under CCP oversight. The private sector employs a large share of urban workers. 
• Cuba and others: Similar state assignment with emphasis on social needs (e.g., doctors sent to rural areas).
Key Trade-offs
• Pros (in theory/practice): No unemployment, job security, focus on collective goals (e.g., rapid industrialization).
• Cons: Limited personal choice, inefficiency, political favoritism, lower productivity incentives, and shortages. Talent often mismatched to needs (e.g., engineers sent to farms). Black markets and informal networks filled gaps.
In summary, under historical communist systems, a citizen typically received or was assigned a job through state planning, education pipelines, and bureaucratic processes rather than applying competitively in an open market. Pure communism envisions even less formality — work as a natural social contribution without wages or bosses in the traditional sense. Real outcomes depended heavily on the specific regime and era.

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@AntiLeftMemes

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@adammocklerr

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

In a pure communist system (as theorized by Marx and Engels), the concept of “getting a job” in the capitalist sense largely disappears. There is no private ownership of the means of production, no labor market where workers sell their labor power to employers for wages, and no profit-driven hiring/firing. Instead:
• Theory: Society collectively owns the economy. People contribute labor “according to their ability” and receive goods/services “according to their needs.” Work is organized through central planning for societal benefit, not individual profit. In the higher stage of communism, labor becomes a voluntary, creative activity rather than a coerced necessity. Unemployment is eliminated because the state plans production to use all available labor.
In practice, no country has achieved “pure communism” — all historical examples were socialist states under communist parties (e.g., USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, Vietnam, Eastern Bloc), operating command economies with state ownership of most industry and agriculture.
How It Worked in Practice (Especially the Soviet Union)
• State guarantee of employment: The constitution often guaranteed a job. Refusing work or being unemployed long-term could be illegal (parasitism laws). This created near-full employment but also overstaffing and inefficiency (“They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”).
• Assignment mechanisms:
• For graduates: “Job by distribution” (rabota po raspredeleniyu). After university or technical school, a commission assigned you to a position (often in a remote or priority area) for 3–5 years. You had limited choice and were obligated to go. 
• For workers: Many applied directly to state enterprises, factories, or farms. Local labor offices or ministries matched people to needs. Connections (blat), party membership, and political reliability helped secure better positions. 
• Central planning: Gosplan (in the USSR) and similar bodies set production targets, which determined labor needs. Ministries and enterprises requested workers, and labor was allocated accordingly.
• Party influence: Communist Party membership (or loyalty) was crucial for advancement, desirable jobs, or promotions. Dissent or low political reliability could limit options or lead to worse assignments. 
• Mobility: Changing jobs was possible but often restricted (especially during Stalin-era controls). Housing was frequently tied to employment, making moves difficult.
Variations in Other Countries
• China: Historically more rigid (danwei work units assigned jobs lifelong). Post-Mao reforms introduced market elements, so today many jobs function more like a mixed/capitalist labor market under CCP oversight. The private sector employs a large share of urban workers. 
• Cuba and others: Similar state assignment with emphasis on social needs (e.g., doctors sent to rural areas).
Key Trade-offs
• Pros (in theory/practice): No unemployment, job security, focus on collective goals (e.g., rapid industrialization).
• Cons: Limited personal choice, inefficiency, political favoritism, lower productivity incentives, and shortages. Talent often mismatched to needs (e.g., engineers sent to farms). Black markets and informal networks filled gaps.
In summary, under historical communist systems, a citizen typically received or was assigned a job through state planning, education pipelines, and bureaucratic processes rather than applying competitively in an open market. Pure communism envisions even less formality — work as a natural social contribution without wages or bosses in the traditional sense. Real outcomes depended heavily on the specific regime and era.

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@hashjenni

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@native_am_pride https://t.co/BP0Kh5XeZV

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@AntiLeftMemes

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@EricLDaugh

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@DefiantLs The system…

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@AnnieForTruth

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

@AntiLeftMemes

[Raymond Land @Ray2111945]

Grok: “Illinois has achieved measurable fiscal stabilization: balanced budgets for multiple years, improved reserves, and better credit standing. Still, critics (e.g., Illinois Policy Institute, Civic Federation) note ongoing structural challenges, including high pension obligations, reliance on temporary revenues/tax hikes, and long-term liabilities that keep Illinois with one of the lowest credit ratings among states. 
The statement reflects real progress under current leadership but presents an optimistic framing of metrics that remain weak by national standards.”