http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025448172 Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:04 PM
Puzzledtraveller (4,745 posts)
Should people who are able to work, have to work?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
My knowledge of Marx is cursory at best but the above statement heralded by Marx but not attributed to him appears to be popular among many self identified Marxist. I wanted to know more about what Marx thought about the idea and found the following. My problem with the idea has always been that people should not have to work if they do not want to, it's that simple, for me. So I am struggling to understand why we would ever support such a system, at least the portion of "each according to his ability". As Marx himself appeared to understand that this would be applicable at some point in time in which work isn't the four letter word it is now to many. That being physical drudgery. I don't know about you but I do not see a time in the near future when work will not be physical, demanding, demeaning, repetitive and joyless as it can be to so many.
Personally I find the idea dangerous to progressivism, am I just understanding it wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need#Debates_on_the_idea
Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable—a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want". Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents
Now do you see why Marx was an idiot?
Nevermind,impossible for you loons.
Response to Puzzledtraveller (Original post)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:10 PM
conservaphobe (1,107 posts)
3. If ample work is provided and workers are provided a living wage, yes.
I don't think there's many people out there who just don't want to do anything. Guess you don`t read the DUmp
I think there's a lot of people out there, including myself, who don't want to do the abusive and degrading work that comes with unlivable wage jobs.
There's many jobs I'm capable of doing and would be happy to do, if provided.
In an economy that provided work like that for everyone, there'd be no excuse for an able person to sit at home... but in this economy that is a totally irrelevant expectation.
So that is your built in excuse for being a parasite.
Response to Puzzledtraveller (Original post)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:12 PM
woo me with science (27,861 posts)
4. ...
Response to woo me with science (Reply #4)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:16 PM
Puzzledtraveller (4,745 posts)
5. Damn, thank you!
Thought I was on the fringe with how I see it, well, maybe it is the fringe, but I'm staying put.
Trust me,you are the norm for the democrat party base,a useless taker.
Response to woo me with science (Reply #4)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:35 PM
Star Member hunter (19,733 posts)
10. R. Buckminster Fuller is correct.
We have the ability to get rid of all the shitty menial mind-destroying work, the ability to retire all the abusive bosses, and all the rotten cops.
The protestant "work ethic" needs to be killed dead and buried with all the other toxic crap of this society.
What we proudly call "economic productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we do to earth's environment and our own humanity.
Everyone needs to step back and chill out.
A twenty or thirty hour workweek, long vacations, early retirements with good pensions, free education throughout life, a minimum wage that supports a comfortable standard or living, a national single payer health care plan, and a very generous welfare system would be a good place to start.
You forgot the damn pony!
Response to woo me with science (Reply #4)
Wed Aug 27, 2014, 03:05 AM
Star Member BainsBane (28,698 posts)
22. We already have that. It's called capitalism
Only it's only a few who are supported by the many. But of course the perpetually self-entitled believe they should be able to sit back while the peons labor to support them. No wonder some speak so favorably of Rand Paul. He supports the idea that the rich should pay not taxes, have no regulation, and be entirely untethered in their exploitation of labor.
I have seen right-wingers joke about shit like this. but I have never encountered people who actually strove to do and be absolutely nothing.
Somehow you managed it now get busy,that sammich isn`t making itself.
Response to Puzzledtraveller (Original post)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:25 PM
Erich Bloodaxe BSN (3,228 posts)
7. Provide the jobs, and a lot more people will happily work.
Despite what RWers think, most people who aren't working aren't simply 'lazy'.
Response to Puzzledtraveller (Original post)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:25 PM
Matrosov (81 posts)
8. Then wouldn't the entire system unravel?
I have always thought of fFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as a sort of contract between the people.
If you have the ability to work, then you should contribute to the rest of society in the best way that you can. In return for your contribution, the rest of society provides you to have your needs met.
The doctor works to keep people healthy. The farmer works to feed people. The tailor works to clothe people. The carpenter works to provide people with shelter.
In return, the ones I just mentioned don't have to worry about their health, their food, their clothes, and their homes, because society provides them with these things.
If someone has the ability to work but does not wish to contribute, they don't have the greater good of society in mind. They are being selfish, and this kind of behavior would lead to the unraveling of the whole system.
You are not long for the world.
Response to Puzzledtraveller (Original post)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:28 PM
kelly1mm (2,644 posts)
9. There are thousands of people early retireing (in 30's-40's) due to the ACA and 401k
plans. My wife retired this past June after 22 years as a teacher (she is 46). I will retire next April (I am in the tax field) at 44. Some of said upon hearing of our retirement and especially our plan to use ACA subsidies to pay for health care that we had a duty to work,even though we have more than enough assets and after tax investments to last way past our pensions kicking in and then SS. Heck, even without SS we should be fine.
This has been discussed numerous times in early retirement forums. If interested, I would recommend Mr. Money Mustache for 'regular' early retirement tips and if you want to go hardcore (like 7 years from $0 to retired) then check out early retirement extreme.
No financial interest in either of them by the way. Just helped me to formulate a plan.
Hope you both are dead within a year you ****ing leech.
Response to Puzzledtraveller (Original post)
Tue Aug 26, 2014, 10:44 PM
Star Member ohnoyoudidnt (734 posts)
11. No.
Our tax system defiinetely needs some adjustments, but no one should be forced to work. If the inheritance tax was 50 percent and an heir paid their tax and doesn't have to work for a living,
then I would have no problem with that.
Lazy vermin.
