Marx's response to the Gotha Program
 

I'm sure most of you, if not all, have heard one of his most famous phrases
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

It's interesting to know that more than half of America believes that sentence was said by the founding fathers.
But anyway, before giving my own opinion and before I start preaching, I wanna ask if you guys agree with that sentence or not.

So don't read the thread before answering. Whichever your opinion of it is already, keep it that way, I want it to be as little influenced as possible.

I'm not really looking to start an argument or debate, but I would like to contribute, so I'll just say my piece and come in and out as I like.

I disagree.
I think it's nice if people want to contribute to the whole as much as they can, but I sure as hell don't believe I owe anyone else dick. Also, while I believe that ideally people should have their barest needs fulfilled, I don't believe that's all people should have. If I work really hard for my money, and I want to spend it on a jet-ski or a manicure for my dog or something equally pointless, I don't think anyone should stop me.

I'm more of a "to and from each according to his ability" kind of guy. Honestly, I couldn't bear to live in society constituted such that MistyMayhem and Bella Sophia would profit from my skill and labor to the same extent that I would. Maybe that's because I'm a cruel, covetous piece of shit, but I don't care all that much.

I think not.
People should have to work for what they get, the same way I work for what I get.

I agree.

Bare essentials SHOULD be a right. However, as for the bare minimum, we don't even know the extent of quality the bare minimum is and not only that, but this doesn't really constitute that we can't be wasteful with our money.

You need water
You need air
You need nutrition
You need shelter
You need medicine
You need a means of travel

I suppose I would have to wonder if an economy could thrive on everything else if these needs were socialized. I'd like to think it would. People are always going to want things.

Essentially, we can assume that the bare minimum may not be so bad and if you want more than that, then work for it.

Probably could and add education to that list to boot if the governments didn't spend so much on pumping up the military and giving subsidies to corporations that do not need it.

Of course. Forgive me for missing that one.

Education shouldn't be on the list.
The barest minimum should be what you need to live.
If you include education, the barest minimum becomes what you need to advance socially, or to feel fulfilled, or something else much less black and white, and that's when you let in room for nonsense.

I disagree, but only partially. The quote has two implications I have problems with. The first is that there is an unspecified object of transfer--that which is going to and fro. If Marx were to specify the object of transfer as currency, then I would reject the quote. Currency is built upon the notion of the price system, which is inherently capitalistic, and so it cannot be used in order to complete this sort of transfer of power. My second objection stems from an implied manipulator who is transferring this unknown object. This leads rather naturally to a "dictatorship of the proletariat," an idea which runs counter to the slogan it is purported to promote.

I can, however, envision a scenario in which I could accept this maxim. There are some technocratic models of society which I would be comfortable with. These models would use 'energy expenditure' instead of money as he object of transfer, and would allow computers to adjust the fruits of labor equally according to each person's energy expenditure/production ratios. Assuming that they found a way to incorporate job satisfaction, and their claims of sustainable plenty were based upon reality, I would call this the ultimate implementation of Marx's original maxim. Of course, I find claims that there could be plenty with the current population as it is rather dubious, and thus find the socialist motto an unattainable dream.

So you take issue with the government using your tax dollars to help pay for services to the elderly and handicap?

You think all parents should have to find a way to pay for their k-12 education on their own?

You think the police and fire brigade should only be dispatched to calls where the person can pay for their services?

Think about your above statement next time you dial 9-11 - and ask who is paying for those services your are about to receive.

So where do you draw the line? At people who are of a different race? A different sex? A different sexual preference maybe?

At what point do you discriminate against your fellow countrymen and what criteria do you use to distinguish who is worthy?

Just curious. :)

Just wanted to point out that I think you read that wrong, she said that people should their barest needs fulfilled but that isn't all they should have, she didn't say that not all people should have their needs fulfilled.

I think I honestly agree with the statement for the most part.

I've always said I thought communism was possibly the best idea for a government... on paper anyways. Humanity isn't included on paper though.

And the idea for it is always fucked up by the people running it.

