Ethics of Distribution

[BobKKKindle$]

This is an issue that has been troubling me for some time. I understand that in a communist society access to goods would be awarded in accordance with each individual's reslative needs and abilities. When I am debating Capitalism with others I often begin with an evaluation of social immobility and equality of opportunity; I explain how it is unfair to hold someone accountable to something over which they are unable to exercise any control, for example, the family into which they are born, and show how social immobility is an inherent part of the capitalist system primarily through inheritance.

The only way this argument can be rebutted is by showing that equality of opportunity is not good (and inheriting wealth is ethical) or that capitalism supports equality of opportunity - I have never heard a convincing defence either way.

On the basis of this, people often assume a system of equality of opportunity is my objective. I then struggle to show why a system of needs-based distribution is preferable to a system in which income differentials are a result of individual merit.

I would appreciate it if someone could explain the justification for a needs-abilities system of distribution.

In the past I have generally argued that the production of a good is a social process and every member of society depends on everyone else and so it is unfair to accord an un-skilled worker a lower wage (or less respect) than someone who has spent time in education because without un-skilled workers society would cease to function and the skilled workers would serve no purpose - I use the example of doctors and cleaners in a hospital to explain my point. I have also suggested that, even if everyone had access to the same standard of education, some students would be more intelligent and attain better results due to their genetic origin (not because their work harder) and so equality of opportunity can never really exist.

Please, though - any rigorous logical justifications?

[RGacky3]

I always explain that needs are a human right, food, shelter and medical care, and a system that guarantees them is definately better than one that does'nt.

Now when it comes to the notion of equal opportunity, it gets real muddy, because the terms 'equal' and 'opportunity' can refer to different things, for some proponents of Capitalism, simply the idea that if you work real real real hard get a scolarship and work real real real hard to get the money to go to collage, makes it equal, just because there is a slight chance a poor man can make it makes it equal. Also Opportunity for what? To be rich? To have a decent life? For what?

In a communist Society, needs will be guanranteed and every one will have an equal opportunity to fulfill a productive good life and have fulfilling work and live a comfortable life.

In a Capitalist Society, rewards are not so much given as far as productivity, or what is given to society, rewards are given from above to below based on how much they can get out of you. and from above rewards are pretty much how much you can take, and get.

In a Communist Society however its not about rewards and what you can take and get, its about keeping society running with your ablities, what you can do, and as long as society keeps running every one will have what then need and have a comfortable life.

[Dimentio]

The best argument for me is that it is more efficient. It inefficient to give person A access to more resources than she could make use of, while persons B, C, D and E gets only a scarce access to the resources.

That constitutes waste.

[RGacky3]

Of coarse it always depends on what the persons Morals are, I always ask them what their Moral compass is, and then take their Morals to the logical extreams, which forces them to either accept the extremes or re-examine their Morals.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:26 am
This is an issue that has been troubling me for some time. I understand that in a communist society access to goods would be awarded in accordance with each individual's reslative needs and abilities. When I am debating Capitalism with others I often begin with an evaluation of social immobility and equality of opportunity; I explain how it is unfair to hold someone accountable to something over which they are unable to exercise any control, for example, the family into which they are born, and show how social immobility is an inherent part of the capitalist system primarily through inheritance.

The only way this argument can be rebutted is by showing that equality of opportunity is not good (and inheriting wealth is ethical) or that capitalism supports equality of opportunity - I have never heard a convincing defence either way.

On the basis of this, people often assume a system of equality of opportunity is my objective. I then struggle to show why a system of needs-based distribution is preferable to a system in which income differentials are a result of individual merit.

I would appreciate it if someone could explain the justification for a needs-abilities system of distribution.

In the past I have generally argued that the production of a good is a social process and every member of society depends on everyone else and so it is unfair to accord an un-skilled worker a lower wage (or less respect) than someone who has spent time in education because without un-skilled workers society would cease to function and the skilled workers would serve no purpose - I use the example of doctors and cleaners in a hospital to explain my point. I have also suggested that, even if everyone had access to the same standard of education, some students would be more intelligent and attain better results due to their genetic origin (not because their work harder) and so equality of opportunity can never really exist.

