That’s not what people mean by saying “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” There’s no Robin Hood figure robbing people at gunpoint. What it means is that all of production and distribution is collectivized and run according to a common plan in order to satisfy everyone’s needs.
Yes, capitalist property is hostorically siezed by the people through force, just like feudalism was ended by force. I don’t have rose tinted glasses, I know force is required, I just see it as necessary and the outcome extremely positive.
That’s a fine perspective to have. But it is the textbook definition of robbing someone at gunpoint.
They have something of value that you want, you don’t want to exchange said value for it, so you take it by force… at gunpoint.
Maybe there’s a moral justification for that. Maybe you think they don’t deserve it, or you need it more, or you think their ownership of it represents it’s own form of theft… But they’re definitely getting robbed at gunpoint.
Capitalists already steal value from workers by paying them less than the value they create. One short bout of “theft” to take back what was stolen over centuries isn’t really theft, it’s returning what’s owed.
You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
This question comes from the “what if everyone just wants to do nothing” to justify the existence of a system in which if you are not able to work you die.
Everyone is guaranteed a job, so if they don’t want to then they will just have less money to go around, or maybe they wouldn’t even need to if what they did is automated. However, regardless of whether they work or not, they are guaranteed food and housing. So they just get to do whatever they want. In a communist system someone livelihood is not tied to a job.
The problem is people dont just do nothing, they have to survive somehow and that usually requires the help of their community. If someone wants to be part of a group (country) it makes sense to require that person contribute back at least something.
A good example is the Uyghur forced labor in China, which China frames as the government providing jobs, training, and pay for that group of people.
I’m not really convinced its possible for someone to truly live off their own means. They’d have to be born in the wild and live there their whole life essentially.
How do you force people to give according to their ability? What if they don’t want to?
Then they can go live in a country where you can take from society and contribute nothing back.
That’s not what people mean by saying “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” There’s no Robin Hood figure robbing people at gunpoint. What it means is that all of production and distribution is collectivized and run according to a common plan in order to satisfy everyone’s needs.
That’s a pretty rose tinted view. It is, generally speaking, “collectivized” at gunpoint.
Yes, capitalist property is hostorically siezed by the people through force, just like feudalism was ended by force. I don’t have rose tinted glasses, I know force is required, I just see it as necessary and the outcome extremely positive.
That’s a fine perspective to have. But it is the textbook definition of robbing someone at gunpoint.
They have something of value that you want, you don’t want to exchange said value for it, so you take it by force… at gunpoint.
Maybe there’s a moral justification for that. Maybe you think they don’t deserve it, or you need it more, or you think their ownership of it represents it’s own form of theft… But they’re definitely getting robbed at gunpoint.
Capitalists already steal value from workers by paying them less than the value they create. One short bout of “theft” to take back what was stolen over centuries isn’t really theft, it’s returning what’s owed.
That’s what I was getting at. Don’t soft pedal it.
“There WILL be a Robin Hood type taking shit at gunpoint”.
You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
This question comes from the “what if everyone just wants to do nothing” to justify the existence of a system in which if you are not able to work you die.
Everyone is guaranteed a job, so if they don’t want to then they will just have less money to go around, or maybe they wouldn’t even need to if what they did is automated. However, regardless of whether they work or not, they are guaranteed food and housing. So they just get to do whatever they want. In a communist system someone livelihood is not tied to a job.
The problem is people dont just do nothing, they have to survive somehow and that usually requires the help of their community. If someone wants to be part of a group (country) it makes sense to require that person contribute back at least something.
A good example is the Uyghur forced labor in China, which China frames as the government providing jobs, training, and pay for that group of people.
I’m not really convinced its possible for someone to truly live off their own means. They’d have to be born in the wild and live there their whole life essentially.
What happens when someone doesn’t pay taxes today?
They get elected President.