The reason I agree with that statement above though is that it works for me, perfectly actually. I'm a person who doesn't care much for money, though I have a job and make a steady income. I always have money I don't know what to do with, (When I realized that I started saving it rather than buying other people food at lunch all the time or buying other people movie tickets when going to the movies.) I've got a decent amount of money saved up, but I don't need it. It's nice to have if friends or family might need some in a crisis though.

I'm not huge on luxuries, once in awhile I might pick up a video game or a movie, but I spend most of my money on food for the most part. If I have the ability to lend money or give money to someone else or contribute to a community and still have enough to supply myself with all my needs, I'm quite happy. As long as I have somewhere to live, food to eat, liquids to drink and company I don't really need much else. Though I would quite like to have books as well in that equation, but that's never a problem with a public library.

Just as I'd help other people out, if I somehow started having a decreased amount of money and couldn't sustain my minimal lifestyle I'd be quite thankful for someone else helping me out.

If basic necessities have been privatised, which they have, then yeah, we all owe each other something.

Why the fuck should you have to work for food, or water, or shelter, or medicine? People shouldn't have to work for these things, because these things belong to everybody. Why would you want to live in a society where living is constant struggle and competition when it could be constant co-operation?

Huh? In capitalist society, a good education is the most important thing that you can get, and if people in poor areas don't receive a good education, the class divide just grows wider every generation, so it's a fairly important right in current society. As for an anarchist or socialist society; why wouldn't you want everyone to be educated?

It sounds good on the surface, and I think basic needs -should- be provided if possible, but at the same time, I wouldn't want to be locked in to having -just- my basic necessities looked after. I like the ability to provide myself with other things which aren't necessary in the strictest sense, but which I enjoy immensely and would probably miss a great deal if they were gone.

Why do we seem to be debating the merits of socialized necessities rather than that of the system actually suggested by Marx's statement?
No even marginally cogent individual would oppose socialized food, water, power, healthcare, and even education if the state possessed sufficient resources to provide these things. However, Marx's axiom posits that each person contribute to the collective to the best of his ability, motivated, in Marx's view, by the eager zest for labor that all workers would feel under communism, then consume a share of society's produce determined solely by his need.
This particular notion dictates a system wherein Bella Sophia-- whose contribution to the commune is barely extant and possibly even negative-- and I-- warrior-poet, beloved cicerone, and custodian of the fine arts-- not only eat the same food, but share a communal surfboard. Should I feel like going surfing after an exhausting day of bringing fire to the people, I'm not even able, in doing so, to make use of a tool superior to that whose use Bella Sophia enjoys when she unwinds after four hours of attaching the bristles to toothbrushes. That's fucking crap.

I do.
I've been paying into the system for years now, and will continue to do so.



You read what I said wrong, but I forgive you.

Because you have to?
Even if we had no politics and everyone was working together, you'd still have to work for food. Catching it, finding it, cleaning it.



A. It isn't good for everyone to be educated. If everyone were well educated, who would pump gas or make food?

B. You sort of misunderstood what I said. I said that education shouldn't count for the bare minimum of needs, because for this discussion, the bare minimum should be something concrete, like what you need to live.

Wow, I liked the discussion without my intervention, but like last time, after a while your arguments, Ophelia, become obscenely stupid
He never said you didn't have to. However mutual cooperation is always better than individual competition against each other.
There's an underground spring and two men. Either they build a well together, or they fight against each other for the rights of the parcel of land and then charge the loser every time he wants a drink. Guess which one if more efficient.
And forget hypothetical scenarios. I've said it once and I'll say it again; empirically, every time an industry is collectivized, its production radically increases while the cost of this production is decreased. I've given so many sources on this that I still find it hard to believe why you wouldn't want collective ownership of labor when it brings better results to everyone that has a say on it.
Except of course that you don't really care about a decent wage so much as a better wage relative to other people. Kind of like the guys in 1984 who sacrificed commodity for the sake of keeping themselves as the elite.

