Agree or disagree?
By youaremylush
@youaremylush (479)
United States
June 12, 2011 2:36am CST
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is, fundamentally, a good idea.
This is a slogan popularized by the German philosopher, Karl Marx. I'm not in any way, shape or form a Communist. But I do want your humble opinion on the statement above.
3 people like this
7 responses
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 Jun 11
In theory Marx's teachings seem profound. And even a little 'religious' or Christian. But man's nature is not so easily led to charity. People expect to reap what they sow. And forcing them to turn it over - watch someone who has not labored for it - get the benefits of his labor - causes bitterness - which leads to no motivation to labor for more. The ruler who demands this wealth redistribution needs a very big stick to enforce what goes against man's nature. Which is why most communist states are totalitarian.
It's when a man labors for his bread by the sweat of his brow that he sits down to meal satisfied. It is after he is satisfied that he views his fellow man's plight and is moved to share. This is charity and done from a willing heart. You cannot make a law that people have to be charitable.
Only God can change the man's heart to give up what is his willingly and without bitterness. Unfortunately, Marx did not take this into account.
2 people like this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
13 Jun 11
He sits down satisfied. He can eat his bread knowing he has earned it. THAT is the satisfaction. Not having physical needs met. Perhaps I should have said; it is after he is satisfied with his earning of HIS bread, that he is moved to share.
The fact remains, you cannot force someone to share. It must come from a willing heart. Like you said...you either have it or you don't.
As for God's part in it, God does not need anyone's acknowledgment of Him- to work in their heart. 
2 people like this
@youaremylush (479)
• United States
12 Jun 11
I don't think that it should take one sitting down and satisfying their needs first for one to be moved to share. I do think it is done from a willing heart and either you have it or you do not have it. Fortunately, I believe that it can be learnt, with or without the intervention of god (yet totally never forced).
@mythociate (21437)
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
12 Jun 11
I trust that you are not 'summing-up the entire philosophy of Karl Marx' in that phrase, because a) it's not even a complete sentence 
and b) "no man is an island (entirely to himself)"---that is, the 'to each' has to come 'from' somewhere, and the 'from each' has to come 'to' somewhere, which had first come 'from' somewhere else.
Even if every man were 'an island,' he would not be beyond the influence of the other islands---their activity would change his tide and temperature, etc.
In short, I'd rephrase the idea 'From each according as he is able to bring to his need in abundance' 
and b) "no man is an island (entirely to himself)"---that is, the 'to each' has to come 'from' somewhere, and the 'from each' has to come 'to' somewhere, which had first come 'from' somewhere else.
Even if every man were 'an island,' he would not be beyond the influence of the other islands---their activity would change his tide and temperature, etc.
In short, I'd rephrase the idea 'From each according as he is able to bring to his need in abundance' @youaremylush (479)
• United States
12 Jun 11
Of course I am not "summing-up" or over-simplifying Marxism. I know it isn't a complete sentence, it's only the slogan.
I agree with what you're saying. I don't believe in the philosophy of Karl Marx at all. It's just interesting when you find someone who does and will argue it. That's what I was aiming for here ;)
@flower21 (765)
• Philippines
12 Jun 11
Surely it is a good idea though in this modern world it is hard to implement both as some people look only for their own concern not every one else. though, it is is well addressed in a small scale that is required by the society. While if implemented in large scale is likewise to generate little success..i am not in communist or a fan or believer, perhaps it work effectively in such community.
@youaremylush (479)
• United States
12 Jun 11
I'm sure it would work, but not under the basis of communism. Maybe some other form that was taken from it.
Now someone on here is going to call me a socialist. I'm not one of those either, lol.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
13 Jun 11
http://www.speakupnow.us/uncategorized/socialism-a-college-professor-reveals-how-socialist-theory-works-in-the-real-world
1 person likes this
@BalthasarTheRat (656)
• United States
12 Jun 11
I've always disliked the oversimplicity of the statement. It was the biggest sound-byte of its era. It was never really perfected in true world application. Even if it could, I would have a problem with ignoring the unique abiities we all have. If we only focus on the needs of mankind, we stifle creativity and genius. It is, of course, just as unnatural to ignore the needs of so many so just a few can prosper so a balance needs to be struck.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
14 Jun 11
That only works if EVERYONE is in agreement. AND the Native Americans rewarded those who were exceptionaly and did MORE than was expected of them. 
