RoR: Forum

Hi, Bill.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I've always found that slogan to be ambiguous. I'm not trying to dodge the question; I don't know how it connects with what I stated in post #5. Does "ability" in the first phrase mean the ability to give money to the needy, or the ability to be successful at some profession, as in "the men of ability"? If it's the former, then those on the left would agree with it. Of course those with the wealth should give to those in need. That's the moral thing to do and therefore the government should force them to do it. If the latter, then I would say no. Ability is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for wealth in our society. I don't think the target of the left is people of ability; it's the wealthy.

As to the second phrase: I take that to mean the more one needs the more one should get. Well, I think those on the left would say yes, as long as the needs were valid, and not just wants. For those below a certain level of prosperity, the lower they are, the more they need, so the more they should get to bring them up to an "acceptable" level of prosperity.

Wikipedia attributes the slogan to Marx and interprets it as:

... every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs.

Even this is still open to interpretation. The word "contribute" could be interpreted in such a way that the first part would correspond to the virtue of productivity, according to Objectivism. That's probably not what was intended, but I'm just trying to emphasize that the slogan is ambiguous.

So, if you want a better answer, you'll need to explain how you interpret the slogan.

Thanks,
Glenn

P.S.: Do I have to state explicitly here that I don't agree with the left?

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 5/28, 6:17am)

Post 21

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 6:55am

"P.S.: Do I have to state explicitly here that I don't agree with the left?"

No. You'd have to state explicitly that you don't agree that the foundation of communism, socialism, and Marxism embodied by that ambiguous but less than fringe statement has a direct and obvious relationship to the left and the policies advocated by the left.

But you don't really need to do that either. You can instead furrow your brow, squint your eyes, and claim you don't see the connection, dismiss that axiom of the left as fringe, and claim instead an acceptance(as in, a reasonable collectivist chocolate to the alternative vanilla of individual freedom)of the latest necessary re-marketing of those same ideas after the train wrecks of all the scientific states that buried millions in service to those ideas in the last century.

And then you can assume that others won't notice.

Because after all, Fabians aren't Marxists.

And Marxists aren't socialists.

And socialists aren't Communists.

And communists aren't Progressives.

And the left in our political context is never what the last failure was, except apologists for the Great Idea that never is.

As in, Stalin was a bad left winger, and hence, a right winger.

And Hitler's brand of national socialism was really a fervent march of individual liberty run amok.

And Pol Pot was a mere agrarian Marxist, and we all know how all that fresh air spoils the intent.

And Myanmar is not a bunch of out of control socialist strong men, why no, it is a bunch of right wing militarists.

And Saddam's Ba'ath Socialist Party was Arab Socialism, not real socialism. Ditto what is going on in Syria as well as Qaddafi's Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Zimbabwe? Jesus.

But in spite of the endless lessons and piles of corpses rotting under the sun, the left in this country clings to these great tribal collectivist ideas because of American exceptionalism and the belief that this beast has enough carcass to carve to finally make this stinker fly.

As they must, having been subjected to deliberate left wing indoctrination in our over-run and deliberately attacked education system, inadequately defended by totally open borders, totally open campuses, and an absolute and ironic dedication to academic 'freedom.'

I am a firm advocate that the tenets of Marxism should have always been freely studied on American college campuses, in the context of freedom. Just like cancer -- with the hope for a someday cure for mankind. But it is one thing to freely study cancer in the context of freedom, and another thing to advocate the deliberate infection of this once free nation with universal cancer.

Is that what actually happened on American college campuses during the Cold War, in regards to Marxism? Was it studied, with the hope for a cure? Or was it sold-- for decades by deliberately targeted waves of agents at a few inbred choke points of indoctrination, and today, by the now self-replicating instructoids still infecting the nation, long after the supposed public collapse of the Soviet Union?

"S"ociety is God, the state is its proper church, and from each according to his ability, to each according to his need is God's plan.

Dress up the left in America as you will, but that is their got to have it theocratic alternative to individual liberty and freedom. It is a got-to-have-it paradigm that justifies throwing relationships between mankind based n free association under the bus in exchange for one based on forced association at the point of a gun. Tell, don't ask. Because that is what religious fervor does.

