Need Better Arguments against Capitalism

[seventeethdecember2016]

Today I had a long discussion with my friend, who has degrees in Business, about Capitalism(I paraphrased much of it.)

We are both Entrepreneurs and Traders, so he often wonders why I have a Socialist tendency.

He asked me what my problems with Capitalism are, so I told him, "it is a system that exploits the workers, and alienates them from the means of production. In its highest form, Imperialism, it subjugates the Proletariat of the third world."

After a little chuckle he then went on to say, "but how are we, as Entrepreneurs, supposed to make money? Shouldn't those who work the hardest get paid more."

I went on, "well, a Socialist societies generally follows the idea of 'from each according to their abilities to each according to their works,' so those who work harder do get more. Anyway, you are right, those who worker harder deserve more money which is why the workers deserve more money than their employers who don't work."

He then said, "You didn't answer my first question. Also, I was referring to those who organize and structure, not a bunch of petty workers. Anyway, why should workers be allowed to organize a state when they can't organize themselves correctly- our system has it so that bright minds prosper while the inept fail. Workers should be happy with what we give them, and in return we allow their children to use our schools so that their kids can do a little better than they did-it is the perfect system if you think about it. And I see that you too subscribe to this system, so don't be such a hypocrite."

I drew a blank for a while, but I recovered and gave him Andrew Carnegie's article about the Millionaire Socialist(as I'm sure all Lefties carry around their notes.)

He continued, "this is an interesting article, but he is backing my point that how else are we supposed to make money without exploiting. Why can't we simply follow Social Darwinism, as it gives a fair opportunity to everyone."

I told him that Social Darwinism dehumanizes society and only promotes violence and competition. And, "by telling people that if they work harder they'll be granted more is nothing less than a modern caste system. You are simply fooling the workers into working harder, when in fact there is no reward for it."

He said that it was human nature and whatnot.

I told him that 99% of human societies were Anarchist or Communist-tribal-, so he couldn't claim that that was human nature.

He later said that Karl Marx wanted a genocide of an entire class of people-the Bourgeoisie.

I told him that there is a clear difference between the disillusion of a class and a genocide. I also said that Karl Marx wanted the Class System in itself to be destroyed, and to end all class struggles, and not to drag out a struggle with the Bourgeoisie on the basis of class identity.


The discussion dragged on for a while, but it eventually ended. In the end, I felt like I didn't make very strong arguments. Does anyone think they could better structure them?

Edit: I'd like some decisive arguments. I also don't want to sound too much like a Liberal.

[Zostrianos]

I'd point to the fact that in Capitalism (in the US particularly) the ultra rich pay little or no taxes, a horrid perversion which creates a societal imbalance, wherein the rich keep accumulating money without giving back to society. This eventually leads to crises . which is what's happening in many european countries; all the money's gone. Then what happens is they sell society to innumerable private companies, and the average citizen has to pay for everything, even his healthcare which is not seen as a human right but as a privilege in America - you pay or die. Capitalism is anti-human.

[Geiseric]

You can't argue with those kinda people, all you need is the Labor theory of value. That's kinda the god arguement because it's true.

you need to also bring up the fact that any human is fully and comletely replacable by anybody with a similar education or upbringing, thus nobody really deserves "more money," since they are technically being rewarded for something they have nothing to do with choosing or controlling.

Things like that are what you need. Because usually arguements in RL aren't about specific aspects of Marxism but conflicting world views. Arguing with Leftists doesn't help arguing with people who maybe don't care much about politics or who get their information from the Bourgeois news.

Another thing is the Crisis of the Falling Rate of Profit theory which is happening in front of our eyes.

[ckaihatsu]

Probably the quickest and best argument against claims for Social Darwinism as a principle is to just ask about *inheritance*. If everyone is truly to be treated by their own merits as individuals then why are the sons and daughters of the wealthy allowed any inheritance *whatsoever* -- ? The meritocratic argument would require that there be a mostly-level playing field *at birth* -- which would, counterintuitively, also require much regulation, as from a societal government.

The conclusion that one can take from all of this is that materialistic individualism is fine for conditions where cooperation would be *impossible*, as on a sparsely populated new frontier, but such conditions are long past, if they ever even existed at all. A global social environment with billions of people necessitates *higher* forms of *cooperation*, as over material, political, economic, and social matters. Unfortunately we've all been born into an economic order that functions by *privatizing* material gains, through the profit mechanism, instead of *socializing* those gains. This is why a proletarian revolution is *socially* necessary, for the better good of the majority, since we derive no benefit from the process of privatization.