2 people like this
@youaremylush (479)
• United States
12 Jun 11
I'm not sure that it would be ignoring the separate unique abilities that people have.
But to make things interesting I'm going to present you with this:
Native Americans lived in what could be viewed as a communistic setting. Men could only take a wife if they could provide for her, and if they could provide for more than one, they got to take as many as they could provide for. Also they all did their part to help the community in which they lived (ie raising the children together, teaching, hunting, healing).
I'm not at all saying that Native Americans were communists. I'm just giving you food for thought.
@youaremylush (479)
• United States
13 Jun 11
That's a different take on Communism :P
Very appreciated though. I enjoy thinking out of the box.
@murkie (1103)
• Philippines
12 Jun 11
theoretically, it seems like a very good philosophy to achieve the utopian dream. 
but in reality, it would be total dependence and laziness.
if you are skilled, would you be willing to "enslave" yourself to serve those who are incompetent and corrupt?
if you are righteous, but disabled, wouldn't you feel guilty if your daily needs are to be hard earned by someone else?
only the ignorant, incompetent, corrupt, dependent, lazy and other mean mentality would benefit from it.
of course, this is just my interpretation. 
if you want an illustration, read the "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.
but in reality, it would be total dependence and laziness.
if you are skilled, would you be willing to "enslave" yourself to serve those who are incompetent and corrupt?
if you are righteous, but disabled, wouldn't you feel guilty if your daily needs are to be hard earned by someone else?
only the ignorant, incompetent, corrupt, dependent, lazy and other mean mentality would benefit from it.
of course, this is just my interpretation.
if you want an illustration, read the "atlas shrugged" by ayn rand.
@murkie (1103)
• Philippines
13 Jun 11
sorry if i may have mislead you.. i don't mean the "THE disabled" as useless.. i meant "disabled" being not able to contribute anything.
yes, theoretically, that's good. sadly, though, that's not how people actually behave.
ever heard about atlas shrugged being made to be a movie? i wonder how they're going to get the message across. philosophical books should always remain as umm.. books. it would have lost its essence when turned to a movie.
yes, theoretically, that's good. sadly, though, that's not how people actually behave.
ever heard about atlas shrugged being made to be a movie? i wonder how they're going to get the message across. philosophical books should always remain as umm.. books. it would have lost its essence when turned to a movie.@youaremylush (479)
• United States
12 Jun 11
Unfortunately dystopian literature is my favorite, so I'm not very fond of utopian standards :P
If you would look at it in a more abstract way for a second, to amuse me of course :D and let me know what you think.
Yes I do agree that if you are more skilled at a trade than other people you would be enslaving yourself. However (this is where we play pretend) , if we as society care about human well-being, wouldn't the person who is "enslaved" in our current mind-state be more, shall we say, liberated for helping other human beings? If someone is disabled in this community, it would be the other members duty to look after them, correct? They wouldn't be useless or doing nothing. Disabled people aren't useless just because they can't do intensive labor.
That's just some food for thought :P I like seeing things from different prospectives, though I do not agree with this one at all. I doubt it would ever work.
I have read the book, btw. It's top 30, no doubt.
1 person likes this
@SpikeTheLobster (6403)
•
12 Jun 11
The statement is, in my opinion, absolutely perfect: that's how the world should be.
Unfortunately, it's impossible because everyone's greedy and wants more than they need. Corruption, lies, avarice and all the other wonderful things that make humans such incredibly flawed animals ruin high ideals. Only rarely does someone come along who actually believes in something bigger, better and far beyond the norm.
So, in summary - a perfect idea for a very, very imperfect world. It'll never work.
@youaremylush (479)
• United States
12 Jun 11
Well said! I think as certain people learn compassion in life and either enter higher education or a job that helps people, they can begin to believe in something bigger.
Greed, corruption, lies and material gain is the fault of society. Yet, we are society so we either have to change it or accept it. I find that too many people will take the easy way out.
