From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a good idea
Interest / Motivation of those who disagree:
- The desire to be seen as counterintuitive, if you are an American, by supporting a former American enemy (socialism or communism).
Books that agree:
- The Communist Manifesto
Books that disagree:
Preach it Louis
Side Score: 29
|
 |
Now hold on a minute
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
|
Do they follow through for the most part? Research AIDS in Africa and their position on condoms until like 4 months ago. That aside, it should be the ideal. Where do you draw the line between want and need though? Technically slaves' "needs" were met enough to stay alive at least. Ironically the biggest difference as far apart as the political pendulum swings it seems, boils down to what is a need, and what is a want. Side: Preach it Louis
Not to debate with myself, I wanted to get all the obvious arguments out of the way... The goal is to brainstorm all the reasons agree and disagree. We shouldn't look at debating against someone, but following the data and figuring out which side is the best... I would like to reform the way we come to conclusions and the way we try to promote our beliefs through arguments and politics. Side: Now hold on a minute
I think the fundamental problem with this argument is that socialism is not necessarily the same as capitalism. The two main schools of thought are "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome". You are describing equality of outcome- in which every person is exactly equal. I personally would prefer equality of opportunity, which is more along the lines of every person getting what they need to survive, but still earn capital in order to purchase better items, luxuries, etc. Thus, people can be given the opportunity for life, without dissociating work input from monetary output. Also, there is no need to debate yourself. It seems like a ploy at boosting your own debate score (which is, quite frankly, not that important anyways) Side: Now hold on a minute
1
point
Well there are numerous ways the idea can be implemented, some good, some bad; One of the better ones is certainly open-source software. I could go into various permutations of different implementations, compare and contrast, but anyone that is familiar with marx and the opensource phenomenon should understand; if not or your not familiar, feel free to ask. I frankly don't have the time at the moment to write a long response covering all the bases. The biggest issue is when supply doesn't meet demand, but improvements in the economies of scale are solving that. Side: Preach it Louis
I'm not sure I'm disputing the correct thing, but I from what I understand your talking about how open source software is free, and so it is sort of like socialism. I agree that a lot of good things can come from the open source movement. But when someone says "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a good idea" it sounds to me like a government ran socialism, where some person is deciding what someone else needs, or how long they work in a day. I have no problem with voluntary socialism, communal-ism, etc... What I am trying to argue against is government ran centralized socialism with strong power, little individual rights. Side: Now hold on a minute
Unfortunately, and I'd hate to break it to my gramps, god rest his soul, it's not as easy as "you're a commy" or today, "you're a socialist" Every idea conflicts itself at some point when you enter human nature. And human nature is the reason capitalism has been the best economic system so far. However, it is only the best if it takes into account human nature, which demands social responsibility. Which is why people who yell "socialism" at every social program or "capitalism" every time someone gets rich, knows nothing of either. Side: Preach it Louis
This competitive outlook people are indoctrinated into is primitive in my opinion. When we can embrace the oneness and learn to love others more than we love ourselves instead of vice versa, then the proposed statement in the OP could work. As long as we continue to fight for personal gain over one another, we will not truly evolve, wars and poverty will still be utilized by those in power in order to subjugate the majority and the intellectual growth of the species, and eventually I can see a very probable outcome of humans being the cause of their own extinction. Side: Preach it Louis
|
On the surface this sounds good. This is why young people gravitate to liberalism. However when they get older, they realize that liberalism has negative un-intended consequences. For instance, how does one go about implementing the "to each according to his needs" part? To give something to someone according to their needs, you have to have it in the first place. Or steal it. And you don't want to trust a government that has the power to take everything from someone. Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. And then you see a sinister lining to the "from each according to his ability". Side: Now hold on a minute
