Each according to their ability to each according to their need
Author
each according to their ability to each according to their need.
they way i interpret this statement - I see is as economically optimun.
"who determines what I need?"
my answer from my interpretation is it is both a group decision and a personal decision.
I actually perceive it as fair comensation for effort.
How much you need to pay ME to do this for YOU.
that is just straightforward low level capitalism. here capitalism is fine and dandy.
So you or me decides how much compensation is required for me to do a task.
And then the task commander - be it the group, via the state authority, or the private employer - sets the compensation level they're willing to work for, the market will hopefully find a fairly static balance then after. It probably more or less suceeds.
the question that capitalists never ask and why their ideology is flawed is this: Who sets the compensation - pay - of the task master.
a chairman of some uber corp can set his own pay - a sort of convenient situation for him, but certainly not convenient for everybody else.
Issues to consider - social cohesion and economic inefficiency.
It is inefficient to pay people more than they actually need to do, to be willing to do the job.
at the moment: THE COMPENSATION levels needed for elites to do their job is UNKNOWN - they set their own value hidden through layers of hierarchy from market forces.
fellow shareholders- elites declaring each others worth. Circle jerking against society.
Capitalists deal in fantasy, Socialists deal in reality.
Quote:Original post by Promit
Warsong v2.0? With added Uber_Schnoz?
This theory is actually believable enough to be unnerving.
well done, you've just told us what i'm sure we all knew, yet presented no counter position...
Even socialism wouldnt work to stop this problem, while it might mitigate it a bit you still need a central agencey to control everything and, well, as they are controlling everything then its ownly natural they get more money for the work they are doing and so they vote their own pay and the cycle carries on.
Every 'fair' system fails simply because we arent evolved enuff past our monkey tribe past. The people at the top always want more for less and they get it coz they are in control, the people at the bottom get shafted.
Ofcourse the flip side is, without the ability to get more, why work in the first place?
'well, coz the rest of socity will suffer'
Again, this doesnt work, people dont give a stuff about over people, everyone is pretty much out for what they can get, if there is no reason to work harder (pay rise, fancy car, whatever) then they wont and will do the minimum required to get through the day.
Sure, there are some people who wont fit the mold but the majority do.. heck, I'm in the majority myself simply because the majority control everything (I wont work if i'm not paid and my time is worth at least £10/$18 an hour to someone), yeah I have high minded thoughts but unless the world changes I wont act on 'em coz there is no point, and i wont be alone in that.
So yes, the current system sucks, show me one which doesnt on some level and i'll be impressed.
Even socialism wouldnt work to stop this problem, while it might mitigate it a bit you still need a central agencey to control everything and, well, as they are controlling everything then its ownly natural they get more money for the work they are doing and so they vote their own pay and the cycle carries on.
Every 'fair' system fails simply because we arent evolved enuff past our monkey tribe past. The people at the top always want more for less and they get it coz they are in control, the people at the bottom get shafted.
Ofcourse the flip side is, without the ability to get more, why work in the first place?
'well, coz the rest of socity will suffer'
Again, this doesnt work, people dont give a stuff about over people, everyone is pretty much out for what they can get, if there is no reason to work harder (pay rise, fancy car, whatever) then they wont and will do the minimum required to get through the day.
Sure, there are some people who wont fit the mold but the majority do.. heck, I'm in the majority myself simply because the majority control everything (I wont work if i'm not paid and my time is worth at least £10/$18 an hour to someone), yeah I have high minded thoughts but unless the world changes I wont act on 'em coz there is no point, and i wont be alone in that.
So yes, the current system sucks, show me one which doesnt on some level and i'll be impressed.
From each according to their ability to each according to their need.
At least get the quote right.
At least get the quote right.
Author
we havent evolved much from our monkey past - is actually used as a counter to socialism?
on the contrary - it is our recent emergence out of peasant tribalism that should guide us and give us confidence in socialism.
in a small village of what - 20 people, there is much comunal behaviour and cooperation.
this is the way humanity has been either settled in small villages or in nomadic groups for eons.
Leadership might not be democratic but it is relevent and meaningful to the peeps. you never really here of villages which are internally facist murdering each other and what not.
Being a peasant you see is nice. the average peasant or huntergather throughout history worked about 25 hours per week or less.
One of the reason for this freedom is that there is freedom. Nobody to tell you what to do, nobody to demand and enforce you into some variety of slavery.
And now we live in a civilisation were all land and property is owned in vast proportion by elites. This is quite unnatural and disenfranchising: a simple example:
The people have the option to be a free peasant removed from them by property rights written by and for the elite. In compensation for this freedom taken - is in part the welfare state.
trouble is, because the status quo has existed for more than a lifetime to some it seems inevitably normal. but it is not how humanity is. humanity is not evolved for these circumstance, happily we have brains and we can use them. And the way to run high population societies is through application of socialism.
on the contrary - it is our recent emergence out of peasant tribalism that should guide us and give us confidence in socialism.
in a small village of what - 20 people, there is much comunal behaviour and cooperation.
this is the way humanity has been either settled in small villages or in nomadic groups for eons.
Leadership might not be democratic but it is relevent and meaningful to the peeps. you never really here of villages which are internally facist murdering each other and what not.
Being a peasant you see is nice. the average peasant or huntergather throughout history worked about 25 hours per week or less.
One of the reason for this freedom is that there is freedom. Nobody to tell you what to do, nobody to demand and enforce you into some variety of slavery.
And now we live in a civilisation were all land and property is owned in vast proportion by elites. This is quite unnatural and disenfranchising: a simple example:
The people have the option to be a free peasant removed from them by property rights written by and for the elite. In compensation for this freedom taken - is in part the welfare state.
trouble is, because the status quo has existed for more than a lifetime to some it seems inevitably normal. but it is not how humanity is. humanity is not evolved for these circumstance, happily we have brains and we can use them. And the way to run high population societies is through application of socialism.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
