9 ms·

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accordi

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [0] [0]: 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...

bheadmaster 4y ago
Assuming an employer is the proper authority for deciding how much workers "need", and completely ignoring the conflict of interest.
- weberer 4y ago
  Yeah, that's generally seen as one of the major problems with Marxism.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    The other was, working as little as possible, because you got paid the same, no matter what. Source: lived in a socialist country
    - medo-bear 4y ago
      also owned own home https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Will someone please think of the landlords?
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Back in socialist time, the government was the landlord for a huge percentage of that... they literally took peoples private houses away after WW2, and rented them out to people. Only after the split of yugoslavia, they sold the taxpayer paid and built apartments to then-current renters for peanuts.
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        I know it's probably just a username, but you don't happen to be the real Ajs Nigrutin, do you?
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        No lol :D i just needed a throwaway to argue about something "back then", and guess what was on the radio :)
        medo-bear 4y ago
        sure it was a landlord that had no right to kick you out
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        So.. basically the same as any other landlord in EU now? You signed a contract, and while it lasted, if you paid, they couldn't throw you out for the duration of the contract.
        medo-bear 4y ago
        vastly different. you pay off your apartment as you work. the apartment is owned by the state corporation you work for. the corporation has very little power to let you go. its more like a very favourable home loan
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        > you pay off your apartment as you work You do, if you buy the apartment and get a loan/mortgage. If you're renting from the government, you're just renting... you didn't become an owner of the apartment here, until the end of socialism, a new capitalist government, and politicians not wanting to deal with the upkeep of those buildings. Before 1991, you were renting as you are renting now in any other (capitalist) country (although with proper rules and protections.. so like in eg. austria, germany, etc). You didn't get to keep it.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        In my country (slovenia, former yugoslavia) owning homes destroyed the housing market in the long run... The government owned a huge percentage of homes and rented them out to people who needed them, and moved them around too (if they got a kid, they got a larger apartment). Then after the breakup, the government didn't want to deal with that, and sold all those apartments to renters living there for peanuts.. so 'everybody' got a home, and in the meantime stopped the communist-style buildings. .. then nimbyism, and yeah.. same as everywhere. Now the "boomers" have apartments and young people can't buy them, because we don't build stuff anymore. When a boomer dies, their kids inherit and lease it out, because selling it is pointless due to ever rising prices (again, nobody builds anything anymore... nimbyism and all that) If the government kept the apartments, when a boomer died, someone else would get to rent it at the government-non-profit-rate, but nope... whole country paid for building those apartments, some people got lucky to keep them, and the others could fuck off. Also, building a private house back then was easier.. you could basically build, and then deal with all the pesky stuff, such as permits and legalization... now, you can't build a dog house without building/construction inspectors there. On one hand, we now have improper owner-build buildings in inapropriate places... on the other hand, atleast those people got a house, which is impossible now. Also, building a house isn't even so expensive here... especially if you do a lot of stuff alone... but just the project/permit costs are higher than the bricks and concrete, and buying a piece of land where you're actually permitted to build is impossible... but we do have literal fields in the prime locations of our capital - https://goo.gl/maps/YeoJMMGN2QhtZDLs8 https://goo.gl/maps/YeoJMMGN2QhtZDLs8 (just rotate the view around to see what's next to that) tldr: in socialist time, everybody was renting from the government, in capitalist time, those apartments were sold for peanuts to renters (and the rest of the taxpayers, who didn't get apartments, got fucked)
        medo-bear 4y ago
        boomers is a largely american concept. i doubt eastern european people of same generation can be called boomers: having lived in a completely different system. anyway you seem to say that owning houses resulted in a problem of not owning houses? seems to me a more simple explanation would be that slovenia became a capitalist society, and for-profit housing doesnt quite accomodate as many people as the socialist one. this is a problem that is faced in every capitalist country atm and you seem to be misrepresenting what happened in former yugoslavia. basically it was not the government that gave you housing, but the state-owned corporation you worked for. and it wasnt for-rent, but to pay off as you work. which is WHY so many people were able to buy it for peanuts when the system collapsed. also to say it was the government is to grossly overestimate the centrality of the socialist yugoslav government. they simply were not that powerful
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - wongarsu 4y ago
        Housing and public transport are among the success stories of the Soviet Union. At least until the early 1970s, after that there was a lot of stagnation and decline.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Indeed. Marxism has tended to despotism because it needs the state to have all the power before it can dole out based on what it thinks the need is. The Politburo often has a lot of need :D
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
porphyra 4y ago
For that to work, you first need an abundance of goods produced by an ideal communist society, which doesn't exist.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  The idea that our society is purely a meritocracy is a myth that does not hold up to thw most rudamentary economic analysis.
  - candiodari 4y ago
    How does that affect the argument that a society of plenty does not exist and therefore we have the problem that we need economic growth? A good way to get economic growth ... is to pay for it. We can argue about excesses, but not about the basic premise.
butterNaN 4y ago
The ethos of the credo is egalitarian, not restrictive. So in this particular case, "the need" is not being satisfied. The person defines what they need, not some third party who has obvious conflict of interest in down-estimating the needs.
- nathias 4y ago
  for socialism (which is the ethos of the statement) of course its a third party that determines your needs and any third party has a conflict
  - butterNaN 4y ago
    It is not "of course" a third party at all. Socialism is not "when the government does stuff".
    - joenot443 4y ago
      In any real-world application of socialism I've seen, it is indeed the government deciding how much one is given. I can't think of any implementation where the government asks the citizen how large of a slice of the pie they'd like. I'm happy to be proved wrong, and maybe someday there'll be a successful communist state, but until then I look to history.
      - butterNaN 4y ago
        Right. I suppose I can't fault you to equate all of socialist ideas with what you have seen. There are socialists who are anti-state, for example. Check out Anarcho Communism, who very much use the "...according to their needs" ethos.
    - nathias 4y ago
      I'm all for blockchain socialism, but I doubt it will be called that ...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ruined 4y ago
ah yes... the wage system, classic example of communism

