>From each according to his ability, to each according to

(((oy vey goyim, don't you know opposing capitalism means you're opposing freedumb?)))

>>1727983
And here I thought I could actually have a meme free discussion for just a few posts.

Yes, because if everyone is getting "what he needs", everyone will stop "working to his ability".

If you know you're getting x amount of money every month, why would you work?

>>1727966
You can actually apply this to capitalism.

>>1727999
No one wants to be a NEET. It's a miserable existence. People do all kinds of stuff without any kind of financial renumeration. Wikipedia and open source software are good examples.

>>1728011
99% of jobs are not pleasurable. Editing wiki pages of stuff that interest you is not the same as working on the fields or in a factory.

>>1727966
In theory: No.

Practically: Humans are too lazy/territorial/selfish/different for it to work.

Who determines "needs"?
Who ensures that those that determine such a thing are not giving preferential treatment?
Who ensures that both parties don't conspire against the masses for their own personal gain?

>>1727966
Yes.

The people deciding what your ability is, and what your needs are, are evil.

>>1728016
Having any job infinitely better than being a NEET (t. used to be a NEET). The problem is when your job is to taxing compared to the benefits.

>>1728083
Nobody in a totalitarian regime will even allow you to be NEET

These imply that both are sustainable and could co-exist together, which might not be the case depending how the statement is interpreted.

>>1728024
You get to decide what you need and what you can provide. Not anyone else. You shouldn't take more than what is reasonable for your needs, though- for example, you decide you need all of the potatoes in the local stockade when there's still plenty of laborers who would like some for themselves. In this case, you might be forced to not take TOO many potatoes- you would take an amount of potatoes that is 'within reason' given the supply of potatoes.

Regarding the statement, it's too vague. It doesn't provide enough answers to questions like >>1728022
states. But that's fine, because Marx is mostly vague on answers. What he's useful for is describing problems that are worthy of fixing. We can come up with answers ourselves.

>>1728119
There will be no potatoes because nobody would want to raise potatoes if some faggots can simply come and take them.

>>1728135
How do you figure that from the statement? The statement implies that everybody is going to be working according to their ability ("from each"). And the product of the labor that these people produce will be available to yourself as well. It's not necessarily 'taking' when there is an exchange going on, ie the result of your laboring justifies you to take what you would like to take from the product of everyone else's labor.

Will there be some people who do not work and still get some potatoes? Yeah, probably. But if we don't need those people to work to make enough goods and services anyway, I do not see why we need these people to work. It is pointless labor to have people work more than is needed.

>>1728147
What amount of people do you think would decide to work if they're guaranteed to get enough to live comfortably?

Define the following:

>From
>each
>according
>to
>his
>ability,
>to
>each
>according
>to
>his
>needs

Because as it stands you're asking what's wrong with a catchy slogan full of meaningless buzzwords. It's no different than asking what's wrong with "I'm lovin' it" or "I want to buy the world a Coke".

>>1728170
We both know that society is impossible should everyone choose to not work. It's implicit in the statement that some people will be working, and they will be exacting the most effort they can. Those who won't work might not receive as much as those who do work, because they need less to live. A farmer needs more tools and goods than a NEET who doesn't leave his house does, for example.

This is the problem with the statement's ambiguity, imo.

It has downsides:
1. Your ability can be trained, meaning that you might only be at fraction of your trained ability

2. Your needs, inside a work place, doesn't mean its convenient to let that happen
I.E The need for physical labor, or the need for social interaction

3. Your own understanding of your abilities or needs can be flawed. So can others perception of those be

Beyond that, its not that bad.

>>1727966
Capital tends to accumulate capital. The only realistic way to obtain wealth is to already be wealth.

>>1727966

It's blatantly unfair. Why should the guy who works hard get less than the fat guy who does little?

>>1727999
>Yes, because if everyone is getting "what he needs", everyone will stop "working to his ability".

