4 ms·

In addition to downvoting, I would really appreciate hearing from folks about what's a better way to structure society than "from each according to their abilit

by Frondo 8y ago

In addition to downvoting, I would really appreciate hearing from folks about what's a better way to structure society than "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"; and specifically, why wouldn't you want to make sure each individual's needs in the society are met?

tbrownaw 8y ago
what's a better way to structure society than "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"; That's not a structure. It's at best a goal or more realistically a slogan. and specifically, why wouldn't you want to make sure each individual's needs in the society are met? Very funny. I'd say it's more that anyone familiar with the history of that slogan knows that the systems associated with it very consistently do not work.
- Frondo 8y ago
  I don't think that's fair; it's certainly not specific, but it is a way to structure society. It's just a vague way to do it. It establishes a base minimum for what to expect from people, and what to give to people. As for the systems associated with it, I think it's an oversimplification to say they do not work. As I mentioned, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who long for a return to life under Soviet control (just from people I've met in my travels). To them, it worked. It wasn't perfect, but I didn't say that and nothing is. To a great degree, history is written by the victors, anyway. Rather than play on red scare feels, I'd appreciate engaging with the idea, and again I ask: what's better than that, and what about that don't you like? I'll even posit an alternative: personal freedom is the most important thing, even if it means people's needs aren't met. I don't agree, because the world is resource-rich enough to ensure everyone's needs are met, so where do you draw the line? who do we say it's okay for their needs not to be met? rather than defer to an amorphous "market," I'd like to hear from you whose needs should not be met.
  - showmedeadargh 8y ago
    > As for the systems associated with it, I think it's an oversimplification to say they do not work. As I mentioned, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who long for a return to life under Soviet control (just from people I've met in my travels). To them, it worked. It wasn't perfect, but I didn't say that and nothing is. To a great degree, history is written by the victors, anyway. Ever read Solzhenitsyn?
    - Frondo 8y ago
      Has your life brought you in contact with any significant number of people who grew up in the Soviet system? Or are you insinuating something only by what you've read in books? Strangest distinct memory I have of hanging with people in a post-Soviet state: partying all night long, passing out some time around 3, waking up at 5 to hearing them all singing the Soviet anthem -- not the Russian anthem, though the melody's the same -- and then talking in hushed tones the next day with some of them about life being better before the fall. And that's just one of many conversations I've had with people about this stuff. shrug
      - showmedeadargh 8y ago
        So what exactly are you claiming here? That, because you met some people who claim to prefer Soviet rule, that Soviet rule was better for everyone? That, because you met some people who claim to prefer Soviet rule, that no one suffered under Soviet oppression? That, because you met some people who claim to prefer Soviet rule, that the suffering of some under Soviet oppression was acceptable? That, because you met some people who claim to prefer Soviet rule, [insert claim here]? Additionally, are you claiming that Solzhenitsyn's claims are false? Are you dismissing his lengthy work based on some anecdotes from hung-over all-night party-goers? Are you being serious at all?
      - Frondo 8y ago
        I can't rebut the comment that replied to me here, because it's dead. But it raised a few points I do want to address. Yes, people were oppressed under the Soviet system. American capitalism is oppressive to many, too. Ask a prisoner who can now only access books on an "allowed books" list. No, soviet life wasn't better for everyone; American capitalism isn't better for everyone. Ask the millions who can't access health care and die prematurely for it. Saying that "some suffered under soviet rule, therefore it is unacceptable" sets a bar of "nobody should suffer" that is unreasonably high; it is also a bar that American capitalism very distinctly fails to clear. Suffering is great in the US. Ask the homeless, ask the struggling. There's no American freedom for them, it's an empty slogan. There's only suffering for them. My point that some prefer soviet rule is to rebut the generalization that it did not work. It didn't for many. It did for many others. American capitalism does not work for many; hence the extremism in political life. People want a change. My point is that it's an oversimplification to say ours is good, theirs was bad, when the history and reality is much more complicated than that.

by Frondo 8y ago

tbrownaw 8y ago

what's a better way to structure society than "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"; That's not a structure. It's at best a goal or more realistically a slogan. and specifically, why wouldn't you want to make sure each individual's needs in the society are met? Very funny. I'd say it's more that anyone familiar with the history of that slogan knows that the systems associated with it very consistently do not work.

Frondo 8y ago
I don't think that's fair; it's certainly not specific, but it is a way to structure society. It's just a vague way to do it. It establishes a base minimum for what to expect from people, and what to give to people. As for the systems associated with it, I think it's an oversimplification to say they do not work. As I mentioned, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who long for a return to life under Soviet control (just from people I've met in my travels). To them, it worked. It wasn't perfect, but I didn't say that and nothing is. To a great degree, history is written by the victors, anyway. Rather than play on red scare feels, I'd appreciate engaging with the idea, and again I ask: what's better than that, and what about that don't you like? I'll even posit an alternative: personal freedom is the most important thing, even if it means people's needs aren't met. I don't agree, because the world is resource-rich enough to ensure everyone's needs are met, so where do you draw the line? who do we say it's okay for their needs not to be met? rather than defer to an amorphous "market," I'd like to hear from you whose needs should not be met.
- showmedeadargh 8y ago
  > As for the systems associated with it, I think it's an oversimplification to say they do not work. As I mentioned, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who long for a return to life under Soviet control (just from people I've met in my travels). To them, it worked. It wasn't perfect, but I didn't say that and nothing is. To a great degree, history is written by the victors, anyway. Ever read Solzhenitsyn?
  - Frondo 8y ago
    Has your life brought you in contact with any significant number of people who grew up in the Soviet system? Or are you insinuating something only by what you've read in books? Strangest distinct memory I have of hanging with people in a post-Soviet state: partying all night long, passing out some time around 3, waking up at 5 to hearing them all singing the Soviet anthem -- not the Russian anthem, though the melody's the same -- and then talking in hushed tones the next day with some of them about life being better before the fall. And that's just one of many conversations I've had with people about this stuff. shrug
    - showmedeadargh 8y ago
      So what exactly are you claiming here? That, because you met some people who claim to prefer Soviet rule, that Soviet rule was better for everyone? That, because you met some people who claim to prefer Soviet rule, that no one suffered under Soviet oppression? That, because you met some people who claim to prefer Soviet rule, that the suffering of some under Soviet oppression was acceptable? That, because you met some people who claim to prefer Soviet rule, [insert claim here]? Additionally, are you claiming that Solzhenitsyn's claims are false? Are you dismissing his lengthy work based on some anecdotes from hung-over all-night party-goers? Are you being serious at all?
    - Frondo 8y ago
      I can't rebut the comment that replied to me here, because it's dead. But it raised a few points I do want to address. Yes, people were oppressed under the Soviet system. American capitalism is oppressive to many, too. Ask a prisoner who can now only access books on an "allowed books" list. No, soviet life wasn't better for everyone; American capitalism isn't better for everyone. Ask the millions who can't access health care and die prematurely for it. Saying that "some suffered under soviet rule, therefore it is unacceptable" sets a bar of "nobody should suffer" that is unreasonably high; it is also a bar that American capitalism very distinctly fails to clear. Suffering is great in the US. Ask the homeless, ask the struggling. There's no American freedom for them, it's an empty slogan. There's only suffering for them. My point that some prefer soviet rule is to rebut the generalization that it did not work. It didn't for many. It did for many others. American capitalism does not work for many; hence the extremism in political life. People want a change. My point is that it's an oversimplification to say ours is good, theirs was bad, when the history and reality is much more complicated than that.