General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould "from each according to her abilitites, to each according to her needs"...
...really be such a bad way to run this world?
(And no, that doesn't mean big-C "Communism", because no big-C Communist country was ever run that way in practice).
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
elleng
(130,834 posts)Who decides.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We need to find a way for all of us, in some real way, to share in the decisions. To decide from below.
eridani
(51,907 posts)From each according to her ability = the more your property is worth, the more taxes you have to pay to support the fire department.
To each according to her need = they don't send a truck out unless you have a fire.
This is the nature of ALL public goods. The decision has to be made about exactly which goods should be public. The rest of the developed world has decided that health care is--why not us? Obviously, department stores, bookstores and the like should never be public goods. However, they can't exist except on a firm foundation of the infrastructure which public goods provide.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)‘Comrades!’ he cried. ‘You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples. Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,’ cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, ‘surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?’
Now if there was one thing that the animals were completely certain of, it was that they did not want Jones back. When it was put to them in this light, they had no more to say. The importance of keeping the pigs in good health was all too obvious. So it was agreed without further argument that the milk and the windfall apples (and also the main crop of apples when they ripened) should be reserved for the pigs alone.
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If not, then you don't really believe that either
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)1) It's not a simple question of "giving money" to anyone. It's about giving the means to people(and, in addition, to developing nations) to have a life based on meaningful work, a sense of purpose, and a survivable standard of living...and, to really be effective, the means of redistributing THOSE things would have to involve doing an "end-run" around the existing political, military and economic structures in many "devoloping countries"-and, of course, the existing structures in this country as well.
One thing we could do, right now, to help people in developing countries would be to reverse the barbaric demand made in many "structural adjustment" agreements that those countries sharply reduce the amount of farmland used for subsistence food crops and grow export crops on those lands instead. I like a good cup of coffee as well as anyone, but we shouldn't be making people starve for it.
2) If this involves tax revenues, it wouldn't have to mean a flat 50% rate for everyone. It could be considerably lower than that(if higher than now at the UPPER BRACKETS)and would be progressive. As it was under Eisenhower.
3) A lot of resources to do that could be freed up, not by raising taxes, but by finally doing the sane thing and massively cutting our war budget. The Cold War is over, the world no longer needs to be "led" militarily by anyone, and none of the existing military conflicts we are engaged in are worth any further investment in funds, equipment, or HUMAN LIVES. We aren't fighting for anything that matters to anyone but the rich anymore...even in Syria, where the so-called "humanitarian" fight against ISIL/ISIS has never been about anything but the profits of American oil companies.
The main thing is to free the "developing countries" from the "short-term rate of return for investors at any cost" mindset and allow them to create sustainable economies that provide lower returns spread out over a longer period of time.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)even people below the median in this country are getting far more than they NEED.
And people in the developing world are getting less than they need.
Are people really starving for coffee? That would seem to be a gain. I mean if I have two acres and plant potatoes I can get $100 of food. If I plant it to coffee, then I get $500. So I can buy the $100 of food AND a GI Joe with the kung fu grip.
Here in this country it is fairly easy to get a survivable standard of living, but almost everybody here, myself included, wants a lot more than that. What is meaningful work anyway? I hate to say it, but one of the main things I hate about my job is NOT the actual work - it is the people that I work with. It's the combination of laziness and grumpiness. That's not really the fault of the job. Is a higher wage gonna help? Why should a person who is lazy at $12 an hour be paid more?
And a sense of purpose? What is stopping people from having that now?
Orrex
(63,191 posts)Will we still be funding a grossly bloated military industry in the US? Will each person in the US give a 50% to the developing world? Will a US family of four making $20K per year be taxed at the same arbitrary 50% rate as the single male earning $20M per year?
Before answering you, it is reasonable to require greater specificity in the question.
When you frame it as you did, it comes across more as an attempt to disrupt the discussion than to clarify information.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)How would you motivate people to produce according to their abilities? In my experience, many people seem unwilling to work NOW, when their livelihood sorta depends on it. Also, who is gonna decide what people NEED?
For one thing, I am in the bottom quintile for income, and I have far more than I need. Do I really need three dogs? or two cars? or two Trek bicycles or 200 movies on DVD or 150 CDs? or three laptops (two with broken screens)?
If I only got what I needed, then clearly things would be taken from me and given to others who have less.
It is a nice slogan. Yes, let's be productive and generous. Let's work hard and look after each other. But we need more than a slogan, we need a system that puts that in to practice. Without that, it is just words.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Neither market capitalism(the system we are currently chained to)Soviet-style state capitalism(now essentially extinct everywhere due to the stupid and brutal ways it was administered) nor the social democracy that is slowly dying on the European mainland are going to provide the answers.
