What, exactly, is socialism? Again this discussion seems necessary.

If it is, you could provide a like to what Marx actually said, -but you didn't. Hence it is your opinion, and my knowledge of Marx says you're the one who is wrong here.

He said socialism is characterized by the guideline of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work", while communism is characterized by "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". -A subtle difference that escapes you.

 

By referring directly to a socialist school that is inconsistent with your claim.

 

it was one word... and i should hasten to add you got it wrong, too. and if we're being objective, and we should, mine was actually quite closer than yours. "means" is much closer in meaning to "ability" than is "work." so perhaps your probability to spread falsehoods is even higher, thus making your "logical qualifications" even lower than mine. since this is your thread, perhaps you ought to ask the moderators to closes it down because now it appears your entire premise could be prone to falsehood dissemination.

 

i was looking for an actual answer. perhaps you could give me one of those?

 

It was a essential word with a huge difference. And no, I was not wrong. You have not provided any evidence for your erroneous statement, so here is one for you:

the socialist slogan is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The communist slogan varies thusly: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm

Here's another in case you need it:
https://www.workers.org/2012/us/socialism_0301/

You may be getting confused by Marx's reference to "lower communism" (by which he meant what we call "socialism") and "higher communism" (by which he meant what we call "communism")

And I had no objection to your use of "means" to substitute for "ability" even though that was an incorrect quote too.

 

You got an answer. As I said, there already exists Marxist analysis where there are no "the deciders". There is no need for economic planning and the analysis achieves consistency with both Marxist economics and Hayek's contribution to Austrian economics.

 

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and Industrial Automation to help with social costs.

 

i think you meant a link? all you had to do was ask...

here is the quote in context: "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! (emphasis mine).

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

i hope you find "marxists.org" to be a reliable source on marx.

now if you could kindly respond in kind. i'd like a source for your quote, please. "... to each according to his work."

we'll see how subtle it is once you provide a link. thank you.

 

please describe in detail the precise mechanism through which resources are allocated with respect to the above. thank you.

 

what happens when inflation catches up to your $15? who pays for your "at will unemployment"? (i presume this to mean people who refuse to work but are able). i have no idea what you are trying to say by "Industrial Automation (sic) to help with social costs" is supposed to mean. please explain. thank you.

 

To oversimplify the approach, see it as replacement of any large enterprise with worker ownership (enabling the market to be maintained to allocate) and- with a one off payment to enable economic choice- continuation of entrepreneur run SMEs.

Socialism but with Hayek's contribution to the socialist calculation debate included.

 

Why should it? Raising the cost of Labor means capital will usually seek gains from efficiency. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

A general tax on firms for unemployment compensation is less expensive than our current regime; we could be lowering our tax burden and increasing the efficiency of our economy in the process.

Recycling is one sector where industrial automation would be appropriate. Anything thrown in a waste disposal container should be examined for recyclable content, and reclaimed.

 

Well finally! THANKS! And now, if you read my edits to my previous post which you quoted here (but missed the edits I was making) you will see that I realized you were having trouble with Marx's wording of "higher communism" versus "lower communism". And you will find citations that I linked to for clarification.

In your quote here you have quoted Marx referring to "higher phase of communist society" which I underlined, enlarged, and made bold. And I underlined "only then can the narrow horizon of the bourgeois right be crossed......" But your argument has been that the reference to "needs" related to socialism or what Marx called "lower communism". Yet you now quote him saying it relates to "higher communism". Which means you were wrong all along.

So again, here are my references for clarification:

the socialist slogan is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” The communist slogan varies thusly: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/what-is-marxism-faq.htm

Here's another in case you need it:
https://www.workers.org/2012/us/socialism_0301/

 

it will seek gains from efficiency, meaning usually it will attempt to do more with less (ie less bodies turning bolts in the factory), it will also attempt to pass on the maximum portion of its increased cost to the consumer. demand is what drives consumer prices. that gallon of gas goes from $4 to $5 and there goes your wage increase. artificially inflating to value of unskilled labor is not the solution to the problem you seek to solve.

i think you're trying to answer my second question? we are talking about people who choose not to work even though they are perfectly able, are we not? why should we not simply expect those people to be productive like the rest of us?

noted you did not answer my third question. wanna take a shot at that one?

 

He said socialism has to exterminate capitalism.

We love capitalism.

 

Maybe, in the Third World. In the first world, we know we can Never compete with cheap labor and must create an upward pressure on wages for capital to seek gains from efficiency instead of merely, cheap labor.

We need to shed low wage jobs, anyway. We have a First World economy, not a Third World economy.

http://fortune.com/2014/11/18/unfilled-jobs-us-economy/

 

what do you mean "finally?" you asked me for a link and you got it in the very next post. wtf??? save your snark for someone else. actually, you didn't ask. you cockishly proclaimed that i "couldn't even provide one." no need to be a dick. we have differing opinions. your hostility is very telling. your suggestion that "i was having trouble with... " is baseless. you have no evidence to make such a statement, nor was the distinction you draw in the post above a part of your original position. your ex post facto strawman is amusing, however. i'll give you that.

now, on to your claim in an earlier post...

'The quote you want for socialism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work". THAT is what Marx wrote.'

unless i missed it, your links do not attribute that quote to marx. so, please, let's have a link with proper attribution before you go on making irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims that "i was wrong all along." thank you.

i took responsibility for the very minor (and frankly nonsubstantive) error i made in quoting marx. you need to do the same.

 

i see you're not interested in answering my question. have a good day.

 

First things first. Don't believe in equality and repeating your silly questions?

 

No hostility. It is very common for people to be confused by the references to "lower communism" and "higher communism" and I thought I would clarify it -without hostility- in case you had come across it, and what you were saying seemed it could have been a result of confusion over the wording.

In your quote from Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme, we read that the "higher phase of communist society" (communism) in which it is said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can only occur after the productive forces develop, which is in the "lower phase of communism" (socialism) as Marx says elsewhere. Therefore the meaning is that under socialism the "rule" is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work". Now at this point I have to concede that you are most likely correct that Marx didn't say or write that. Rather, it is how Marx was presented in the Soviet revolution and in their writings. And yet, as your quote indicates and I quoted here, the idea of "according to his work" is, in fact, fully applicable and characteristic of the period of socialism although I could not find where Marx said it. The Soviets said it about Marxism.

And that is also given by CPUSA:

Under socialism, wealth is distributed according to the principle: “From each according their abilities, to each according to their work.”
http://www.cpusa.org/article/a-handy-guide-to-capitalism-socialism-and-democracy/

And personally, I trust Marxist sources to represent Marx faithfully even when the paraphrase him. So, in summary, we have the situation in which your quote of "according to his need" relates to communist society but not to socialism.

Fair enough?

 

You cannot expect such cooperation and cohesion (as would be required to successfully operate co-ops over the long term) in a society which has fostered individualism and self-interest for generations. Western culture is in no way fit for such a model.

 

Exactly! It can never work in broader society.

 

Done. Nearly 20 years ago.

 

He just spits out that blurb in response to every question. It's utterly meaningless. He might as well be saying:

"The fairies will come up from the bottom of the garden and give us all magical sparkle powder, which we can use for money"

 

good luck getting a response to this!