And too late; I've already had and am having a nice life, thank you.

regards,
Fred

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 5/28, 7:04am)

Post 22

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 9:48am

Hi Glenn,

You wrote,

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I've always found that slogan to be ambiguous. I'm not trying to dodge the question; I don't know how it connects with what I stated in post #5.

Well, at the very least I would think the slogan means that each person should be provided what he needs from whoever is able to provide it, whether from greater productivity or from greater wealth. How does it connect with your statements in Post #5? There you stated, "Ask someone on the left why the government should redistribute wealth and they will say, and mean, something like the following: '. . .the government should take from those who have and give to those in need.'"

Post 23

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 10:32am

OK, Bill.
I agree that a person who argued as I suggested in post #5 would probably agree with your interpretation of the slogan. So, what's the next premise? I assume you're leading me through an argument.

Post 24

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 1:53pm

Hi Glenn,

Well, yes. So the upshot is that, according to your characterization, the average run-of-the-mill leftist is a communist. He or she just doesn't have the guts to admit it. Sounds reasonable to me.

Post 25

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 2:00pm

On the other hand, perhaps this article explains everything:

Nation Down to Last Hundred Grown-Ups

According to alarming new figures released Monday by the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation's population of mature adults has been pushed to the brink of extinction, with only 104 grown-ups remaining in the country today.

The endangered demographic, which is projected to die out completely by 2060, is reportedly distinguished from other groups by numerous unique traits, including foresight, rationality, understanding of how to obtain and pay for a mortgage, personal responsibility, and the ability to enter a store without immediately purchasing whatever items they see and desire.

Please have a sense of humor when reading this.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/28, 2:01pm)

Post 26

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 5:24pm

Bill,
Now you're just being silly. All communists may believe that slogan, but not all people who believe that slogan are communists. Belief in that slogan does not make you a communist anymore than believing in freedom makes you an Objectivist.

Post 27

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 7:06pm

Glenn,

Here is the problem. The far left has a long tradition of using words to achieve political ends without regard for consistent use or clear meaning. They seem to really like fuzzy concepts and flexible vocabulary.

What is "communism" - a political system? An economic system? A set of policies imposed by a communist party? A sociopolitical movement? A specific stage of historical development?

How can one know what a communist is without knowing what communism is?

Here is a some material from Wikipedia: "Communists such as council communists and non-Marxist libertarian communists and anarcho-communists, as well as some Marxist-Leninists who have progressively abandoned many of the basic assumptions of Leninism, oppose the idea of a vanguard party and a transition stage, and advocate for the construction of full communism to begin immediately upon the abolition of capitalism."

So, there are lots of different kinds of communists recognized by those in the academic far left: Council communists, non-Marxist libertarian communists, Stalinists, Trotskites, anarcho-communists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, Christian communists, etc.

They all share this: They have a central control to ensure distribution: every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. They have no private property, then no one keeps any of what they produce except what they need to consume with the rest being distributed to those who don't produce all that they need. They advocate some form of control to prohibit the private property and to enact the distribution (Note: I have no idea what the various anarchist-communists posit as control, or alternatively, how they explain distribution without it - and I dont care.)
-----------------------

Historically, the concept of ability producing, some control that governs distributing, and the idea of need determining consuming, and no private property is a concept that goes back earlier than Marx - at least the general idea, if not the details of the control mechanism.

French communist Morelly, proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society" including:

I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws (Code of Nature)

Utopian socialist Henri de Saint-Simon (17 October 1760 – 19 May 1825) came later and had all of those elements.

Then came Louis Blanc in 1840, in "The organization of work", and he too provided those key elements.

And then Karl Marx, who popularied the saying, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to their need". (Wikipedia)

Politics is always an implementation of moral principles. All of the communists were drawing on altruism - take a look at the New Testement:

Matthew 25:15 And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to each according to his ability. And he went abroad at once.
Acts 2:45 And they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need.
Acts 4:32-35 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

So here we have another "From those according to their ability and to those according to their need" but it is advocated as a moral principle and does not proscribe a political control mechanism to implement the prevention of private property and to provide the distribution.

