For your perusal

[Gdjjr]

I put it in the education for for what I believe are obvious reasons.

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

To address the above attributed to Marx who made his preferences well known- the collective ownership of the means and production.

However, "each" and "his" refers to the Individual, without whom, the collective ceases to exist or has no direction.

The pie in the sky doesn't exist. Period.

Socialist mode of production - Wikipedia

Socialism - Wikipedia

It would appear, to me, that many, if not most, are uninformed about reality- no, Venezuela isn't "socialist" nor is Bernie, nor are his (or the Democrat Party) schemes- nor is Sweden- their schemes can't be implemented without capital (ism or ist) which is an Individual effort achieved reward for effort.

To the above saying- lets start at the end, Needs are; air, water, food, clothing and shelter with the last two being optional depending on climate. To expect another Individual to supply air and water for another is absurd. To expect another Individual to share his food is dependent on the one being asked to share- to coerce or force is dependent on gov't force- so the collective relies on force- the state which is a collective of what? The Individual will resist the force to the best of his ability IF he is properly informed. If not he will submit to the collective authority which has the be granted to, you guessed it; an Individual.

 

[Gdjjr]

The socialist political movement includes a set of political philosophies that originated in the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 18th century and out of concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism.[12] By the late 19th century, after the work of Karl Marx and his collaborator Friedrich Engels, socialism had come to signify opposition to capitalism and advocacy for a post-capitalist system based on some form of social ownership of the means of production.[43][44] By the 1920s, communism and social democracy had become the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement,[45] with socialism itself becoming "the most influential secular movement of the twentieth century".[46] While the emergence of the Soviet Union as the world's first nominally socialist state led to socialism's widespread association with the Soviet economic model, some economists and intellectuals argued that in practice the model functioned as a form of state capitalism,[47][48][49] or a non-planned administrative or command economy.[50][51] Socialist parties and ideas remain a political force with varying degrees of power and influence on all continents, heading national governments in many countries around the world. Today, many socialists have also adopted the causes of other social movements such as environmentalism, feminism and progressivism

 

[Gdjjr]

Both communism and socialism eventually accorded with the adherents' and opponents' cultural attitude towards religion. In Christian Europe, communism was believed to be the atheist way of life. In Protestant England, the word communism was too culturally and aurally close to the Roman Catholic communion rite, hence English atheists denoted themselves socialists.[64] Friedrich Engels argued that in 1848, at the time when The Communist Manifesto was published, that "socialism was respectable on the continent, while communism was not". The Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France were considered respectable socialists while working-class movements that "proclaimed the necessity of total social change" denoted themselves communists. This latter branch of socialism produced the communist work of Étienne Cabet in France and Wilhelm Weitling in Germany.[65] The British moral philosopher John Stuart Mill also came to advocate a form of economic socialism within a liberal context. In later editions of his Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mill would argue that "as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies".[66][67] While democrats looked to the Revolutions of 1848 as a democratic revolution which in the long run ensured liberty, equality and fraternity, Marxists denounced 1848 as a betrayal of working-class ideals by a bourgeoisie indifferent to the legitimate demands of the proletariat.

 

[Gdjjr]

Marx was an Individual.

 

[there4eyeM]

From the New Testament Acts of the Apostles:
"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

 

[there4eyeM]

Marx was a materialist, just like the "capitalists" he criticized. This is the essential problem for humanity and the future. We have outgrown this illusion in the same way Nietzsche expressed how we had outgrown the childish concepts of religion. That is to say, most people still labor under the yoke of what many know is beneath our human spirit.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Abraham Lincoln

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

From the New Testament Acts of the Apostles:
"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Voluntarily.

 

[Gdjjr]

From the New Testament Acts of the Apostles:
"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

ACTS 4:35 KJV "And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

man's word

I ran across this last night in The Malta Exchange

"A literal blueprint for religion

First, establish a consistent doctrine called the New Testament with select gospels that speak to a universal belief, which was precisely what the bishops had done at Nicaea. Then decree that all other beliefs are heretical, unworthy of consideration, and all who don't believe will be excommunicated. To further enforce dogma, create the notion of sin, adding that if it's not forgiven, the soul will be sent to eternal damnation in flames. Never mind that the Old Testament mentioned nothing of any such place. Just create one in your New Testament, then use it to cement loyalty and obedience.

