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

Because the productive deserve more luxury than the unproductive even if the latter is more needy.

For the betterment of mankind

Attached: LMbyw-1481735992-41-show-940x370-App-StarTrek.jpg (945x370, 32K)

The people who decide what your ability is.
The people who decide what your needs are.
The implementation has resulted in the murder of over 100,000,000 human beings.

Blessed

I think powerful positive reinforcement for highly competent and hard working people is better for mankind.

Nope. Some arab looking faggot kept saying "bro, bro, bro" at me while I was walking down the streets with headphones on and I ignored him.

Children/Grandparents/Disabled/Poor/Weak

Death sentence for them. Death sentence for the society.

>Death sentence for them
why?

Lol you were about to be robbed.

I know, they see a white guy and think they can fuck with them and are shocked when they meet someone that isn't willing to tolerate their shit.

lol go on

Marx actually backpedaled on that statement. Communism isn't so egalitarian. The most valuable people must receive more according to their ability. One person's needs only make them eligible to tiny benefits.

Because implementing it in practice runs contrary to how people work in reality. No amount of cute anime girls will make that not the case.

>to each according to his needs
nothing wrong with this, but it should really include a clause that says "after everyone's needs are filled, those who produce the most will be rewarded on top of that". Otherwise you might as well drop the "from each according to his ability" part, cuz i'm not working harder than the schmuck next to me if i'm getting compensated in the same manner.

Their needs wont be met by themselves?

that frist how do you know the ability nor the needs of individuals(is like what aristocrates(or plato i don't remeber( about how do you know what is justice or know what are your friends). Also this does not allow for innovation nor people trying to produce more and because you can't never know what each individual needs, you will alwais have a shortage in things. Apart from that, that does not encurage competition and people to work extra hards.

Also is like say, justice is giving everyone is due, but you will never know his due

they have no abilities so they don't have to contribute

Dude, if you want the quinine to start flowing you better start paying me more than the fucking janitor or else you can get him to set everything up.

Mommie makes milkies and I need milkies

Good thing something like that would be the polar opposite to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

daddies cummies > mommies milkies
prove me wrong
protip : you can't

It's just a feel good sentence that doesn't work in practice.

I don't want to help niggers.

too vague

my needs and abilities are more important than yours
fite me fagit

I'm suddenly feeling very needy but not all that able.

The net worth of ability does not surpass the net worth of need. In fact, it is far less.

explain

In my abillity, I plant a fruit tree. It is small, but enough for me and my family. My neighbor, with a lack of ability, can not grow his own food. He asks for some of my fruit. The tree can only provide for one family, and now neither of us have enough.

Taking the resources of those who have enough, and giving to those who don't, solves nothing. There is to much need, and not enough ability. It is fine to share your excess with your family and neighbors, but eventually the need will surpass your ability to continue sharing. You can not share your ability with an entire town, state, or country. It is your individual responsibility to contribute to yourself and your family first. If every man had their own ability, there would be no need.

Boom baby. Right here.

>e.g. christianity.

There's absolutely nothing stopping you and a number of others to buy/rent some land and start a community apllying that sentence as your ultimate goal and philosophy.
Literally go ahead and come back and tell us how does it work IRL.

Humans are selfish creatures no matter how you look at it. They won't spend a hard working time to do something they won't get any reward back.

Fuck your needs

What if technology allowed your ability to grow a dozen trees at the same price of what it would have taken you to grow one? At that point you're not sacrificing much of anything.

Why should people whose needs exceed their ability be supported by society?

Marxism is dysgenic as fuck.

how do you do decide what is the worth of ones ability and what he needs?

>from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs and then his ability
FTFY OP

you pretend to pay me, then I'll pretend to work. In reality my labor is going to fueling a self-sustaining pathological system that will one day be the end of me, not for the "betterment of mankind".

when did 100 million die as a direct result of Christian religion or presuppositions.

it doesn't account for the possibility of one's needs or ability being changed or changing
it ignores the pursuit of improvement

You don't need a baby mama or 9 kids. You might need housing and food, in which case, you will be supplied with 3 hots and a cot. I welcome you and your family to the gulag.

That would be the party comrade. They control the amount of beatings and calories provided at your gulag.

Most successful high ranking party members have a high position in order to satisfy their wants in addition to their needs, due to the production surplus coming out of gulags. I can understand why satisfying wants in addition to needs may be an alien idea to an impoverished capitalist who can only fulfill needs.

In the gulag the burden is all yours unless you want to get beaten to death.

Either because you were smart and pursued a career in the party, and are able to satisfy your wants in addition to your needs, or because the gulag guards will beat you if you don't.

Of course they do, you sound like a prime candidate to join the party. The needy only need their needs met, but not an ounce of luxury. Luxury is for important ranking members of the party.

For mankind's betters.

You need a gulag comrade. Communism is more than willing to provide.

And what better way but to set the baseline zero much lower in a gulag, so the warmth of a blanket and a bowl of soup, will be considered positive?

There is nothing egalitarian about that statement comrade. Needs and ability are unique to the individual. I agree that most people's needs are tiny and their needs can be met in the gulag if they continue to be subversive. And of course the valuable party members deserve more of the production surplus coming from the gulags.

because, sweetie, people want the liberty to choose what to do, when to do it, and under which conditions they'll do it

artists, scientists, entrepeneurs and innovators are punished because their qualities or advancements either don't get rewarded or they don't get the freedom they need for the things they need or their efforts can't be quantified by the state and causes them to be seen as leeches

Each according to their merit to each according to their reward is a better mentality

I hope you're trolling
>either you submit to slavery or we'll put you through harsher slavery resulting in bitter death

Naturally comrade. Communism is an evolution of socialism which evolves from each according to his contribution. Communism modifies that to meed needs, like housing and food as well. It is implied. It seems only natural that a party member is better rewarded than a gulag prisoner.

You are mistaking wants for needs. The gulag will teach you what you need. The party will give you what you want.

Please show me your party card and rank comrade.

I have determined you need the gulag.

Perhaps what you need is a gulag, or even better, a bullet to the head.

Indeed, coercive labor camps, I mean gulags have already been created by industrialists in other nations.

Why do you think the party exists?

People like you need gulag.

Gulag for you.

Of course it does. There's always the possibility of a disgraced party member being sent to the gulags.

Only if you are anti-revolutionary and refuse to be a good party member, comrade. I would never jeopardize the well being of party members since that would jeopardize my own well being. But anti-revolutionaries are another matter entirely.

Why? I don't owe you shit, nor do I want anything from you.

I have a duty toeards my family and friends, maybe you can convince me I have one towards my neighbors too, but beyond that?
I don't give a shit about you, it's impossible to give a shit about everyone in the world. It would just be hollow words.

But how will you do that without any property rights?

I have property rights.

Not when the party owns everything.

>first world kid LARPing as a revolutionary on the internet
Christ, are you 14? Grow up.
So literally your only argument is: "We (my fictional militia) will coerce you."? Great discussion.
Sageing and leaving.

So you're saying property rights are based on coercion? Why should anyone suffer your property claims?