[Mr. Natural]

I don't like to get bogged down in the details of capitalism's evil. Capitalism captures humanity's productive and creative powers and turns them into a system of human self-destruction.

Life generates a sustainable surplus in order to create and maintain its communities. Capitalism manufactures its runaway profit from the destruction of human and natural community.

Life is community; capitalism is a cancer of life and its communities. It's that simple.

My red-green, life-loving, capitalism-hating best.

[Alfonso Cano]

He later said that Karl Marx wanted a genocide of an entire class of people-the Bourgeoisie.

This is ridicoulous. When Marx was speaking about the destruction of the capitalist class, he wasn't thinking about their physical annihilation, but their removal from the dominant position in the society, from the ownership of the means of the production and similar things. You could also give him to read The Communist Manifesto, in which Marx clearly states that when a time for Revoluton has come, the bourgeoisie itself is going to split into two factions and one of them is going to join victorious proletariat in construction of socialism. As happened with Engels, one of the founders of Communism. His logic is certainly not very well developed as demonstrated by his naive thinking. The transition to Communism would not be the first example of destruction of one class society. There were such things done in the US history as well. For example, during the US civil war, the entire slave-owning class was "liquidated". Ask your friend whether he thinks Abraham Lincoln commited a "genocide" in the American South...


He continued, "this is an interesting article, but he is backing my point that how else are we supposed to make money without exploiting.

In Communism money will be abolished, so he couldn't make any even if he wanted. The production would be organized in a rational way, that is in order to fullfil human needs and not in order to accumulate profits for a tiny group of exploiters. You could explain to him how capitalism is inherently irrational and self-destructive system that is condemned to cyclical crises like the one we are living in. A nice example to demonstrate this is to mention the "ghost cities" that were built during construction boom and which now stand totally empty, because no one has the money to buy them. Tell him how in the socialism they would be given to people who actually need them, and housing construction would be organised in order to fullfil social needs and not someone's pockets. Socialised healthcare is also a nice demonstration of superiority of socialism over capitalism. Give him example of Cuba versus other Latin American countries like Brazil or Mexico. Cuban healthcare system is recognised even by the capitalist organisations like WHO as one of the best in the world, while literally tens of millions of people in Mexico or Brazil have never seen doctor in their life. Millions die because of lack of affordable healthcare. US has 50 million people that have no healthcare insurance at all. That should give him an idea of how economy is organized in socialist society. Also, you might reccomend him Michael Moore movie "Sicko" that deals with Cuban versus US healthcare and it draws interesting conclusions. After he watches it, perhaps he will change his opinion about Communism.

[Erratus]

"He then said, "You didn't answer my first question. Also, I was referring to those who organize and structure, not a bunch of petty workers. Anyway, why should workers be allowed to organize a state when they can't organize themselves correctly- our system has it so that bright minds prosper while the inept fail. Workers should be happy with what we give them, and in return we allow their children to use our schools so that their kids can do a little better than they did-it is the perfect system if you think about it. And I see that you too subscribe to this system, so don't be such a hypocrite."

The first one is a rather key question that I have encountered. Some people have elitist slants like that, and feel that society is best ruled by those who are most intelligent (or whatever trait you want, usually intelligent). Plato stretches this out to argue for a dictatorship, though it is possible for just not go that far. It is hard to argue over this point since many people just lack faith in humanity to rule itself. But it is good to point to things that indicate how fickle human nature really is, and how much of our behavior is just a result of our environment. This lecture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4si1HaDmLg) touches on human nature and just how little of it there is. The guy there has also done other things on the nature of human nature. This is all relevant to elitism in that elitism assumes that some people are better suited for ruling, and other simply cannot rule.

True, today, inequalities can come from environmental differences, but I am of the mindset that the transition from a smoothly running communist world will take several generations as the people are mentally liberated and free to fully rule their lives and their community. Because in a communist society, there won't be the vast environmental differences we see today, and as people are given the response ability, they will chance their way of thinking to take on this responsibility, if not within the immediate generation then surely following ones, as there is nothing in human nature to prevent it and everything in the environment to encourage it.