I'd say that communism is a political implementation of the altruistic/statist principle of taking from those who have the ability to produce more than they need and to distribute it to those whose needs cannot be met by what they produce. It is a system that is based upon prevention of anyone holding private property.

Since implementation is rarely 100% the question still arises as to when the principle is sufficiently in effect to stay that it is a communist state. Is it better to look at the percent of implementation? Or, to look at degree to which the principle supplants the opposing principles? Lots of confusions and imprecision in trying to make measurements.

Post 28

Saturday, May 28, 2011 - 7:29pm

Glenn

All communists may believe that slogan, but not all people who believe that slogan are communists. Belief in that slogan does not make you a communist anymore than believing in freedom makes you an Objectivist.

I think you mistake a political philosophical identification with one that is more expansive in scope, i.e. an integrative philosophy like Objectivism. "Leftist" connotes a political ideology, just as communism does. Objectivism while has a political ideology attached to it (liberty or laissez-faire capitalism) it's not the only facet of it so a libertarian or capitalist identifies as a political position, just as 'leftist' or 'socialist' or 'communist' identifies a political position, but Objectivist identifies both a political position and an ethical and epistemological and romantic one.

The slogan then, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." identifies a political belief. Just as a slogan of "Don't Tread on Me" is something a libertarian or capitalist would believe, and, an Objectivist would as well since all Objectivists are capitalists.

Mathematically explained

Liberty or Capitalism (A) is a subset of Objectivism (B)

"Leftist", Communist, socialist, all believe in some kind of centralization of power to achieve "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." And are thus all in the same 'set'.

Something analogous, all Christians believe Christ was resurrected, but believing that Christ was resurrected doesn't necessarily make you a Mormon. Yet, a Mormon isn't afraid to identify himself as a Christian unlike leftists in this country who don't have the integrity to admit they believe in a communist or socialist ideology.

Post 29

Sunday, May 29, 2011 - 1:30am

Hi Glenn,

You wrote,

Now you're just being silly. All communists may believe that slogan, but not all people who believe that slogan are communists. Belief in that slogan does not make you a communist anymore than believing in freedom makes you an Objectivist.

Well, as you know, that slogan was popularized by Karl Marx and epitomizes his social philosophy. So I would say that at the very least anyone who believes in that slogan upholds the same social philosophy as Marx. If you don't want to call that social philosophy "communism," fine, but that's what it amounts to.

True not everyone who believes in that Marxist principle is a member of the Communist Party or advocates violent revolution or the withering away of the state, but he or she does nevertheless hold the same underlying social philosophy as Marx did, and that says a lot.

Post 30

Sunday, May 29, 2011 - 7:10am

An absolute remarketing necessity.

I'll have to add that one to my already long list:

"People who support FEATHA, TEATHN are not Communists."

Post 31

Sunday, May 29, 2011 - 10:33am

At the risk of making things worse, let me try to defend Glenn.

It appears that, in post 5, Glenn's point:

All that matters is that they have more than they "need" and they should be forced to give some to those who need it. And it has nothing to do with need being a virtue. They want to relieve what they consider to be the suffering of those in need by forcing others to help.

... was that need (and not ability) is the Left's primary moral focus. It means that "ability" to leftists either means nothing or it means nothing more than "ability to pay" (for those in need). It means that sacrifice (and not need) is the Left's cardinal virtue. It is a political formalization of the "What you give" song by 90's rock band, Tesla :

http://tunecaster.com/sample/t/tesla-what-you-give-1992.html

"It's not what you got, it's what you give." It's not what you got, -- i.e., it is not about your ability or even your ability to pay (prior level of wealth). it's what you give -- it is about a willful sacrifice, or giving, of what it is that you have to others who don't have as much as you. It is their relative needs that circumscribe -- or pre-ordain -- what kind of behavior (on your part) can or could be called moral.

If they need a lot of stuff, and you don't give a lot, then you are immoral.

Am I right, Glenn?