However if the person stops working to their ability, they will stop getting what they need

>>1728210
Because the fat guy that does little owns the factory and everything in it.

>>1728106
>totalitarian regime
Who said anything about totalitarian regimes?

>>1728224
The issue is there's no carrot, only the stick. Making a good society is about aligning incentive structures and having a good culture, so that the right sort of thing tends to happen without needing to waste a bunch of resources managing things.

>>1728227

How is that relevant to the marxist slogan OP posted? You think there are factory owners under Marxism?

>>1728270
OP specifically said "ignore marx". This is a discussion about the philosphy itself, not the context behind it.

>>1727966

It's a nice idea, but whenever you try to put it into practice millions of people die.

What did we have before capitalism and socialism?

>>1728303
Fuedalism. The lord owned the land that you worked on and you get to keep a most of what you produce if you pay a part of it to your lord as thite. And berfore that you had slavery.

>>1727966

Yes, because it means that you give litterally as much as you possibly can without dying, and take only the very smallest amount you need to survive back.

It requires a society exvlusively made of intelligent and reasonable individuals to work. In other words, it's not possible.

>>1727966

How do you determine someone's "ability"?
How do you determine someone's "need"?
Do you let the State do it?

Also, how do you differentiate between a genuine "need" and a "want"?

>>1728011

>No one wants to be a NEET.

You GROSSLY underestimate how lazy people are.

The idea is perfect in theory; it just doesn't translate well into the real world.

A system like this would only work in a post-scarcity world, and it would be more like "From each according to their willingness, to each according to need."

>>1728119

>You get to decide what you need and what you can provide. Not anyone else.

I've decided I need an Xbox One and $10,000 a month for sitting on my ass and doing nothing.

Pony up the cash, Marxist.

File: Communism Gets Fucked.jpg (16KB, 270x379px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 270x379px

>After a century of genocide, oppression, needless war, censorship, regressive social policies and failure, the last of the nations practicing Communism will collapse in your lifetime.

>You will see Marxism perish from the Earth in less than 50 years.

Feels good, man.

>>1728443
i cant wait until the last communist nation to [COLAPSE]

>>1727999
bullshit. people have a need to do shit. once your shitty society gets to the point where you get 4+ weeks paid vacation every year you will understand.

>>1728469
or just ask someone that's retired.

>>1728469
But I have 4 weeks of paid vacation, retardo. Also people occupy themselves with random hobbies.

>>1728515
and if they had more time on their hands most people would volunteer to get a sense of accomplishment and feel like they're doing something good.

people that dont do jack shit day in and day out get depressed.

>>1728527
Nobody will work the shitty jobs. Nobody will clean toilets if he is guaranteed "what he needs".

>>1728119

Your ridiculous utopia has been tried, and the murdered bodies of tens of millions of human beings are crying out from their graves that you did not fucking listen.

THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CONTROL EVERYONE ARE EVIL.

File: wtf_.webm (112KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 480x270px

>>1728543
wrong. people already do charity and volunteer work like that even tho they dont need to. not everyone is a pathetic selfish cunt like you.

>>1728557

People do charity work because they know it makes a massive difference in the lives of other human beings and is often either a matter of life and death.

People will help build clean wells in Africa or donate blood for free.

Good luck getting them to clean toilets or stock shelves at Wal-Mart for the same reason.

>>1728557
Are you actually working something or are you just a teenager going through his idealistic commie phase?

When you go out into the world you'll see that 99,99% of people would quit their jobs if they get an inheritance/lottery win that would allow them to not work. And none of them will go clean toilets "to go get a sense of accomplishment".

>>1728587
because they are currently wage slaves. and having a big inheritence or lottery win is different to having your basic needs taken care of.

>>1728585
most jobs can be automated and you think too little of the human race.