bheadmaster 4y ago

Assuming an employer is the proper authority for deciding how much workers "need", and completely ignoring the conflict of interest.

weberer 4y ago
Yeah, that's generally seen as one of the major problems with Marxism.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  The other was, working as little as possible, because you got paid the same, no matter what. Source: lived in a socialist country
  - medo-bear 4y ago
    also owned own home https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png https://i.redd.it/vj4m7grzdyr41.png
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      Will someone please think of the landlords?
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Back in socialist time, the government was the landlord for a huge percentage of that... they literally took peoples private houses away after WW2, and rented them out to people. Only after the split of yugoslavia, they sold the taxpayer paid and built apartments to then-current renters for peanuts.
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        I know it's probably just a username, but you don't happen to be the real Ajs Nigrutin, do you?
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        No lol :D i just needed a throwaway to argue about something "back then", and guess what was on the radio :)
        medo-bear 4y ago
        sure it was a landlord that had no right to kick you out
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        So.. basically the same as any other landlord in EU now? You signed a contract, and while it lasted, if you paid, they couldn't throw you out for the duration of the contract.
        medo-bear 4y ago
        vastly different. you pay off your apartment as you work. the apartment is owned by the state corporation you work for. the corporation has very little power to let you go. its more like a very favourable home loan
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        > you pay off your apartment as you work You do, if you buy the apartment and get a loan/mortgage. If you're renting from the government, you're just renting... you didn't become an owner of the apartment here, until the end of socialism, a new capitalist government, and politicians not wanting to deal with the upkeep of those buildings. Before 1991, you were renting as you are renting now in any other (capitalist) country (although with proper rules and protections.. so like in eg. austria, germany, etc). You didn't get to keep it.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      In my country (slovenia, former yugoslavia) owning homes destroyed the housing market in the long run... The government owned a huge percentage of homes and rented them out to people who needed them, and moved them around too (if they got a kid, they got a larger apartment). Then after the breakup, the government didn't want to deal with that, and sold all those apartments to renters living there for peanuts.. so 'everybody' got a home, and in the meantime stopped the communist-style buildings. .. then nimbyism, and yeah.. same as everywhere. Now the "boomers" have apartments and young people can't buy them, because we don't build stuff anymore. When a boomer dies, their kids inherit and lease it out, because selling it is pointless due to ever rising prices (again, nobody builds anything anymore... nimbyism and all that) If the government kept the apartments, when a boomer died, someone else would get to rent it at the government-non-profit-rate, but nope... whole country paid for building those apartments, some people got lucky to keep them, and the others could fuck off. Also, building a private house back then was easier.. you could basically build, and then deal with all the pesky stuff, such as permits and legalization... now, you can't build a dog house without building/construction inspectors there. On one hand, we now have improper owner-build buildings in inapropriate places... on the other hand, atleast those people got a house, which is impossible now. Also, building a house isn't even so