"bright minds prosper while the inept fail"
A person's morality is very intertwined in this as the "inept failing" is not a happy thought. But even from a pragmatic sense, this sense of competition that capitalism promotes is not the best way society can be organized. Not only do you have winners and losers in a system that can support everyone as a winner, but the society itself loses in many cases. I'll start with the individual. Many resources go into producing and selling goods to meet and artificial demand, a want we only realize we have when we are told we have it. Think paid programming at one am. The labor and materials that g into making them could be better spent on making other goods, real ones that can be given to all of society. To put it in real terms, allocating the means that currently go towards making the items in the Sky Mall catalog into making computers or cars for everyone.

On a societal level, everyone loses because capitalism does not invest resources into progressing humanity as a rule. Sure, sometimes it does, but many times new ideas are stifled because they go against capitalism (i.e. cheap, renewable fuel sources since they would hurt the gas industry big time). Another example is when you see ads for these drugs that have side effects much worse than the problem they are to fix (see Lunesta). All the people and resources facilities could probably have been better spent curing cancer. Because capitalism drives to help immediate problems (making the capitalists rich and making the people happy enough to buy more) but doesn't look towards long term issues, humanity is often at a lose (i.e. Lunesta versus cure for cancer).



"I see that you too subscribe to this system, so don't be such a hypocrite."
Always kind of a kick to see that. Protesting capitalism and living as a mountain man wouldn't help anything. What we do is live in the only system we have and wait for the time when a revolution can come.


So, big points why I feel that capitalism needs to go.

1. As mentioned above, it is simple not the best organizational structure for society. It is like tying many horses together, but leading them in different (selfishly motivated) directions. You like get a general direction of progress (or not), but if you get them all in one direction, true progress can be made. If we all work together and not competing against each other (especially since we have the ability to produce enough for everybody), we can actually make advances that help everyone. It is ironic because people say that communism would never work since people are too greedy, and that capitalism is the way to go. But capitalism is the system that runs on greed, and greed can just as easily (and just often) hinder progress in stead of promoting it.

2. The capitalist class do not do actual work. They might organize, but as discussed above, the workers have the ability to organize themselves. There is not need to have some guy towering above you telling you what to do, and when asked what he does, he says that he tells you what to do.
(Link to funny comic that shows this point that cannot be embedded directly into the post since I lack the required 100 posts (http://paulitics.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/capitalism.PNG?w=500))
Their role is artificial in that it is not needed. This in and of itself is not bad (in our modern world there are many roles like this) but the fact that they then use this role to take not only just some money made by the workers, but a lot of it is what makes it bad.

3. Intended to ad more points, but I have to take my bio final.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

If you want to fully understand capitalism and what's wrong with it, read Capital.

[ckaihatsu]

[E]litism assumes that some people are better suited for ruling, and other simply cannot rule.


This is an excellent example of idealism, by the way -- that people have "fixed personalities" that necessarily determine where they stand in society. Or, as a way of stratifying and commodifying people, we can "at least" get educations so that we're more classifiable in terms of what we're told to do.

This is all in distinction from workers being in a position to seize and run productivity for ourselves, in our own interests. In *that* kind of social / economic context we'd see people doing things they didn't think they *could* do, since they / we are not currently politically *empowered* to operate in these kinds of collectively self-managed, cooperative ways.

[marl]

You use scientific and materialist arguments against capital, rather than emotional ones.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

"Workers should be happy with what we give them, and in return we allow their children to use our schools so that their kids can do a little better than they did-it is the perfect system if you think about it."

If we organized properly, and actually had unions who paid their members during long times of strike, and destroyed the bourgeoisie machines, tools, etc, their would be no exploitation. Then the producer, such as your friend, will be left with no capital as no company is profitable because it's destroyed and has no one to exploit. EDIT : A workers' state, (which I oppose for an anarchist one) could be established if the citizenry wasn't oppressed, and if the laws put against them didn't too restrain them from organization.

Also, your friend is a simpleton. He doesn't understand how capital is produced, therefor his arguments are fallacious and quite laughable.

"and in return we allow their children to use our schools so that their kids can do a little better than they did-it is the perfect system if you think about it."

I made 154k dollars last year, I paid more taxes then the wealthiest men in the country. My brother made 34,000 dollars this year and he paid more taxes per capita than I. These schools are funded by the workers, and the bourgeoisie continually lobbies to end public education.

"how else are we supposed to make money without exploiting" Using your own labor power, of course. :laugh:.