On the surface this sounds good. This is why young people gravitate to liberalism. No, younger people gravitate towards liberalism because younger people are more likely to support reform, younger people are more likely to take risks. However when they get older, they realize that liberalism has negative un-intended consequences. Every system has unintended consequences. It's a matter of finding a system in which the benefits outweigh the consequences. For instance, how does one go about implementing the "to each according to his needs" part? I suppose that would depend on how you define "need". Generally this would include food, water, shelter, heat etc... in whatever quantity or to what quality I think is a minor issue. Whatever is agreed upon, this standard would be applied equally except in special cases where disabilities are considered. you have to have it in the first place Agreed. And you don't want to trust a government that has the power to take everything from someone. Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. I believe the phrase is "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." ~John Dalberg-Acton Corruption doesn't solely come from government, to transition services to powerful corporations does not solve the issue of corruption as the heads of such corporations are also very corrupt. As well all know MONEY IS POWER and so whenever you have a large concentration of wealth in relatively few hands, this is the breeding ground of corruption. I think politicians are preferable in at least one respect to powerful CEOs....we can vote the politicians out of office. Side: Preach it Louis
re: "No, younger people gravitate towards liberalism because younger people are more likely to support reform, younger people are more likely to take risks" I don't know how to prove it, but I still believe young people are drawn to socialism because young people are idealistic. I think most people would agree with that. I guess you are right that young people might be likely to support reform. However what type of Reform? There is liberal reform, and conservative reform. However young people tend to be more liberal, but as they age, they become less liberal. I also disagree with the risk thing. How is supporting socialism more risky? I don't think you make a good argument. Socialism is less risky. It has a big social net. Capitalism is more risky economically, and socially (as fewer young people can admit to being republicans). Side: Now hold on a minute
Shouldn't it be "from each according to their free will and energy"? You can drive a horse till it dies, or until it does not have the ability to go any further. Is that the way a government should look at it's citizens? What if I have the ability to be a great architect, but I don't have the motivation? Should the government force me? Side: Now hold on a minute
There are some statements that are differences of opinion, but this is just plain wrong. Just Google China Capitalism and you will see Time Magazine, and Forbes, and everyone on the planet understands that they don't do equal distribution of wealth in China. Here is something from Forbes: However, as Bremmer explains, the free market has not failed and we are not witnessing a resurgence of communism. Instead, what we are seeing is a new system called state capitalism. It is a system in which governments use capitalism and free markets to advance their own power and interests. Bremmer’s book does not focus on China or the U.S. alone. In fact, it provides an excellent around-the-world tour of almost every country that has an economy of any meaningful size. All investors, professional or novice, who are looking for global diversification, will benefit from a careful read of the insights provided in this book. Nonetheless, the most interesting and fascinating portions of the book focus on the world’s largest and fastest growing economies. That includes China. The book does an excellent job of explaining how the Chinese government uses state-controlled companies to advance its policies. It uses its power to make sure these companies have every possible advantage. In this way, the government is literally engineering China’s development. As communist governments collapsed all over the world, communists in China maintained power through brute force, best exemplified by the quashing of the Tiananmen Square protests. Yet China’s communists also understood that command economies could not effectively compete against free markets. The trick, as far as they were concerned, was to grow the economy while maintaining political control. Their solution was state capitalism, an ideal that has spread around the globe–even to the U.S. Side: Now hold on a minute
1
point
"This system requires someone to have the power to determine how much someone else needs." not necessarily the 'power,' but the brains. Power or authorities, although they are appointed in many cases, have no foundation without people who acknowledge the power. "Because governments are made up of men, and men are by nature evil..." Yes governments are made up of men, but how is it you consider it nature to be inherently evil? I would argue that people are very influenced by their surroundings; we are products of our upbringing and society. Human behavior should not be confused with nature. ‘Evil’ is a religious concept to the good and bad dichotomy, nature has no regard to such dichotomies. As it is human behavior which is molded by many things throughout a person’s life, and not that we are inherently ‘evil,’ maybe the real problem is to not allow corrupted behavior to develop, a considerably daunting task that I must admit scares me to imagine the lengths we could go to put it in practice if possible. If at length, the problem rests with men of corrupted behavior in power, what would you suggest be put in place of men if anything at all? Would it be rational or ethical to construct a computer with a web or tree of equations that could determine the necessities of everyone given each specific circumstance (a task that in my opinion would be impossible for a human run government)? To me, the idea doesn’t seem too bad at first (perhaps a topic for another debate) but than we would have to consider who it is that creates the program for the computer to utilize? Even then I would much rather have technicians, engineers and scientists brainstorming about how the government and economy should work instead of an ass load of lawyers and rich CEOs. “…those in power will always determine that they need much more than others.” I hate to be ‘that guy,’ but isn’t this a fallacy of composition? Side: Preach it Louis