>>1728625
most jobs are wage slave jobs

if you present the following dilemma to the regular person:
option a: we give you 1000 currency a month and you work this shit job
option b: we give you 1000 currency a month and you don't have to work anything
I can guarantee you 99,99% of people will go with option b

File: Hayeknowledge.jpg (200KB, 1024x1125px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1024x1125px

>>1727966
Governments aren't capable of determining what a persons abilities or needs are?

>>1728011
>No one wants to be a NEET. It's a miserable existence.
Oh fuck off, this is a normie propoganda.
There are downsides to being a NEET but not working isn't part of them.
You are also probably just thinking that NEETs are exclusive to modern internet culture and having been around for centuries.
Chavs, wellfare niggers, gopniks are also NEETs.
You can go all the way back and read Oblomov, nigga was OG NEET.

>>1728650
fuck your options, i choose C: Star Trek, no monetary system at all.

>>1728585
>People do charity work because they know it makes a massive difference in the lives of other human beings and is often either a matter of life and death.
>But people won't work for their common man to sustain society

Man, Liberal logic is so great

File: 1473462600287.jpg (256KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1280x960px

>>1728713
>muh libruls

>>1728552
I think you're talking about capitalism there anon. What's the kill count so far? 200-300 million?

>>1728778
more if you count all deaths that could have been prevented with medicine and food.

File: 1469736204706.jpg (532KB, 1023x995px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1023x995px

>>1728778

>>1728552
>THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CONTROL EVERYONE ARE EVIL.
Both capitalistic ideologies and communism are globalist.

>>1728552
It was first realized as a pipe dream of desperat revolutionaries in a broken state that would've collapsed under any system. Tell me unironically that any government has ever actually tried to adopt this philosophy.

>>1727999
I'm always amazed by the popularity of this argument considering its logical implication that capitalism doesn't properly distribute what people need but rather gives them less, then terrorizes them into compliant working. Because apparently that's the only way productive work can ever get done.

And yet people bristle when you suggest they are trapped in wage slavery. They insist they are free.

>>1728552
>THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CONTROL EVERYONE ARE EVIL.

You act as if that rule doesn't apply to capitalism.

>>1727966
>is there anything wrong with this?

Who decides on how much "ability" somebody has, or how much somebody "needs"?

Corrupt, greedy shitbags, that's who...

>>1728834
>You act as if that rule doesn't apply to capitalism.

Wal-mart doesn't have a personal army.....socialist governments do...

>>1728874
It's called the state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_Wars

or sometimes they really do have personal armies:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43221200/ns/world_news-americas/t/bananas-colombian-death-squads-billion-dollar-lawsuit

http://www.alternet.org/world/nestle-involved-murder-colombian-union-leader

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/oct/17/1

There are dozens of examples throughout the last century, these are just some off the top of my head

>>1728020
>>1727999
If you presented two options to people, one is you'd get a prison cell with 3 meals a day and medical care, and you didn't have to work, or you could world and have a fulfilling life to satisfy your wants in addition to your needs, most people wouldn't pick jail.

>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
Basic income or some other form of welfare state solves this. Everyone is guaranteed enough to met their basic needs.

The market determines compensation rates for work to fulfill wants, to ensure people work to their ability. Because if they contribution is valuable, then there's nothing wrong with rewarding them in kind. If a genius decides to work as a janitor, it's because he is working to his ability to make himself happy. The amount that society values his brain is not enough to make him don a lab coat instead of mopping floors, because he enjoys it, and therefore his ability to make himself happy plus his services as a janitor are greater than his ability to help other members of society be happy by working as a scientist minus his unhappiness from sleepless night and endless hours in the lab.

Needs should be defined as what is necessary to pursue wants, which means anything necessary to enter the job market and the opportunity to work and be paid a wage in order to earn towards buying your wants.

>>1728944
meant
>you could work and have a fulfilling life to satisfy your wants in addition to your needs

>>1727966
I'm inclined to the opposite view: To each according to his ability, from each according to his needs.