So what we've summed up is the following :

He makes a living off of exploitation, or, by living off the labor power of others.

The poor pay more taxes for the institutions he speaks about.

His arguments made no sense, albeit, He was a smooth talker.

As far as Darwinism, I would have shot him to prove I was superior then asked for his opinion on the matter.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Capitalism is unable to manage the mighty technical and productive powers of mankind to conform to their original aim, to provide the needs of society.

The more value a laborer produces and the less the value of what he consumes, the larger seized by the capital. It isn't a coincidence why living standards have lowered and necessities are reduced culminating in lowering wages for more surplus-value for the capitalist.

Capitalism is designed to extract as much surplus value from the labor of the workers as it possibly can. To maximize profits capitalists force the Proletariat to labor to a point where their lives, health and ability to enjoy life in general deteriorates.

[fabian]

I've noticed that a lot of people don't use arguments against capitalism, but insted appeal to emotion, or to majority, and those kind of fallacies don't go well againt smarter exponents of capitalism. Neither do debates about externalities- whether does capitalism bring abour justice, harmonous relations, etc. or not.

I have found that the best argument in that case, to which they never have a direct answer is to point out the contradiction between John Locke and capitalist principles.

Lockean idea of Right to possessions has nothing to do with the capitalist concept of private propety. The Lockean concept is also known as Labor theory of property (not to be confused with the Labor theory of value) and is defined as a Right to the full product of one's labor.

Investments, rent, interest, profits- and thus capitalism- they are all illegitimate from a purely Lockean and a classical liberal perspective.

Look it up, left-libertarians have lots of info on that topic.

[ckaihatsu]

"how else are we supposed to make money without exploiting" Using your own labor power, of course. :laugh:.


While the service sector *can* be a boon to the individual who represents their own labor, it's essentially on par with starting one's own business and being petty-bourgeois. Also it's politically *problematic* since it sidesteps the larger question of why the proletariat isn't controlling the *major* implements of production -- especially machinery -- for their / our *collective* benefit, instead of having to operate individualistically and competing with one another in the economy as if smaller enterprises can find new frontiers of opportunity in a globalized economy against enormous pools of investment capital (think Wal-Mart, etc.).

This isn't to dissuade anyone, of course, but rather to say that, like those examples of fully worker-owned companies, being both boss and laborer to oneself puts one immediately at cross-purposes to oneself. Should one be *exploiting* oneself more fully for the sake of the enterprise, or is one "slacking off" by being too proletarian in their consciousness -- ?

[Black Cross]

I gotta ask; why are you friends with this tool? He's obviously an idiot, not to mention an asshole with an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

It seems to me that the onus is on him to prove that capitalism is in line with human nature, or that Karl Marx was genocidal, which you could make an extremely trivial argument for, but it would be meaningless since you don't have to put Marx on a pedastal to be a socialist.

I wouldn't take this guy too seriously if i were you.

[Ocean Seal]

We are both Entrepreneurs and Traders, so he often wonders why I have a Socialist tendency.

Awkward.



After a little chuckle he then went on to say, "but how are we, as Entrepreneurs, supposed to make money? Shouldn't those who work the hardest get paid more."

You won't be able to.



He then said, "You didn't answer my first question. Also, I was referring to those who organize and structure, not a bunch of petty workers.
And yet production continues without entrepreneurs but not without "petty workers"



Anyway, why should workers be allowed to organize a state when they can't organize themselves correctly- our system has it so that bright minds prosper while the inept fail.

This is dumb. The workers are not allowed to organize a state. They take this by force. And they are organized correctly, obviously, if they take state power. The workers revolution is not a charity.



how else are we supposed to make money without exploiting. Why can't we simply follow Social Darwinism, as it gives a fair opportunity to everyone."
You can't make money without exploiting by definition.

[Proteus]

After a little chuckle he then went on to say, "but how are we, as Entrepreneurs, supposed to make money? Shouldn't those who work the hardest get paid more."

Its obvious that its bullshit that 'entrepreneurs' work harder than any worker. I would say they don't work at all. That aside, what he is arguing is that someone with a deed in his/hers pocket for some godforsaken factory, is entitled to take reward whether they contribute anything positive at all to society. Clearly that is not only wrong, it does not give any actual incentive to produce for society because the individual gets his factory profits nomatter what he/she does. One can stay in bed if one owns significant stock, but workers must get up and produce.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Today I had a long discussion with my friend, who has degrees in Business, about Capitalism(I paraphrased much of it.)