Ed

p.s. It seems that we can focus on at least 4 factors

1) the needs of others (as perceived, prioritized, or invented, by elite Leftists)
2) the sacrifice of self
3) the prior wealth of potential givers
4) the ability of potential givers to go back out and make more money

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/29, 10:40am)

Post 32

Sunday, May 29, 2011 - 4:28pm

Ed,

It seems clear that Marx meant that everyone should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs, and that his thinking is emblematic of the left's social philosophy. However, in your interpretation of Glenn, you write that

it is not about your ability or even your ability to pay (prior level of wealth). it's what you give -- it is about a willful sacrifice, or giving, of what it is that you have to others who don't have as much as you. It is their relative needs that circumscribe -- or pre-ordain -- what kind of behavior (on your part) can or could be called moral.

If they need a lot of stuff, and you don't give a lot, then you are immoral.

Am I right, Glenn?

I don't know what Glenn would say, but I don't think that that's what he meant. What if you don't have a lot to give? Are you still immoral? How can that be, if morality governs only what is open to your choice? Doesn't the amount you should give depend as well on your ability to give? If you've got more, then according to the left, you should give more; if you've got less, you should give less. From each according to his ABILITY to give, to each according to his needs.

Post 33

Sunday, May 29, 2011 - 4:56pm

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," is the combination of a demand for sacrifice, the denial of property rights, a hatred of capitalism, disdain for those of ability, and the creation of a centralized control to force this on everyone and to carry out the redistribution (a centralized control that each advocate of this system imagines they will be in charge of).

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 5/30, 12:21pm)

Post 34

Sunday, May 29, 2011 - 5:36pm

1993. Clinton retroactively raises income tax rates on incomes over 250,000/yr. This is the surcharge tax on incomes over 250,000/yr currently under hot debate as being an absolutely necessity to try and maintain record levels of government spending.

His explicit justification?

"To make those who unfairly benefited from the 80's finally pay their fair share."

No doubt, some of that might have occurred. But that isn't who the tax was aimed at. It was aimed in a blanket fashion at everyone who earned over $250,000/yr. The implication was that anyone who earned over $250,000/yr in 1993 was somebody who unfairly benefited from the 80's.

With some irony, I don't think he was referring to sweet insider Whitewater land deals.

What was the moral foundation for his blanket indictment, aimed crudely at everyonw earning over $250,000/yr?

Is it easy to earn over $250,000/yr? Is doing so a defacto admission of criminal activity, or an 'unfair' activity?

What did that left leaning president of of the United States of America possibly mean by that statement?

It was a cheap political hack. He had no convincing justification, and instead, made it easier to sell by painting a minority in this once free nation as de facto criminals based purely on their ability to earn over $250,000/yr.

It was one of the most un-American statements by any US President in history. It was baseless class warfare aimed with the precision of an blunt axe.

It was pandering to the very worst within us. As I said up thread politics based ultimately on two words: tribal envy.

The politics of a lout. It was painless political demogoguery of a minority class in a nation that at the time had an AWI of about $30,000/yr.

It was gutless pandering, and still is.

Post 35

Sunday, May 29, 2011 - 7:32pm

Bill,

What if you don't have a lot to give? Are you still immoral?

No. Because then you get a "pass." The morality gets inverted for you; and you become a "receiver" rather than a "giver." There is one morality for the givers, and another morality for the receivers -- and we need an elite leftist to sort them out for us.

How can that be, if morality governs only what is open to your choice?

Because morality governs only what is open to the choice of rich people. Only they can be either moral or immoral. Poor people, by default, are already moral.

Doesn't the amount you should give depend as well on your ability to give?

I guess.

If you've got more, then according to the left, you should give more; if you've got less, you should give less.

There is a magic number, a threshold salary or income, separating the givers from the receivers. Only elite leftists know what that number is -- and it may change at any moment if the feelings of elite leftists change. One day, a certain salary or income will be one associated with being a giver. The next day -- because of feelings -- that same salary or income will be associated with being a receiver.

In the 1930's, if you didn't have bread and milk, you were a receiver. In the 21st Century, if you don't have 3 cell phones, 2 cars, an iPad, $15 per week in lottery tickets, a stocked mini-bar, 3 flat-screen TVs, air-conditioning, and $5000 breast implants -- then you are a receiver.