Someone with a doctorate deserves get more than a high school dropout, and someone with 6 kids deserves to work a hell of a lot harder to support himself than someone without those added needs.

>>1728970
Why not just be a socialist?
>to each according to his contribution

>>1727966
Because human demands are limitless and needs are entirely subjective. Giving people the freedom to decide these things and how much they make and give is the only way to make sure that people are actually going to be getting what they need when they get it.

Resources are scarce, not all needs are ever going to be met, but everybody has things they need more and things they need less. You buy bread because you value the bread more than you value your money.

>>1729007
>Because human demands are limitless and needs are entirely subjective.
Those are wants, not needs.

>Giving people the freedom to decide these things and how much they make and give is the only way to make sure that people are actually going to be getting what they need when they get it.
No one is arguing that reptilians decide this. Needs are socially defined, by society, collectively.

>Resources are scarce, not all needs are ever going to be met, but everybody has things they need more and things they need less. You buy bread because you value the bread more than you value your money.
If you could keep population in check, needs could easily be met for the next thousand years. You are confusing wants for needs.

>>1729020
>confusing wants for needs
The line is completely arbitrary, or just plain silly. Of course a person can have food, shelter, water, clothing. But just because they have all of those things doesn't make life worth living. Wants are just as important, and more important than needs to some people.

>if youkeep the population in check
"No"
Resources are scarce. That is the truth that all economics comes from. I'm not saying they're rare and hard to come by, I'm saying that there are never enough to meet the demands of every human.

>needs are socially defined, by society, collectively
General impressions of all people don't make things true. Facts exist independently of what any society thinks. The majority of people are majorly wrong the majority of the time, you don't want them to be the ones that decide what you "need."

>>1728119
>You shouldn't take more than what is reasonable for your needs, though- for example, you decide you need all of the potatoes in the local stockade when there's still plenty of laborers who would like some for themselves. In this case, you might be forced to not take TOO many potatoes- you would take an amount of potatoes that is 'within reason' given the supply of potatoes.

nobody in the history of mankind has acted according to what they should or shouldn't do

If I have an opportunity to take more potatoes than what is "reasonable" for my needs, why wouldn't I? So what if everybody else has less? That's even better for me, it means that I now have an excess of something that everybody else wants. What will I do with that excess? Trade for nicer shit than everybody else. The system's already falling apart.

The only way this would work is if the government forced everyone to do it; people would never agree to this willingly.

And, if you've been paying attention for the past hundred or so years, you might notice that things tend to turn to shit when the government has to force you.

>>1728235
Socialism has to be enforced, it will naturally degrade into capitalism otherwise

>>1729059
>The line is completely arbitrary, or just plain silly. Of course a person can have food, shelter, water, clothing. But just because they have all of those things doesn't make life worth living. Wants are just as important, and more important than needs to some people.
What's silly is placing wants above needs. Here's an amazing thought. You can supply everyone their needs, and some of their wants. Wow, suddenly people aren't starving and some people have satisfying lives. No one ever said a person should have their needs, and only their needs met and not more.

>Resources are scarce. That is the truth that all economics comes from. I'm not saying they're rare and hard to come by, I'm saying that there are never enough to meet the demands of every human.
Demands include wants. Demand for things that could be qualified as needs, the things you listed food, shelter, water, clothing of a quality said to satisfy needs is fairly inelastic for a given population size.

>General impressions of all people don't make things true. Facts exist independently of what any society thinks. The majority of people are majorly wrong the majority of the time, you don't want them to be the ones that decide what you "need."
Do you believe in theocracy or some shit? Every form of governance has people deciding how to govern things. Free markets has people deciding the worth of things. You do realize things like republics exist and not only direct democracy, right?

Learn some fucking economics.