We are both Entrepreneurs and Traders, so he often wonders why I have a Socialist tendency.

He asked me what my problems with Capitalism are, so I told him, "it is a system that exploits the workers, and alienates them from the means of production. In its highest form, Imperialism, it subjugates the Proletariat of the third world."

After a little chuckle he then went on to say, "but how are we, as Entrepreneurs, supposed to make money? Shouldn't those who work the hardest get paid more."[/SIZE]

Well, 'entrepreneur' is just an ideological driven word. In reality, you make more money with money, leeching on society's wealth. I don't see much hope for arguing with Social-Darwinists, it's just a ridiculous fascist notion that they believe in to make them sleep well at night and not confront the reality.

Basic facts will do to force them to confront reality: 7 Trillion Dollars has been given by the US government to Banks and Corporations. While those 7 Trillion dollars are given to incompetent and corrupt millionaire executives, the U.N. estimates that 80 Billion Dollars could provide every single human on the earth with Food, Clean Water, and basic preventative Medical Care (for one whole year). A fraction of the bailouts given to the bankers and corportions could save 100,000 humans from starving to death a day, stop every fourth child on the globe being forced to drink unclean water regularly, over 1.3 Billion humans being in a state of "permanent severe undernourishment" as the U.N. cynically calls the people who are in a chronic lethargic condition of starvation, unable to have a social life, a job. Hunger (besides massive interest laden debt), is the weapon the World Banks, WTO, IMF and Trans-National Corporations use to enslave the third world.

I know these kind of guys you talk about. They are merely the victims of a propaganda system that keeps them in a little bubble where "...Ignorance is Strength" and they do not have to smell the rotten smell of the slums they create. Basically i would tell him to look at the GNP of the US alone, which in 1960 was 900 Billion Dollars and now is 14 Trillion Dollars. Does he think the american people that mainly created this wealth, are living roughly ten times better than the last generation? No, and they know it, they know they're wrong. They are fake. Enshrined in their castles, hoping the 'fast-food-experience' they gain from their social status, goes on a little longer. "Paper Tigers"

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Basically, if he asks why you have "socialist tendencies", i would tell him: 'Because i value hard work. You don't work, you take money and make more money. Off of the profits of working people'.

Oh, yes, and i would send him this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSpqObhK4Rw&feature=BFa&list=PL2B7BB8D7A4B4CEBB or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ77UTi04p0&feature=BFa&list=PL2B7BB8D7A4B4CEBB

So, there really are no real arguments for capitalism. Capitalism = Systemic Mass Murder and anti-human.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Well, 'entrepreneur' is just an ideological driven word. In reality, you make more money with money, leeching on society's wealth. I don't see much hope for arguing with Social-Darwinists, it's just a ridiculous fascist notion that they believe in to make them sleep well at night and not confront the reality.

Basic facts will do to force them to confront reality: 7 Trillion Dollars has been given by the US government to Banks and Corporations. While those 7 Trillion dollars are given to incompetent and corrupt millionaire executives, the U.N. estimates that 80 Billion Dollars could provide every single human on the earth with Food, Clean Water, and basic preventative Medical Care (for one whole year). A fraction of the bailouts given to the bankers and corportions could save 100,000 humans from starving to death a day, stop every fourth child on the globe being forced to drink unclean water regularly, over 1.3 Billion humans being in a state of "permanent severe undernourishment" as the U.N. cynically calls the people who are in a chronic lethargic condition of starvation, unable to have a social life, a job. Hunger (besides massive interest laden debt), is the weapon the World Banks, WTO, IMF and Trans-National Corporations use to enslave the third world.

I know these kind of guys you talk about. They are merely the victims of a propaganda system that keeps them in a little bubble where "...Ignorance is Strength" and they do not have to smell the rotten smell of the slums they create. Basically i would tell him to look at the GNP of the US alone, which in 1960 was 900 Billion Dollars and now is 14 Trillion Dollars. Does he think the american people that mainly created this wealth, are living roughly ten times better than the last generation? No, and they know it, they know they're wrong. They are fake. Enshrined in their castles, hoping the 'fast-food-experience' they gain from their social status, goes on a little longer. "Paper Tigers"
Well done, comrade.

