3 ms·

That's a really interesting perspective. For what it's worth, that's a modern variant of Marx & Engels argument against equality (opportunity or outcome). They

That's a really interesting perspective. For what it's worth, that's a modern variant of Marx & Engels argument against equality (opportunity or outcome). They say equality is a bourgeois tool to deal with capitalism's shortcomings. They stipulated that there will be no equality (neither of opportunity nor of outcome) in a communist society, and that that was a great thing. Instead of equality (opportunity or outcome) they suggested "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [1]. The idea behind this line of thought is that equality matters only if you don't have enough, but communist society will provide so much surplus that envy simply disappears, and equality withers. It is interesting to ponder the correctness of this line of thought, e.g. do the slim in the rich world envy the obese, despite the latter consuming more food? Traces of this argument go back to Aristotle. Marx & Engels erred in that they assumed capitalist modes of production cannot produce vast amounts of surplus. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...

golemotron 8y ago
The other error was assuming that envy ever goes away. People compete for status, attention and countless other intangibles even when their physical needs are met.
- YorkshireSeason 8y ago
  when their physical needs While all basic physical needs are certainly met in the developed world, it's questionable if most people's (or at least most men's) sexual needs (which could be classified as physical) are fully met. It's difficult sometimes to shake off the feeling that some status competition is sexual competition that dare not speak its name.
  - JohnWilcox 8y ago
    Not that anyone will see this, but unfortunately for all of us, what is totally missing from this line of thought is the religious restraints regarding jealousy and coveting that are direct responses to the most primitive impulses of humans, that the more you have the more it's not enough, especially when you didn't work for it. It is just as true for the elite who don't work for what they have, as well as the parasitic savages that have been allowed to infest the civilized world (ironically, to enrich and empower the elite) that become ever more greedy and covetous with every bit of thing they are given without having earned or deserved it.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs Unmentioned is the judgment that you don't need that, I don't need this, buy they do need that other thing. I'm being overly generic, but what counts as a need and what needs are fulfilled is still a political issue of discrimination in communism. Do you need shelter if the weather isn't lethal? Do you need food that is anything above the bare minimum to survive? Do you need emotional support? All needs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

golemotron 8y ago

The other error was assuming that envy ever goes away. People compete for status, attention and countless other intangibles even when their physical needs are met.

YorkshireSeason 8y ago
when their physical needs While all basic physical needs are certainly met in the developed world, it's questionable if most people's (or at least most men's) sexual needs (which could be classified as physical) are fully met. It's difficult sometimes to shake off the feeling that some status competition is sexual competition that dare not speak its name.
- JohnWilcox 8y ago
  Not that anyone will see this, but unfortunately for all of us, what is totally missing from this line of thought is the religious restraints regarding jealousy and coveting that are direct responses to the most primitive impulses of humans, that the more you have the more it's not enough, especially when you didn't work for it. It is just as true for the elite who don't work for what they have, as well as the parasitic savages that have been allowed to infest the civilized world (ironically, to enrich and empower the elite) that become ever more greedy and covetous with every bit of thing they are given without having earned or deserved it.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs Unmentioned is the judgment that you don't need that, I don't need this, buy they do need that other thing. I'm being overly generic, but what counts as a need and what needs are fulfilled is still a political issue of discrimination in communism. Do you need shelter if the weather isn't lethal? Do you need food that is anything above the bare minimum to survive? Do you need emotional support? All needs are equal, but some are more equal than others.