>>1729082
Have you ever gone to an all you can eat buffet and paid the same as everyone else who went in, and then ate so much you puked just so you could claim more shit, then tried to eat even more after that to make the buffet run out of food? And then after you were full, you hoarded all the pizza bread so you could trade the pizza bread with other people at the buffet so you could charge them money for all you can eat food. The buffet is already falling apart.

>>1729093
Capitalism has to be enforced, it will naturally degrade into mercantilism otherwise.

>>1729116
>>1729082
If I have an opportunity to stream even when I'm not home so I can use that bandwidth even when I'm not actually there to watch it, why wouldn't I? So what if I'm a bandwidth hog and everyone else has slower streaming? That's even better for me because now I have an excess of something everybody else wants. What will I do with that excess bandwidth? Trade it for nicer movies than are on netflix. Netflix is already falling apart.

Also netflix is red, like commies, because they're communist. And because they're communist, I would not voluntarily contribute resources to keep this system going and participate voluntarily. Fucking commies.

>>1728119
Wow you just convinced me to be a capitalist.
No one tells me how many potatoes I can get.

>>1729144
If I have an opportunity to spend more time on the swing than what is "reasonable" for my needs, why wouldn't I? So what if the other kids want to play on the swing? That's even better for me, it means that I now have control of something that everybody else wants. What will I do with that? Trade for nicer shit for a sweet stick or a rock. The park's already falling apart.

>>1729099
>Do you believe in theocracy or some shit?
No, I believe that nobody knows exactly what's best for anybody except themselves and since they lack that important knowledge they shouldn't be trusted to decide what's best for other people.

>Free markets has people deciding the worth of things
Yes but in a totally different way because that's through the natural forces of supply and demand. Individuals decide their own needs and wants, the marketplace is just where you get the prices and the goods meet.

To your first point, who is supplying everyone their needs and some of their wants? If it's the government how do they know that they're supplying the needs in the right order and making sure people are getting the best wants? These are things only individuals can decide for themselves.

Even if we have enough resources for everybody to get their needs, how do we decide who gets them first?

>>1729179
>Yes but in a totally different way because that's through the natural forces of supply and demand.
>property
>natural
>not a spook

>Individuals decide their own needs and wants, the marketplace is just where you get the prices and the goods meet.
This also happens in non-market barter economies. Needs are pretty universal. 99.999999% of people can agree that things like basic food, shelter, clothing and water are needs.

>To your first point, who is supplying everyone their needs and some of their wants? If it's the government how do they know that they're supplying the needs in the right order and making sure people are getting the best wants? These are things only individuals can decide for themselves.
You could have a mixed economy, obviously, you know, since most modern economies are mixed economies, but you're probably too stupid to think except in terms of ancap and gibsmedat.

>Even if we have enough resources for everybody to get their needs, how do we decide who gets them first?
If everyone has their needs met for what reason does the order matter?

File: 51hvdDIiZvL.jpg (33KB, 328x500px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 328x500px

>>1729179
>natural forces of supply and demand
[IDEOLOGY INTENSIFIES]

The one who pays my wage decides what I am able to do in a capitalist society. I am not free to choose because I have basic needs that need to be met. Only under socialism/communism is true individuality possible. Pic related is a nice read for that.

>>1729208
How are you free or truly individual under socialism/communism if instead of relying one the one who pays your wage you have to rely on the government/everybody else in the entire world to give you the things you need?

>>1729205
Because those who get their needs first are going to naturally be better off than those who get them second, third, and so on because they'll be better off for longer.

Also property is completely natural since every person naturally owns themselves.

>>1729220
>rely on the government/everybody else in the entire world to give you the things you need?
>people exist in a vacuum and aren't merely a cog in a much larger machine under capitalism, everyone is a staunch individualist totally self sustaining and not benefitting from collectivism implicitly or explicitly on a daily basis
this is what teenage libretardians actually believe

>>1729220
>Because those who get their needs first are going to naturally be better off than those who get them second, third, and so on because they'll be better off for longer.
I don't even understand what you are saying. Are you saying that one guy will get a lifetime supply of bread before the second guy does? How does this even make sense to you?