expensive here... especially if you do a lot of stuff alone... but just the project/permit costs are higher than the bricks and concrete, and buying a piece of land where you're actually permitted to build is impossible... but we do have literal fields in the prime locations of our capital - https://goo.gl/maps/YeoJMMGN2QhtZDLs8 https://goo.gl/maps/YeoJMMGN2QhtZDLs8 (just rotate the view around to see what's next to that) tldr: in socialist time, everybody was renting from the government, in capitalist time, those apartments were sold for peanuts to renters (and the rest of the taxpayers, who didn't get apartments, got fucked)
      - medo-bear 4y ago
        boomers is a largely american concept. i doubt eastern european people of same generation can be called boomers: having lived in a completely different system. anyway you seem to say that owning houses resulted in a problem of not owning houses? seems to me a more simple explanation would be that slovenia became a capitalist society, and for-profit housing doesnt quite accomodate as many people as the socialist one. this is a problem that is faced in every capitalist country atm and you seem to be misrepresenting what happened in former yugoslavia. basically it was not the government that gave you housing, but the state-owned corporation you worked for. and it wasnt for-rent, but to pay off as you work. which is WHY so many people were able to buy it for peanuts when the system collapsed. also to say it was the government is to grossly overestimate the centrality of the socialist yugoslav government. they simply were not that powerful
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - wongarsu 4y ago
      Housing and public transport are among the success stories of the Soviet Union. At least until the early 1970s, after that there was a lot of stagnation and decline.
robertlagrant 4y ago
Indeed. Marxism has tended to despotism because it needs the state to have all the power before it can dole out based on what it thinks the need is. The Politburo often has a lot of need :D
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

porphyra 4y ago

For that to work, you first need an abundance of goods produced by an ideal communist society, which doesn't exist.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
The idea that our society is purely a meritocracy is a myth that does not hold up to thw most rudamentary economic analysis.
- candiodari 4y ago
  How does that affect the argument that a society of plenty does not exist and therefore we have the problem that we need economic growth? A good way to get economic growth ... is to pay for it. We can argue about excesses, but not about the basic premise.

butterNaN 4y ago

The ethos of the credo is egalitarian, not restrictive. So in this particular case, "the need" is not being satisfied. The person defines what they need, not some third party who has obvious conflict of interest in down-estimating the needs.

nathias 4y ago
for socialism (which is the ethos of the statement) of course its a third party that determines your needs and any third party has a conflict
- butterNaN 4y ago
  It is not "of course" a third party at all. Socialism is not "when the government does stuff".
  - joenot443 4y ago
    In any real-world application of socialism I've seen, it is indeed the government deciding how much one is given. I can't think of any implementation where the government asks the citizen how large of a slice of the pie they'd like. I'm happy to be proved wrong, and maybe someday there'll be a successful communist state, but until then I look to history.
    - butterNaN 4y ago
      Right. I suppose I can't fault you to equate all of socialist ideas with what you have seen. There are socialists who are anti-state, for example. Check out Anarcho Communism, who very much use the "...according to their needs" ethos.
  - nathias 4y ago
    I'm all for blockchain socialism, but I doubt it will be called that ...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ruined 4y ago

ah yes... the wage system, classic example of communism