You can agree that we don't have equality of opportunity, and want to try and fix that, but still not support government control of business. For instance, if we remove the property tax funding of education, that way you can give all kids the same amount of money for their education. If we work really hard to try and give each kid a fair start, and say they have equal opportunities, then we can treat adults like grown ups, and keep capitalism that rewards those who really want to work hard, or are smarter, or lucky, and not just those who got a good start in life. Scholarships for the poor, Harvard charging you based on what you parents made, all of these things are good things that we can do to make capitalism more fair, without resorting to socialism, which is too inefficient, and harms people's character by making them lazy. Side: Now hold on a minute
In his book "Capitalism and Freedom" (1962) Milton Friedman (1912-2006) advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. An excerpt from an interview with Phil Donahue in 1979. Side: Now hold on a minute
Socialism removes the reward for hard work, and makes those societies that use it, less competitive than those societies that don't. Carl Marx saw that socialism couldn't compete with capitalism, and so he said that Communist should kill all the capitalist. Think I'm making this up? Here are direct quotes: CHAPTER I The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.... Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. CHAPTER II “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” “If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” CHAPTER III (The context of the following is a criticism of the approach of socialists --PK) “Hence, They reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel. Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position, correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society. Chapter IV “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite” Side: Now hold on a minute
The best way to make sure that there is enough need is to encourage competition. When you regulate to such a strong degree, you are taking away incentive for competition (in all aspects). This includes entitlement and handouts. We see that the most thriving parts of Native American culture come from the ones who enter the market (tax-free, mind you, but we'll worry about that another time) and work hard to compete. The Native Americans who don't succeed are the ones who merely depend on handouts. It's understandable that those who are actually unable to work (disabled, elderly) do need some kind of help; but giving out entitlements to all others is kind of just taking away any incentive to go out and work hard. Human beings (especially men) are biologically wired to compete for the most glory. It is in our nature to be selfish. If we took advantage of this instead of sugarcoating it, we would be able to unlock stronger potential in more humans. But keep in mind, I do not believe in just ending all handout programs. I do believe in, however, strong cutbacks and more moves towards privatization. Side: Now hold on a minute
1
point
0
points
I'm gonna have to disagree with this one. I am a firm believer in capitalism. The food chain of intellect and ability doesn't need to be tampered with. 10% of the people earn 90% of the money for the sole reason that they have the abilities necessary to do so. It isn't a justifiable argument that we should all play musical chairs with that money just because it would be the charitable thing to do. Side: Now hold on a minute
10% of the people earn 90% of the money No, the top 10% own 90% of the nation's wealth. Whether it is earned is the matter under dispute. According to marxist theory, those top 10% could not have acquired that wealth without exploiting the working class. That those who own the means of production take a disproportional amount of the yield, and that those who labor are not being paid the true value of their work. Side: Preach it Louis
Unfortunately for Marx, he doesn't realize that the top 1% in America are a result of government choosing which corporations it wishes to benefit. The top corporations have benefited greatly from government control. Other competitors have to ask government for permission to make mergers, or try to prove to government that what they are making is necessary. This is what causes the top corporations to thrive. As well, there's the fact that since corporations are big, government will not let them get smaller. They've become a power, and to government, they are an asset in regulating the economy. The largest corporations employ the most people and help government collect the most revenue. Marxists do not understand that big government is bad because of this. The rich exploit the workers because people are not angels. Not because CEOs are evil. So if people are bad, why give them such power to regulate the market? Side: Now hold on a minute
|