:-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/29, 7:41pm)

Post 36

Monday, May 30, 2011 - 1:53am

Just remember that what the people in government want isn't wealth redistribution--that's going on by the minute, hour, day, month, year, etc.--but the authority to do it for the rest of us. Wealth circulates all the time but the big issue is whether those who own it or those who extort it are doing the redistribution. Its about the right to act vis-a-vis the resources that belong to one.

Post 37

Wednesday, June 1, 2011 - 4:23pm

Machan:

It's about the right to act vis-a-vis the resources that belong to one.

The left would say, the "resources that one got." Was given. That fell from the sky, unabetted, into one's lap, with no effort on their own.

Resources fall from the sky, like rain, and are scooped up by the quick. Unequally. It is up to the Emperors of Enough, the Emperors of Effort, to decree what is real work, what is real effort, what is real value, and to correct these unequal outcomes.

Affable folks like Obama. Who look cool in their suits.

Who pose well, when they aren't organizing communities.

Or, running 'the' economy.

They inevitably arrive after the fact. After the effort has been made. To give us their decrees.

When they ask, they are acting as free men in a free nation.

But decrees are not about the uncomfortable necessity of asking. Asking is what occurs between free men as peers, governed by free association.

When they tell instead, at the point of a gun, it is mystery in a free nation...

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 6/01, 4:25pm)

Post 38

Thursday, June 2, 2011 - 8:02am

Luke:

The argument says that rich people sitting on "dead equity" cheat themselves and others by not letting others spend that money on consumables that in turn employ producers who in turn generate tax revenues.

That argument is made, but it is 180 degrees wrong.

Rich people sitting on 'dead equity' are holding value-proxies, not value. They are holding IOUs for value.

They have created more than they consume. Their excess value is loose in the economies. What they are holding is not value, but value-proxies. (When is this not the case? When the 'wealthy' in our nation are holding paper printed by the government and artificially injected into our economies. When enough of that is mixed into our economies, and it is all the 'same' currency, we have a problem-- the sick economies we see today.)

There is a lot of confusion over what money is. Money is not value; money is a placeholder for value. When 'rich people' are sitting on 'money in the bank' and not 'spending' it, they are taking less value from the economies than they are providing to the economies.

They are inevitably investing in the future of our economies, one way or the other. The desire to 'tax the rich' is the desire to 'screw the future and spend immediately, today, now.'

I have a derelict older sister, complete alcoholic. Left the house when I was 4 or 5, I can count on one hand the number of times she and I have talked in 50 years. I hear anecdotes of her self destructive behavior from my middle sister, who does have a relationship with her. I've earned a living by doing business all over the world, bringing taxable income into the USA. I have no concept at all of what our relative financial statements look like, and don't care, she made her own bed, but the idea that something called 'society' or 'the economy' is better served by removing my marginal income to buy her cigarettes, booze and illegal drugs outside of our taxable economies is laughable.

That would literally be, removing investment in the future and sending it up in smoke, today, as immediate consumption. It would be short sighted beyond a doubt. Not only economically baseless, but pointless, except for the real issue: it would no doubt buy her vote.

Economies do not run only downhill. It is a terrible disservice to Keynes to call 'spend always' Keynesian Theory. Keyne's theory had two necessary parts:

Save and invest during boom times.
Spend during bust times.

That is not the same as what modern politicians have always done without exception or let up:

Borrow from the future and spend during boom times.
Borrow from the future and spend faster during bust times.

That is running only down the hill insanity. We can't suddenly turn to Keynes only during busts and call 'borrow from the future and spend faster' Keynesian Theory.' That is a FAIL.

That is a constant de-investment in future economies. After ... decades and decades, generations of this tribal 'economic policy,' those forever borrowed from and de-invested in future economies are here. Broke ass busted for the long haul. The universe has arrived to slap us up the side of head with reality.

And still we cling to our childish wants, like subsidized booze, cigarettes and drugs for my derelict sister in exchange for her vote.

The left abuses Keynes by calling spending 'Keynesian Economics' and thinks the entire world as well as the universe in general will let them get away with that slick marketing campaign.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 6/02, 8:07am)

Post 39

Thursday, June 2, 2011 - 8:14am