Radical change, along “green” and “spiritual” lines
- This topic has 64 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Abilities, needs and rewards will be decided democratically.That is Communism, and it is not individualism, as you and robbo seem to think.
How does the whole of society "decide democratically" what the "abilities , needs and rewards" are in respect of Citizen Joe Bloggs (And what "reward" anyway since I had always understood communism would break the link between your productive contribution to society and what you take from society which is to say your contribution would be freely given without remuneration)If advocating from each according to ability to each according to needs makes one an individualist (whatever that means in your book) then that makes Marx a very prominent individualist of sorts
robbo203 wrote:…I had always understood communism would break the link between your productive contribution to society and what you take from society…You've 'always understood' this, robbo, because you're not a Communist, but an individualist.Your use of the term 'your' (referring to 'an individual') shows this.The Communist phrasing would be 'our'.'Our productive contribution' is by nature linked to 'our taking from society'.You discuss 'individuals', Communists discuss 'social production and consumption', and its democratic control by all.
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:…I had always understood communism would break the link between your productive contribution to society and what you take from society…You've 'always understood' this, robbo, because you're not a Communist, but an individualist.Your use of the term 'your' (referring to 'an individual') shows this.The Communist phrasing would be 'our'.'Our productive contribution' is by nature linked to 'our taking from society'.You discuss 'individuals', Communists discuss 'social production and consumption', and its democratic control by all.
Your outlook on society is as daft as Mrs Thatcher's with the difference that, with you, there is a no such thing as individuals, only society – a mystical, reified and quasi Durkheimian view of society if there ever was one – whereas, with Mrs T, there is no such thing as society, only individuals. My position is that the two things hang together inextricably and if you think that makes me an "individualist" then frankly you wouldnt recognise one if you tripped over such a thing in the street, outside. You have never understood what this term means though you babble on about it incessantly enough. Of course the idea of "rewards" – and I remind you that it was you that who introduced this term, not me, with respect to a communist society – relates to, or is focussed upon, individuals insofar as it implies discriminating between them according to their contribution. Otherwise the very term "reward" would be completely meaningless in this context. So that makes you the individualist and me the communist because i dont talk of rewards at all or see the necessity for any form of remuneration . This is a bourgeois concept of individual incentives for effort which "bourgeois individualists" like your good self seem to consider as being vitally important to society i.e. the idea that workers should be remunerated or rewarded for their effort which cannot mean anything other than treating them as individuals who differ according to the effort they expend and who should therefore be subject to differential rewards
Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.