Please, though - any rigorous logical justifications?
capitalism is not based on individual merit.
we want equality of result, because in an ecomomy that promotes solderarity the only way for a person to advance themselves is to advance society, this is why i prefer the parecon system which actually rewards for effort. i don't see a way for a need economy to do so however

[MarxSchmarx]

The case against equality of opportunity is fairly straightforward. Use this line of argument and you shut up more cappies than you would believe.

I have the opportunity to appear as a centerfold in Playboy. There are no laws against it (well, at least in the global north) and nothing stops me from posing nude in front of cameras.

But the odds of me ever glossing the cover of playboy are comparable to the odds of me winning the lottery. I suspect I have a better shot at the latter.

Why? Is it because I was born with a Y chromosome? Is it because I don't have blonde hair? Is this fair, just because I was born with different genes that I should be treated differently for the playboy centerfold?

I mean, if you believe it is OK to treat people differently for things beyond their control, as long as there is "equal opportunity", why not believe it is fair for physically disabled people to starve to death? Why not believe that it is ok for those with wrong genes that code for skin pigmentation be condemned to a life of picking cotton? After all, I am condemned to a life of working my ass off, rather than posing in my underwear and smiling to the camera, just because my genes came out wrong.

Quad era demonstratum.

[abbielives!]

I think a needs based economy is more of an emotional reaction, than one based in logic. Though I suppose you could argue that someone who has their needs met might feel more inclined to work co-operatively.

[syndicat]

the argument for satisfying human needs isn't based on justice or fairness. it's based on human solidarity, which is grounded psychologically in compassion and our social nature. but this isn't all there is to say about the ethics of distribution. basically justice has to do with the absence of people using power over others in some way to obtain a benefit they don't deserve, such as labor exploitation, where the relative monopoly over the means of production by the capitalists enables them to force workers to work under an authoritarian management scheme that denies their human birthright to self-manage their own work. profits exist only because of the unequal power balance in the market that results from the relative class monopoly of the owners over the means of production.

but there are other forms of unequal power balance that can gain people unearned income, such as race oppression, or a lender gaining profit from interest, or unequal exchange between the capital rich global north and the capital poor global south, that pumps gains from work effort in the south into the bank accounts of the capitalists in the global north.

so what is "earned income"? It can't be that maket value generated through the work of the workforce is earned income for the workers -- i.e. workers don't necessarily have a claim to all the market value they produce -- because that also depends on the relative power of that firm in the market, depends on investment in that firm, depends on social investment in their education, depends on their genetically encoded talents, and none of those things are due to the efforts of the workers there.

earned income can only be based on what people have under their control, and that is the sacrifices they willingly take on or endure in social production, to provide benefits for others. so it is only work effort that can be the basis of earned income.

where equality of opportunity comes into play is whether people have an equal real chance to develop their capacities, and earn an income through their work effort. because a class system stunts the development of the skills and capacities of the working class, it denies them that opportunity, and is certainly not based on equal opportunity. allowing ownership of means of production ensures a permanent lack of equality of opportunity since the owners can pass on wealth thru inheritance and that is itself the very denial of equal opportunity.

thus we can say that exploitation takes place when people derive an unearned income from the power they have over others in the economy.

when people are denied self-management, are denied control over their work activities and denied control over the decisions that affect them, then that is oppression. class oppression is a basis of exploitation but it isn't the only basis of exploitation. exploitation also occurs in the market, as in interest income from lending, unequal market exchange due to unequal bargaining power. when race oppression leads to an entire group of people gaining less income from their work, you have a higher level of exploitation due to race oppression being added on to class oppression.

[coda]

the needs of society will always come first. my argument, when all else fails is that the distributed equality of needs should be,, simply because it's the non-scumbag thing to do.

my first argument-- because It's the only fair, humane, non-oppressive social structure and it's way overdue.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

One should put in as much as he wants, and get back as much as he wants -- with as little restrictions possible. That is seen as utopian because all previous systems have made it so everyone's goal is to take out as much doing the least.

Someone who is weaker in his abilities but works hard in his profession shouldn't be rewarded less than someone who has better abilities but is only putting in half his efforts. This results in disadvantages for that person's entire family, not only himself. Most of the problems in the world deal with wealth disparity. Prostitution. Ghettos. Poor education. Poverty.