If you're talking about something like clean drinking water, and the time it takes to dig a well, do you really think all those people without wells are going to say no one should have wells because someone else will get a well first? If what village a well was dug in was determined by random lottery of logistic efficiency, why would someone without a well say if they had to be second, they don't want a well at all.

>Also property is completely natural since every person naturally owns themselves.
Unless you're a slave. Then you're a part of your master, just like his estate is part of him.

>>1729236
>calls every example of humans cooperating collectivism

Except there's a difference between tons of individuals trading with each other on the market because nobody could possibly achieve everything that they need on their own and collectivism where you do things for the whole and by the whole.

>>1729236
Sometimes I think that libtards must be even bigger idealists than communists because of the retarded strawmen they always come up with where everything must be 100% equal and fair and perfect or suddenly everything collapses.

>>1729240
Slaves right of self-ownership are being infringed in cases of slavery, unless they're consenting, but I don't really know if that's possible. I don't think so.

>>1729246
>Except there's a difference between tons of individuals trading with each other on the market because nobody could possibly achieve everything that they need on their own and collectivism where you do things for the whole and by the whole.
Yes, and that's why Marx, after reading Stirner, focused on the concept of labor exploitation, and how this is bad for the individual, and people should rely on each other in that it was in their own self interest, and he gave up on people doing things for the whole for the sake of it until after post scarcity economics.

>>1729267
Well that's just kind of silly "labor exploitation"

Doing labor for a wage is a trade just the same as buying bread or getting a haircut. They wouldn't be engaging in it if they didn't think they were benefiting in some way.

>>1728984
>to each according to his contribution
That will work just as soon as we find an objective/accurate way to measure the value of someone's contribution in a modern economy.

>>1729279
You can start by gulaging white collar executives and bankers who are clearly doing no one a favor and scamming normal people. The ones who are clearly engaged in criminal activity or making a buck by screwing people.

>>1729278
>They wouldn't be engaging in it if they didn't think they were benefiting in some way.
And slaves were obedient so they didn't get whipped and so they could eat, because those things are beneficial.

>>1729303
Unemployment is different from being physically abused and beaten.

>>1729312
>Unemployment is different from being physically abused and beaten.
Yes it is. That doesn't mean that just because you do something in self interest makes it good.

Your logic is if someone does something it must benefit them in some way, and is therefore right.

If that someone is a slave, the thing they do is work obediently, and the benefit is staying alive and not being beaten then by that logic, if a slave is obedient because it benefits them in some way, it is therefore also right.

Either we conclude this line of logic justifies slavery as being right, or that this line of logic is insufficient to prove something is right.

>>1727966
By year 2200 we will have the technology to make real communism work as intended or we will be extinct.

>>1728907
>There are dozens of examples throughout the last century, these are just some off the top of my head

No, nigger. There's a huge fucking difference between using a military to protect foreign interests and using a military to kill your political opponents and terrorize your own nations like the fucking Soviets, Cambodians, Cubans, and Chinese did.

Fuck off with your bullshit.

No one will reap unless they can sow

to the fucks going on about people's laziness and how it can't work with OP's post:
I am one of you, lazy fucks, and I know there are many. But I actually work in construction, one of the shittiest fields too. And guess what we happen to talk about this shit every now and then. Almost all of my coworkers would happily work more of this job to get more money. In fact, many do, they work in the weekend (which is illegal but no one has to know) and get an extra from the employer.
The real scenario is not between
a) working to get 1000 currency per month
b) getting 1000 per month and all basic needs taken care of without working

In the real world, the scenario is
a) get all your basic needs taken care of, and be free to work more on your own accord to get money to satisfy your needs
b) do not get your basic needs taken care of, get as much money as you work for and use it as you wish
Most people would go for b

>>1729383
>There's a huge fucking difference between using a military to protect foreign interests and using a military to kill your political opponents and terrorize your own nations like the fucking Soviets, Cambodians, Cubans, and Chinese did.

is there?

