cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
How is this different from the central mistake of Marxism? Y'know, the famous one? "Everyone according to his ability; to everyone according to his need." cn
Time to reject the Malthusian notion that our lives must be justified by drudgery.
- Thread starter abandonconflict
- Start date
How is this different from the central mistake of Marxism? Y'know, the famous one? "Everyone according to his ability; to everyone according to his need." cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Marx's central mistake was essentially the same one I am fighting, nobody is bound to serve. However, nobody ought to be entitled to such an excess that others are deprived.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
So, are you suggesting that everyone should be equally compensated for their work? The burger flipper at McDonalds is paid the same as the ER doctor? The burger flipper who decides that flipping burgers is boring and unrewarding and decides to retire gets to collect his equal wage?
I am not trolling you, I am just trying to understand your point here.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
No, someone who performs an essential function or genuinely makes their community better ought to be rewarded. That being said, the rest of the community ought not to be enslaved by debt to income ratio in a system that can not reward altruism.
I am saying that someone flipping burgers works far harder than someone who inherits McDonalds. That inheritor can not have excess with out the multitudes of burger flippers, who only continue such drudgery in order to survive. So no, burger flippers should not be paid what doctors are paid, but someone working their ass off to make someone who doesn't work their ass off rich does deserve a greater share of the fruits of their labor. In order to do this, work should not be mandatory for survival, but those who perform what work there is to be done, should be rewarded for their contributions. There is enough to go around, and such a system of wage slavery can not reward altruism. It demands action devoid of wisdom. It relies on the deprivation of sustenance of third world peoples. It relies on the prohibition of goods which obviate demand for the goods provided by it. It absolutely favors an opulent few over the masses laboring to make it possible.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
There is not enough work to go around to justify making everyone work for the provisions which exist in excess and which are necessary for survival. Maybe everyone should just work shorter days.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I'm missing something. How did we sidestep "from everybody/to everybody"? Are you agreeing or disagreeing? If disagreeing, what are you identifying as Marxism's central mistake? cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Dissenting opinion. There's enough work for everybody. It's unpaid however, and that's why you don't see squads of the otherwise unoccupied picking grocery bags off Arctic beaches. cn
Doer
Well-Known Member
This is the problem. Should. No one should. That is Marxism.
Money doesn't grow in trees. So, this idea is Robbing Hood.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Our system does not reward that kind of work.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But even though unrewarded, it's justified, no? cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Money doesn't grow on trees, but everything needed for survival does.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You are applying the word justified differently.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Just making up definitions, now? The problem is you came out of the gate without explaining what in the world you mean by justification.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Good for you. You're starting to get it.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I explained it succinctly actually. Read the title of the thread again.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Apologies but imo that deserves a "you just went full retard" meme. Consider a Paleolithic man, hardly encumbered by material possessions. He typically had two possessions, listed in order of importance.
1) spear
2) garment
Neither (as a good spear has a knapped-stone point) grows on a tree.
To extrapolate, a sustainable/agrarian society has abandoned the skies to the ancestral gods. Don't counsel retreat; that can only lead to extinction. cn
Doer
Well-Known Member
But, you just want to take the money, that does not just grow itself. It takes risk. You are saying the rich should feed the poor.
And you say it as if the rich are not feeding the poor. The rich fear the mob just like everyone else. There is so much going out of the US, but you still sneer. You can't tell in your own mind, where and when the balance would occur. You seem to want a world where the earning is constrained. That hardly supports earning enough to feed the poor. Dead end. Thomas Malthus.
So, it is not really about breeding and it is certainly not racism. It is more about the house rape of women that know the children will starve. Yes, it is sex and the dark heart of man. Feeding with no responsibility training or opportunity is just making it worse, despite your hate.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I stopped reading here. You're way off.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I can't comment since I'm just not getting a grip on how you mean it originally. I thought a central plank of your thesis was that justification is to be decoupled from reward, like pay. cn
