Why "From Each According to His Ability..." is Horrible

[JuntMonkey]

The quote is too cryptic for me and I've never understood it.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Obviously the corollary is that if you have any free time or leisure time then you are stealing from someone else.



I don't see why this is a corollary. Free time could just as easily be seen as a good which is distributed to all according to need.

You could also interpret it that a total level of labor is needed to meet society's "need". This labor is taken from people according to their ability, but once the sufficient threshold is met, people's free time is their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems to me that if anyone has a need as in to each according to their need, then if you are holding back your ability then you are not holding up yhour end of the bargain. Obviously if all needs are met then it's ok.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Obviously the corollary is that if you have any free time or leisure time then you are stealing from someone else.



I don't see why this is a corollary. Free time could just as easily be seen as a good which is distributed to all according to need.

You could also interpret it that a total level of labor is needed to meet society's "need". This labor is taken from people according to their ability, but once the sufficient threshold is met, people's free time is their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it seems to me that if anyone has a need as in to each according to their need, then if you are holding back your ability then you are not holding up yhour end of the bargain. Obviously if all needs are met then it's ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends entirely where you separate "needs" from "wants." There are clearly not enough resources in the world to accomodate all human wants, but there may be enough to accomodate all human "needs"...if "needs" are sufficiently small. If we claim that "needs" are basic survival (food, water, shelter, first aid), and similarly claim that "ability" is sufficiently high enough to produce these (like forcing people to work 80 hours a week...after, all, they have the ability to do it!) then you can fulfill the Marxist slogan with a 1984-esque world where everyone slaves away day and night only to come home to a ramshackle home and victory gin. Everyone gives of his ability, and everyone gets what he needs. Utopia!

[xorbie]

This thread is really pathetic. It's one thing to try to attack Marxist/socialist ideology, but misinterpreting and mocking it really doesn't accomplish much.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is really pathetic. It's one thing to try to attack Marxist/socialist ideology, but misinterpreting and mocking it really doesn't accomplish much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're only seeing the forest for the trees.

I didn't make this post to mock Marxist ideology. <u>Das Kapital</u> did that for me. I made this post to illustrate the shortcomings of an economic system that allocates resources based on personal need, and in a rather witty way if I may say so myself.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is really pathetic. It's one thing to try to attack Marxist/socialist ideology, but misinterpreting and mocking it really doesn't accomplish much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're only seeing the forest for the trees.

I didn't make this post to mock Marxist ideology. <u>Das Kapital</u> did that for me. I made this post to illustrate the shortcomings of an economic system that allocates resources based on personal need, and in a rather witty way if I may say so myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that Marxism and thinkers in the Marxist tradition are a lot more nuanced than your poor caricature makes them out to be. You didn't illustrate anything.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Why "From Each According to His Ability" is Horrible: Because right now, your lazy ass could be producing something for someone who needs it more than you.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And "To each according to his needs" is pretty terrible too. It means you wind up with a base subsistence level of living and no ability to better your own situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither of the two statements has the meaning which you assign to them. One begins to understand the original intent behind them when examining always in tandem. And then examine them in order of priority --with Needs before Ability. I'll explain.

A human being is not supposed to be living to work, but working to live. If we cast adide the many superfluous needs (they are now also destructive for the planet), humans need much less to live their lives than what we currently produce. So, at a much lower level of Needs, the corresponding level of required Abilities is also much lower. In other words, if we were to set out priorities straight and agree on the true human needs, we would not have to bust our ass --to use your terminology-- to meet them.

That's the original intent anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

It's most probably an unattainable goal, if not for anything else, because (a) we are already far down the other road, and (b) the material needs of individuals are not defined by strictly material criteria.

Mickey Brausch

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Depends entirely where you separate "needs" from "wants." There are clearly not enough resources in the world to accomodate all human wants, but there may be enough to accomodate all human "needs"...if "needs" are sufficiently small. If we claim that "needs" are basic survival (food, water, shelter, first aid), and similarly claim that "ability" is sufficiently high enough to produce these (like forcing people to work 80 hours a week...after, all, they have the ability to do it!) then you can fulfill the Marxist slogan with a 1984-esque world where everyone slaves away day and night only to come home to a ramshackle home and victory gin. Everyone gives of his ability, and everyone gets what he needs. Utopia!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think there's over 1 million homeless people just in the US. So we better not relax just yet.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is really pathetic. It's one thing to try to attack Marxist/socialist ideology, but misinterpreting and mocking it really doesn't accomplish much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Misinterpreting and mocking it?....There is no misinterpreting and it deserves to be mocked. It has been tried over and over again and never worked. Not in small countries and not in large ones. There is a huge difference in the rich and poor in these systems, so all the do-gooders worried about the little guy should join the fight against it. Why do you think people risk thier lives to get out of Cuba? Because the Castro govt has almost all the $$$$. If Cuba ever becomes free a few industrial people could turn that place into "Las Vegas Island" and employ a huge amount of people at a decent wage. Quality of life there would be better than now by 100 fold, and freedom and capitalism would be the driving forces. Hell, they could probably even get the next MLB expansion team and add a few dozen millionaires to thier population right off the bat.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Misinterpreting and mocking it?....There is no misinterpreting and it deserves to be mocked. It has been tried over and over again and never worked. Not in small countries and not in large ones. There is a huge difference in the rich and poor in these systems, so all the do-gooders worried about the little guy should join the fight against it. Why do you think people risk thier lives to get out of Cuba? Because the Castro govt has almost all the $$$$. If Cuba ever becomes free a few industrial people could turn that place into "Las Vegas Island" and employ a huge amount of people at a decent wage. Quality of life there would be better than now by 100 fold, and freedom and capitalism would be the driving forces. Hell, they could probably even get the next MLB expansion team and add a few dozen millionaires to thier population right off the bat.


[/ QUOTE ]

These countries are clearly dictatorships. Communism inherently calls for a destruction of government as such, and would certainly not work on a scale larger than a village or small town. For that sort of community, it may very well be ideal.