"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
This quote embodies my issues with Communism. I'm a staunch supporter in people being permitted to keep what they honestly work for, and here Marx is basically saying that no one should have any rights to their efforts. Communism is simply unethical, in every sense of the word. Suppose you're laying in the hospital and are in desperate need of a blood transfusion. There are no willing donors, so your doctor goes out and starts to take a cup of blood from pedestrians against their will. Could it save your life? Sure. Is it ethical? Not by a long shot. According to Marx though, this is the best way to handle things.
When you remove the promise of greater reward, people will start to get apathetic. I work a full-time job and take 12+ credit hours per semester, with no summer breaks, because I want something to come of it. If there isn't some benefit to come from my labor, why should I put myself through it? Why should anyone?
There's also the "according to his need" part. Who decides what those needs are, and who is in need? You could decide that some obese man needs a newer, bigger car in order to get around in comfort. I could decide that he needs a tread-climber, instead.
pyrohirokiro wrote:I know someone on welfare and it is not fair to say they are mooching. When your parents leave you in the middle of the night halfway through a pregnancy in high school with a job (she paints pictures in rooms) you are NOT mooching.
I'm sorry for people who are in situations like that, but there are always exceptions to the rule. Some people on welfare do use it fairly, as it is intended. If she's still on it several years later though, the "mooching" label may apply. An old boss of mine had two kids from some deadbeat father that was in jail. She managed the Blockbuster that we worked at while receiving government aid for about 3 years. In that time, she was able to work herself into a high enough wage that she could afford a home of her own and support both kids, without any kind of socialized aid. If one woman can do it, another can.
thedotmaster wrote:That point is irrelevant and the debate is now suspended until you learn better grammar.
Completely off topic, but I love this.
everfall wrote:To start We look at the most successful civilizations of all time, the Australian Aboriginals they lasted for forty thousand years,They were communist.
There are over 300 million people in America alone. At the peak of their "civilization", how numerous were the indigenous peoples of Australia? Population makes a huge difference. Communism can work on small scales i.e. communes consisting of very small numbers, but quickly falls apart when it's applied to anything larger.
And before someone tosses out China again... Bear in mind that China is also one of, if not the, most fascist governments in the world.