But devising such a new system, and on American terms, could be a great people's project that we could all have a say in.
Why not try to shape something better and different?
eridani
(51,907 posts)--to make basic education a public good.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)for those who are, by nature, very hard workers and reward those who COULD be hard workers but are just lazy. Like the tenure system, it takes incentive out of the equation which would bring EVERYONE down. Sorry everyone, I'm a hard worker - with the commute, I'm out of my home for 12-1/2 hours, pay a lot of taxes (which is fine) but have no intention of voting to pay even more, I give money to charities, donate time to a women's shelter. If I saw even one person sitting on their asses that I felt could be out there working, I would be very resentful that's where my money was going. If this makes me sound greedy, I'll live with that.
RichGirl
(4,119 posts)...I think he meant it as a theory. A way of life that we would eventually and naturally evolve to. Not something you could force people into...which would contradict the whole idea.
Think about what would you be doing right now if you didn't have to worry about money or status. If your worth wasn't measure by your job or bank account.
Bet a lot of people in ghettos would make good doctors, teachers, etc. And many doctors, lawyer etc would be much happier as carpenters, etc. How many people actually do what they want and enjoy and are good at.
Sickness, physical and emotional, stress, crime...everything bad in life comes from the need to make money and live up to other peoples idea of what you should do.
Talked to a wealthy stay at home mom once... she was frazzled and bored. She told me that when she takes her kids to McDonalds she actually envies the people working behind the counter.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Who get to determine abilities and needs? The almighty red government? Fuck that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Clearly, leaving it to the market(or, in practice, to the wealthy)can't produce humane, civilized results.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)The 'Communism' of the Soviet Union describes the platform of the Communist party but the underlying economic system was socialism.
The economic system of communism that Marx described theoretically has no government. There would be no need for laws because everyone would realize it is in their best interest to work together for the common good. ..which of course will never happen.
safeinOhio
(32,658 posts)44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Acts 2: 44, 45
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)13 Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. 14 At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, 15 as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”
2 Cor 8: 13-15, quoting Exodus 16: 18
Wounded Bear
(58,626 posts)Good God, some of those posts look like they're right out of the Faux Noise playbook.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)but it's not just the republicans that are capitalists. Maybe you'd be fine with the all mighty government deciding what YOUR needs are but I'm not and it looks like others feel the same.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I don't want an all-powerful state anymore than you do. Neither do most socialists, in my experience.
A lot of us think we can come up with some way of running life ourselves, democratically and from below.
Why not try to create that?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)There has to be a strong central state. Otherwise it will absolutely never work. Too many taking advantage..its human nature.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)No thanks.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)considering the apostles who knew Jesus (he died for Hillary's sins) pooled all possession and shared according to need as response to having known the Christ. You reject their choices as failures, while your candidate keeps claiming some form of association with that religion, she says it is the center of her life and the reason she kept bullying LGBT. But you mock the principles of that religion. What a world, folks will use a faith to harm, but not to help....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And none of those states were ever run on the "from each according to her abilities, to each according to her needs" idea.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 4 Verses 32-35
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
In the following passage, a couple holds back some wealth for themselves and God strikes them dead on the spot. But I hear Christians today are very opposed to any sort of community or collectivism, even the idea of a more just distribution offends them deeply, deeply and they say 'we must not share, we must instead defend marriage from those gays'.
I'll take a moment to say Pope Francis, he's not sharing it all. He's no better than the rest of the fake Christians with their hoards of cash and absent hearts. Selah.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)"Do unto others" etc.
Unfortunately, the American golden rule is "He that has the gold, makes the rules."
brooklynite
(94,483 posts)What if I'm religious and decide that I "need" ten kids?
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)True, we're talking about communism, not Communism. The latter just refers to the political ideology of Communist parties, while the former is an economic system based on 'from each according to her abilities, to each according to her needs'
But communism only works on a very small scale. Actual communes are a great example. These are like-minded people who share the same selfless goals, which makes this kind of communism work.
The problem is that it goes against the nature of many people. They confuse their needs and their wants. When I've tried to explain communism to others, they often ask something like 'What if I decide I need five Corvettes? Could I just take five Corvettes?'
Well, there wouldn't be any Corvettes in the first place, because nobody needs a Corvette. Actual communism is very anti-materialistic. ..and that's a major drawback for more people than it is an advantage.