>muh human nature

Can capitalists just die already? Marx was right about everything, and people are too fucking stupid to see it.

>>1730384
You are literally first one to say anything about nature in this thread.

> Is there anything wrong with this?
Nothing in theory, but in practice it could be pretty unsustainable because of resource limitations.

>>1730413
the same resource limitation that makes millions of product that goes to waste everyday? you must think that capitalism is very lavish

File: 1462730186835.png (295KB, 378x610px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 378x610px

>>1728011
>No one wants to be a NEET
>Having any job infinitely better than being a NEET
Wage cuck to the max.

>>1730384

>blankslatism

Dude, it's not the 19th century anymore, stop it.

>>1728826
underrated post

>>1728011
>no one wants to be a NEET
Speak for yourself.

File: 1474081255988.jpg (237KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 960x960px

This can work if you pay the worker the exact energy expended in his labours. A factory machine will receive as much energy as it needs to produce goods. If you define "need" as his "subsistence" and "ability" as "utility contribution to the state as determined by the state" the jingle becomes: "All will be compensated fully for their contribution" but even that is riddling.

It is a reward for "effort", since this is impossible to quantify unless though energy expenditure it becomes a willowy and vague idea. "Need" and "Ability" can only exist as "Substance" and "Work Done". Once a surplus of needs, a demand is introduced then the maxim collapses. How do we determine demand? the only way to understand the demand is by collecting the information from the entire population. Prices are information and reflect the demand of goods and labour.

The great problem is that in collecting the expenditure of all work done in a society circumscribed by national ability (A) and then transferring the products to satisfy the "needs" of the people (N) you are implicitly assuming that A will always be greater than N. In reality, the opposite is true. Indeed, the desires of individuals is actually greater than their current earnings. Their desired expenditure is almost always greater than their income, and so the desire to earn more money. Given this is the case, it would actually be impossible to satisfy aggregate "need" or desire with the products of aggregate labour. There will always be people unsatisfied, there will always be shortages, famines, blackouts, gulags...

>>1728119
>You get to decide
>You shouldn't take more than what is "reasonable"
>mfw

so... you don't get to decide.

Russia, China, Venezuela and scho on

>>1728399
>"From each according to their willingness, to each according to need."
Try 'From each according to their willingness, to each according to their wants.'

File: 1462455335708.jpg (372KB, 1328x1110px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1328x1110px

>>1727966
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
>Completely disregarding marx for a second, is there anything wrong with this?

Yes.

Humans are not driven by their needs. If they were, we would all live as ascetics.

Humans are driven by their wants. Greed, and its children lust, desire, jealousy, and others, are one of the driving forces behind human existence. In the natural world, to have an excess of food is to have security of food, and humans, simply being upright, hairless apes, follow similar urges; to have an excess of food, to have an excess of sexual gratification, to have an excess of money and other resources.

As long as there is the potential for scarcity, humans will always compete with eachother to have more than the next man. This is not something Marxism or any other political ideology can change, as it is a part of the foundations of our being, and it is why Communism is nonviable until all scarcity of resources is eliminated and everyone has access to infinite supplies of everything they desire. Whether or not this will ever happen is another question entirely.

>>1727999
No you dumb fuck, people don't work for need. They work for what they WANT.

Holy fucking shit this thread is filled with nothing but fucking right wing autists screaming about how you have to be a fucking wage cuck. Eat dicks all of you.

bump for NEET butthurt

>>1728443
>>1728552
>>1728585
Straight out of facebook aren't we?

>>1727966
If you were an autistic dictator who controls army of slaves, then no.

You want to provide enough maintance and energy for the robots so they would work efficiently and you want to extract as much labour from them as possible