[Regicollis]

One thing that really annoys me about the argument for capitalism is that they point to developed western countries as examples of the merits of capitalism. In reality Congo is just as capitalist as say Sweden. Modern capitalism would not work without the armed robbery that is third world resource extraction.

Capitalism needs large-scale violence to work and has always needed it. This may be contrary to the fairytale about voluntary contracts between rational individuals that is taught as economic science but one should look at how capitalism works in real life and not how we would like it to be.

[Tim Finnegan]

Point out that the conception of the self as a persistent essence is an irrational holdover from a Neoplatonic metaphysics that he has otherwise abandoned, thus rendering the entire concept of private property absurd.

[Sputnik_1]

it's actually "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". Communist society is moneyless, no one works for money so there isn't a concept of people getting more if they work harder. That leads to disequalities and accumulation. Everyone contributes and everyone benefits equally.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Point by point


"but how are we, as Entrepreneurs, supposed to make money?Your friend has it all wrong. There are no "entrepreneurs", just say our existence as we are right now will be made obsolete.
Shouldn't those who work the hardest get paid more.Except those that "work the hardest" is such an abstract concept in the first place and can't really be measured concretely. For example a person can "work" all of their lives to come up with a product, applying all their time and energy into coming up with whatever it is, and when they finally start to sell it and make money let's say they only make $100,000 in ten years before they die. Another person may come up with a great idea in college while on an acid trip, and when he actually gets the product made by the end of the year he may be a millionaire. Why is that? The first person obviously worked a lot harder than the person who came up with something one awesome night. It's because that money you're getting is not coming from your "hard work" it's coming from the workers who create the commodities and the consumers who buy it. Hell a capitalist can spend every waking moment of their day scheming on how to increase their profits only to go bankrupt and lose everything. What about their hard work?


He then said, "You didn't answer my first question. Also, I was referring to those who organize and structure, not a bunch of petty workers. Anyway, why should workers be allowed to organize a state when they can't organize themselves correctly-Tell him that workers can organize and structure without capitalists. That it's the capitalists who need the workers, not the other way around. Then give some historical examples, history is full of them.


our system has it so that bright minds prosper while the inept fail.Pure propaganda.


Workers should be happy with what we give them, and in return we allow their children to use our schools so that their kids can do a little better than they did-it is the perfect system if you think about it. And I see that you too subscribe to this system, so don't be such a hypocrite.No capitalists should be happy with what workers give them. But they're not of course. We build the schools, teach in them, make everything for ourselves and them, yet we have to live below them. But we should be happy about it!

I drew a blank for a while, but I recovered and gave him Andrew Carnegie's article about the Millionaire Socialist(as I'm sure all Lefties carry around their notes.)Never heard of it.

Why can't we simply follow Social Darwinism, as it gives a fair opportunity to everyone."Ask him what he's taking and if you could have some of it. A person living in poverty does not have the same opportunity as the person being born into a wealthy family.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Point out that the conception of the self as a persistent essence is an irrational holdover from a Neoplatonic metaphysics that he has otherwise abandoned, thus rendering the entire concept of private property absurd.
What does this even mean?

[Tim Finnegan]

The conception of the self as something ontologically prior to embodied experience, which is a holdover from Neoplatonist idealism (arguably via Cartesian dualism). A materialist would understand the self as emerging from embodied experience, which means that it is created and recreated in every moment as your embodied experience changes; continuity, rather than persistence. The result of this realisation is that private property claims become basically absurd, because if the self does not persist, how can a relationship between the self and an external thing persist? It too must be recreated in each moment, a relationship between people, not between a person and things, and thus something that is inherently negotiable.

[Railyon]

it's actually "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". Communist society is moneyless, no one works for money so there isn't a concept of people getting more if they work harder. That leads to disequalities and accumulation. Everyone contributes and everyone benefits equally.


Well, I've seen our famous communist slogan perverted by right wingers to mean "state works everyone to the brink of exhaustion, gives only minimal means of subsistence as compensation" in favor of wage labor because at least then you'd be able to have some "autonomy" in your job and consumption habits.

Absolutely priceless...

[ckaihatsu]

it's actually "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". Communist society is moneyless, no one works for money so there isn't a concept of people getting more if they work harder. That leads to disequalities and accumulation. Everyone contributes and everyone benefits equally.


(f.y.i.):


Rotation system of work roles

http://postimage.org/image/1d53k7nd0/