So you basically are ok with oppressing some people for the sake of your commodity?
If there's a job that's so mediocre that no one would want to do it, your solution is to give so little chances of social mobility to some people that they have no fucking chance of aspiring to anything better?
That's sick even for capitalists who are supposed to believe in the fruits of hard labor.
You need someone to do your dishes? Someone to take out your trash? How about you do your own fucking dishes and take out your own fucking trash instead of taking the opportunities of someone else having a better life, you selfish bitch.

Marx never said "to each according to his absolute barest means"
The fact that people keep saying that just shows the overall ignorance people have over Marxism. But this time, now we forgive you.

There's an obvious difference between:

"I have to reach up and pick this fruit from this tree."
and
"I have to work in the factory until my employer is happy to give me a fraction of the fruits of my own labour so that I can go and buy and the fruit, and if I don't receive a large enough fraction, I can't go pick the fruit from the tree, because that stingy motherfucker owns the tree and all of the land around it."


Is that an argument or an attempt at satire?

And in a society where you need qualifications to get a job and you need a job to live comfortably, education is a necessity.

My problem is that generous government is, in my opinion, completely unsustainable. We can only provide the basics to so many people, and when we make a promise to give food and healthcare to anybody then people in other nations can have them in our country at the expense of the citizens. I'm all for immigration, I believe that its an institution that is vital to our country's character, but I also believe that we need to control it so that illegal immigrants don't tax our education and healthcare system too much. But even ignoring immigrants there is only so many people we a nation can support, and I think its foolish to pledge to support anyone and everyone. Also, I am a strong believer that sometimes people loose their right to help. Someone should only be allowed to be on welfare so long. If they are unwilling to work, why should my tax dollars support them? If someone has a medical condition that has extremely expensive treatment and a very low success rate, the chances are my tax dollars supporting their treatment will just be a waste.
Socialism is based on an idea of basic human dignity that sounds great, and I think some level of it is necessary especially for things like education, but I don't believe in the idea that everyone is entitled to the basics of life from the government.

I disagree. Each to his own and fuck those who can't keep up.

My experience from living in this country is that the 'needy' persons outnumber the 'able' ones by about a hundred to one - why? because it's much more benificial for a 'needy' sob to sit in a hole with 'pity me' written all over his face and a plastic cup in the hand than actually get off his ass and try to improve his life and make his own way. And this in spite of our government's best efforts to provide free of charge self-help and skills centres for this very purpose. Afterall, why should he get out of his hole? His 'needy' status entitles him to free water, free housing, free education, free food, free medical, free electricity - all at the expense of 'able' persons, of course.

Oh and needles to say, on top of paying tax so as to feed and house a bunch of fucking spongers, the 'able' persons have to pay exorbitant rates for the above-mentioned services as well. Where's the equality in that?

In a perfect world, the system might stand a chance. Might, but not in our current social context.

If there was no government, wouldn't there be chaos
Everybody running round, setting petrol bombs off?
And if there was no police force, tell me what you'd do
If thirty thousand rioters came running after you?
And who would clean the sewers? Who'd mend my television?
Wouldn't people lay about without some supervision?
Who'd drive the fire engines? Who'd fix my video?
If there were no prisons, well, where would robbers go?


What if there's no army to stop a big invasion?
Who'd clean the bogs and sweep the floors? We'd have all immigration.
Who'd pull the pint at the local pub? Where'd I get my fags?
Who'd empty out my dustbins? Would I still get plastic bags?
If there were no hospitals, and no doctors too,
If I'd broken both my legs, where would I run to?
If there's no medication, if there were no nurses,
Wouldn't people die a lot? And who would drive the hearses?

If there were no butchers shops, what would people eat?
You'd have everybody starving if they didn't get their meat.
If there was no water, what would people drink?
Who'd flush away the you-know-what? But of course MINE never stink.
What about the children? Who'd teach them in the schools?
Who'd make the beggers keep in line? Learn them all the rules?
Who's tell us whitewash windows? When to take down doors?
Tell us make a flask of tea and survive the holocaust?

Dude. It's really not cool when you call my argument stupid when the reality is that you just misunderstood me.

I've noticed that U_O is generally misunderstood. I wonder why that is?

Is the phrase "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" referring to welfare?