What's your response to this capitalist argument?

[The Man]

"A system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minorty."

And

"In a 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' society, people would be lazy and not work, because they get their needs anyway."


So what's your response to those capitalist arguments?
They are actually brought up against me quite a lot.

[Rafiq]

Simple.

The first argument, simply isn't true. He's talking out of his ass.

Second argument, that's not true either. You won't get all of your needs if you're just lazy and don't want to work. If you do not contribute to the society, the society should not have to contribute anything to you in return. (There are exceptions, for, handicapped people).

[The Man]

Second argument, that's not true either. You won't get all of your needs if you're just lazy and don't want to work. If you do not contribute to the society, the society should not have to contribute anything to you in return. (There are exceptions, for, handicapped people).

So it's not "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" But it's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his productivity."?

[Red Commissar]

So it's not "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Rather "From each according to his ability, to each according to his productivity."?

It could be said, according to some, that there's a period of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds" that must occur first before "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can be possible.

TBH this person sounds like the type- particularly the part that goes "parasitic majority lives off the productive minorty"- that either has overblown views of his/her contribution to society or has a vendetta against those on welfare.

[L.A.P.]

the parasitic majority lives off the productive minorty.

Tell them it's the other way around, and then ask them to name a single god damn thing that this so-called productive minority does so productive.

[Rafiq]

So it's not according to his ability, to each according to his need" But it's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his productivity."?

FROM EACH according to his ability, TO EACH according to their need

[Broletariat]

"In a 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' society, people would be lazy and not work, because they get their needs anyway."

I always love to quote Kropotkin on this

"The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages....
What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. ....

They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.

But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.

Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.


For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour--which is true--the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves."

[PhoenixAsh]

So it's not "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" But it's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his productivity."?

no its exactly the first. But if you have the ability and you do n ot do anythingyou also do not get anything.

the according to abililty part means exactly that: according to ability...not "if you feel like it".

His first argument is utter nonsense.

http://www.oftwominds.com/photos10/wealth-distribution-USA.png

Basically its the other way around.

[Ocean Seal]

"A system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minorty."


This is a response given by an idealist. The "productive" minority doesn't compete like many capitalists would think that it does. They set up trusts, influence the government for subsidies, allow for the government to pay for their waste, folly, and unemployment benefits. The capitalist class protects itself, and in doing so doesn't act competitively instead it organizes itself toward the oppression of the laboring forces. Thus, now it has been similar to the feudal landlords who do not care about increasing wealth, but rather in not diffusing the wealth which is concentrated in them. Also they don't get money through their labor, they get it through the labor of others, if this statement were even remotely true what they would be doing is effectively competing to see who exploits their workers more efficiently.



"In a 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' society, people would be lazy and not work, because they get their needs anyway."


The need to belong to something greater, or to work for a greater purpose often leads workers to be more creative than simple monetary incentives. Look at the brightest scientists, they are often not the richest people in the world. That is because they disregard money in their decisions, and instead look to fullfill science. And in forgetting the false incentive, money, in this case, they are able to unlock a greater amount of creativity. I believe there is a video from a TED conference which explains this perfectly.

Also a lack of necessities doesn't make you lazier or that would mean that the starving and cold would have the greatest scientific input. They are in fact constantly thinking of ways to avoid the cold/hunger in order to fullfill their necessities, however, if those were fullfilled they would be able to do other things with their lives. The more your necessities are fullfilled the more creative labor you can do. This has been the one driving force throughout history. Why have achievements been coupled with the upper classes? Because they have had their necessities taken care of. If Newton had come from a family of serfs he might not have been able to accomplish all that he did, in fact I would say he almost certainly wouldn't have been able to because he would not have had the time.

[The Man]

no its exactly the first. But if you have the ability and you do n ot do anythingyou also do not get anything.

the according to abililty part means exactly that: according to ability...not "if you feel like it".

His first argument is utter nonsense.

http://www.oftwominds.com/photos10/wealth-distribution-USA.png

Basically its the other way around.

Okay so it's basically like if you don't put anything in the system you don't get anything out of the system?

[The Militant]

Yes. If you have the ability to contribute but don't then you do not get anything as well. The disabled do not have the ability to work so they wouldn't need to put anything into the system but they still get their needs.

[smk]

"In a 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' society, people would be lazy and not work, because they get their needs anyway."


This is the most illogical argument I've ever heard. The person saying it must not actually understand the first part of the sentence "from each according to his ability" and is only focusing on the "to each according to his need." Each person WILL work to their ability (i.e. not be lazy.)

[smk]

Okay so it's basically like if you don't put anything in the system you don't get anything out of the system?

Why would people be lazy in a communist society? They are getting what they need with the condition of giving to their ability.
If they don't want to give to their ability, they are criminals. They should be rehabilitated like all criminals.

[Savage]

"A system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minorty."
A system where labor tasks are shared and all humans have free access to all products and services stacks up pretty good against a system wherein a class exerts a monopoly over the means of productions exploiting another class to produce capital.

"In a 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' society, people would be lazy and not work, because they get their needs anyway."
Do these people not realize that the human race existed for 90,000 years according to 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?

[RebelDog]

The elite top 1% that takes 43% of the wealth in the US will not have produced a wall-tack between them. They will have deeds in their pockets that entitles them to ridiculous mountains of cash regardless of whether they can be bothered getting out of bed on any given day. The deed may say I own this and that amount of stock in this or that company, but it has no corralelation whatsoever with worthwhile contribution. Even within that top 1% is the elite of the elite, the 0.1% who own 10% of the wealth. Scum rises to the top in our system.

[Victus Mortuum]

"To each according to their need" is not the same as "To each according to their want"

When I use the terms, the former refers to a system of "democratic-communal" distribution (i.e. the community determines the rules for who gets what and how it's distributed) and the latter refers to a system of "gift" distribution (i.e. anyone can take whatever they want whenever they want).

[PhoenixAsh]

Okay so it's basically like if you don't put anything in the system you don't get anything out of the system?

Yes...but only if you are able to but don't.

If you are not able to because of sickness, injury, handicap (mental or physical), and such then obviously the system provides.