Above average doesn't imply exceptional. This is such peak great man theoring.
I love that this doesn't even follow from their own assumptions. Assume for a moment that someone more capable leads to better results and should be rewarded as such. (I wrote this in a rush so there are probably logical errors).
Additional resources for "less exceptional" people leads to better work performance. Additional resources gives better education, less external stress, ect - all things that improve a workers output.
ASSUME the untrue fact that the "value" (quantity, quality, innovation) of someone's work is directly proportional to how "exceptional" they are.
Even in the most favorable case, the conclusion that the total value of work produced is lower is incorrect, because humans work in groups. The output of a human is dependent on the output of others in their working group. This is a fact. If one person is very bad at coal mining, they create more work to generate the same "value" of work. If the incompetent person is well tutored in their job and is given the assistance and help they need to understand their job and perform it to the full of their ability then the total work per "value" is lowered.
To the original point of the screenshot's op: you would support this program because you aren't a self-centered asshole who is out to only see your work on top and be rewarded as such. Even if that is the case, you aren't doing it right. It's much easier to make other people's lives worse and decrease the "value" of their work, thereby raising the "value" of yours relative to the mean. This indicates that if you want to improve only your position you should be the biggest piece of shit to everyone around you - don't actually do good work. Sounds like a ceo if I've ever heard of one.
Summary: even in the most neoliberal asshole view of people, communism still creates better overall work amd more total "value" due to human work being done in teams.
Above average doesn't imply exceptional. This is such peak great man theoring.
I love that this doesn't even follow from their own assumptions. Assume for a moment that someone more capable leads to better results and should be rewarded as such. (I wrote this in a rush so there are probably logical errors).
Additional resources for "less exceptional" people leads to better work performance. Additional resources gives better education, less external stress, ect - all things that improve a workers output.
ASSUME the untrue fact that the "value" (quantity, quality, innovation) of someone's work is directly proportional to how "exceptional" they are.
Even in the most favorable case, the conclusion that the total value of work produced is lower is incorrect, because humans work in groups. The output of a human is dependent on the output of others in their working group. This is a fact. If one person is very bad at coal mining, they create more work to generate the same "value" of work. If the incompetent person is well tutored in their job and is given the assistance and help they need to understand their job and perform it to the full of their ability then the total work per "value" is lowered.
To the original point of the screenshot's op: you would support this program because you aren't a self-centered asshole who is out to only see your work on top and be rewarded as such. Even if that is the case, you aren't doing it right. It's much easier to make other people's lives worse and decrease the "value" of their work, thereby raising the "value" of yours relative to the mean. This indicates that if you want to improve only your position you should be the biggest piece of shit to everyone around you - don't actually do good work. Sounds like a ceo if I've ever heard of one.
Summary: even in the most neoliberal asshole view of people, communism still creates better overall work amd more total "value" due to human work being done in teams.