Marxism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

[ck4829]

The New Right: From each according to his ability, to each according to his wealth and political connections

Which one is worse?

[Turbineguy]

1. Wealth and Political Connections

are Needs.

[Burma Jones]

2. Neither.......

Both systems suck if the rules suck.......

And, when entrenched policy makers make the rules, suckage will evolve.

And the absence of rules constitute rules......

[ogneopasno]

3. Funny, in my Bible it talks about how communal living is the ideal...

...from Acts 4, 32-37:

"The whole body of believers was united in heart and soul. Not a man of them claimed any of his possessions as his own, but everything was held in common...They were all held in high esteem; for they had never a needy person among them, because all who had property in land or houses sold it, brought the proceeds of the sale, and laid the money at the feet of the apostles; it was then distributed to any who stood in need."

Those nasty Marxist apostles of Jesus! Ew!

[fed_up_mother]

5. Sigh

Those people willingly chose to live in a small community like that. And it didn't effect the entire economy of the "country."

Marxism is bad for the economy, so it's bad for us in general. A mixed economy as in the progressive European countries is best, imo.

[ogneopasno]

6. I realize that.

I'm providing a simple, out-of-context refutation of the simple, out-of-context assertion that "Obama = Marxist = bad".

[Oregone]

10. "Marxism is bad for the economy" -- Not particularly true on some levels

I live in a place where the state owns a lot of the means of production (Crown Corporations), but still allows private industry to exist. The socialized businesses run efficiently and are depended on by many. They generate vital government revenue (for other programs, like Healthcare) and services for the people living there. The economy depends on the Crown Corporations here, and cheap energy, good infrastructure, and reliable transportation that the state provides all go to help out the economy in the long run.

Remember, all socialism means is that the government owns the means of production (and hence, collects the revenue). Just because the government owns 100% shares of a company, it doesn't mean that company doesn't need to run differently than any other (minus waste, abuse, and excess). It just means the government collects the profits. If you can strike a balance between the government owned entities and the privately owned entities, the entire economy can stand to benefit.

The government owning the means of production is not automatically bad for the economy (but it can be, just as private enterprise can stifle the economy with unsavory business practices).

[bean fidhleir]

13. "socialism means that the government owns the means of production"

That's only true in STATE socialism, which is indistinguishable from state capitalism aka fascism.

The canonical definition of socialism is that the *workers* own the means of *their own* production.

[Oregone]

14. The government is the workers! It is the public entity of the people, for the people.

Why don't you get that? The profits derived from the Crown Corporations provide health care for the workers and education for their children. When the government profits from the state owned companies, the *workers* profit directly from their own work.

BTW, fascism has nothing to do with this at all. In fact, in fascism, the government seeks the minimal amount of private intervention as possible. Fascism is the antithesis of socialism, a completely opposite movement, from policy to philosophy. A good primer of what fascism really is (not fake fascism, another name for corporatism): http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

[bean fidhleir]

15. Who runs the state-owned companies? The state, not the workers.

It's only the workers if you buy into the idea that "representative democracy" actually involves both representation and democracy, so that, somehow, perhaps magically, the workers really do vote to oppress themselves, sell off what they own for pennies in the quid, etc. I think such claims should be accompanied by evidence or preceded by "Once upon a time..."

[Oregone]

16. Who owns the state? The workers.

Why else would the state be using the profits to pay for services for the workers, eh?


Im not sure what you mean by "oppress themselves, sell off what they own for pennies in the quid". The workers never own the companies in the first place if they were ever private. Many 100% government owned companies were never privately owned in the first place (started publicly to begin with). And how can you claim oppression when countries that do this promote the most upward mobility amongst developed nations?

[bean fidhleir]

18. You appear to perceive no significant gap between political theory and political reality

I'll just point out that during the heyday of slavery, many enlightened slaveowners spent a considerable amount of money on the wellbeing of their slaves. But the slaves still didn't own the plantation.

[Selatius]

19. There are forms of socialism that exist outside state control.

When several workers pool their resources and start an enterprise, you have yourself a labor cooperative owned by the workers, for the workers. The state, in this example, is not involved at all beyond seeing that they fulfill regulatory/reporting requirements. The firm is essentially run by the workers, not by an office of the government.

In theory, the government is the people, but in reality, the government does things against the wishes of the people and often against the best interests of the people at large.

[Oregone]

20. A problem is that many people have a negative perception of government (due to their negative gov)

It makes ideas like this seem incoherent.

[bean fidhleir]

12. I'm no marxist, nor do I play one on the inet, but I would like to know

why you believe it would be "bad for the economy".

[lutherj]

4. From each according to his present usefulness, to each according to his

accumulated capital. Or, in other words, what have you done for me lately, suckers?

[SOS]

7. Marxism - Alaska style:

From each according to his ability (oil companies operating in Alaska), to each according to his need (every man, woman and child in Alaska).

[fed_up_mother]

8. haha Like that!

[wvbygod]

9. Ask not what your country can do for you

Ask what you can do for your country.

Much better.

[KillCapitalism]

11. Marxism is not "bad"

Gosh, you'd think we were over at FR.com with some of the hatred spewed here about Marxism.

The new right's definition is an abomination, Marx's definition is better.

[Toucano]

17. I wonder how many living Americans have actually read "The Communist Manifesto".

I bet it's a very low number.

It's public domain, so it's free if anyone is interested.

http://manybooks.net/titles/marxengelsetext93manif12.html