The fastest way t ensure a constant laity is to proclaim every person is born with sins inherited as punishment for Adam's fall from grace. To purge that 'original sin' a person must submit to baptism, performed only by a priest ordained by the church. A failure to rid that sin dams the soul to to hell. To keep people dependent on the church for their entire lifetime, create more sacraments. Holy communion for children. Confirmation at puberty. Marriage for adults. Last rites on the dead. A womb-to-grave influence over every aspect of a person's life, each milestone dependent solely on adherence to church doctrine. Along the way the sacrament of confession allows a chance to purge oneself of sin and temporarily avoid hell--- that forgiveness, of course, coming from only one source.

The church.

The book is a novel that delves into the history of catholicism- it has some interesting tid bits of information, the above is 'a' conclusion based on the protagonists observation.

 

[there4eyeM]

From the New Testament Acts of the Apostles:
"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

ACTS 4:35 KJV "And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

man's word

I ran across this last night in The Malta Exchange

"A literal blueprint for religion

First, establish a consistent doctrine called the New Testament with select gospels that speak to a universal belief, which was precisely what the bishops had done at Nicaea. Then decree that all other beliefs are heretical, unworthy of consideration, and all who don't believe will be excommunicated. To further enforce dogma, create the notion of sin, adding that if it's not forgiven, the soul will be sent to eternal damnation in flames. Never mind that the Old Testament mentioned nothing of any such place. Just create one in your New Testament, then use it to cement loyalty and obedience.

The fastest way t ensure a constant laity is to proclaim every person is born with sins inherited as punishment for Adam's fall from grace. To purge that 'original sin' a person must submit to baptism, performed only by a priest ordained by the church. A failure to rid that sin dams the soul to to hell. To keep people dependent on the church for their entire lifetime, create more sacraments. Holy communion for children. Confirmation at puberty. Marriage for adults. Last rites on the dead. A womb-to-grave influence over every aspect of a person's life, each milestone dependent solely on adherence to church doctrine. Along the way the sacrament of confession allows a chance to purge oneself of sin and temporarily avoid hell--- that forgiveness, of course, coming from only one source.

The church.

The book is a novel that delves into the history of catholicism- it has some interesting tid bits of information, the above is 'a' conclusion based on the protagonists observation.

The point was that Marx did not originate the idea. At the same time, it doesn't seem like a story that promotes the R.C. agenda.

 

[there4eyeM]

From the New Testament Acts of the Apostles:
"Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Voluntarily.

And this communal effort gave Christianity its start, not the doctrines of Rome. Those early Christians understood materialism for what it is.

 

[Gdjjr]

The point was that Marx did not originate the idea.

That was your point- my point is there is no pie in the sky without Individual effort.

 

[sparky]

So what am i suppose to take away from this fellas?

Anecdotally, I'm what some would call a self made man, built my own farm from a hole in the ground, built my own biz up from nothing & don't owe anyone jack at this point

I think i have it good too , because i exist in a country that allows me the freedom to better one's self

The thing is, i'm not arrogant enough to insist i alone rose to grasp that brass ring without acknowledging the collective society that had my back along the way, which quite frankly would have been far less prosperous , and far more struggle to achieve without

~S~

 

[Gdjjr]

The thing is, i'm not arrogant enough to insist i alone rose to grasp that brass ring without acknowledging the collective society that had my back along the way, which quite frankly would have been far less prosperous , and far more struggle to achieve without

Had you not applied yourself with your own effort where would you be?

My point is even the collective requires Individual effort and without it it can't exist- just as "your" farm wouldn't exist without "your" effort. You, and you alone, have the authority to choose who to share it with. Not the collective, but, you.

 

[sparky]

Yes i agree and thx Gdjjr, trust me the 'effort' part was real.....i mean OCD real...

Something from one of your links...>>>
Proletariat - Wikipedia

Marxist theory considers the proletariat to be oppressed by capitalism and the wage system.

According to Marxism, capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie

So this is interesting, am i a proletariat? That's a mouthfull for a bluecollar redneck

Do i exist in a system of subjugation from opportunists?

Or did i simply fall into an opportunity?

help me out here.....

~S~

 

[there4eyeM]

The model for human society is the family. We wouldn't exist without that inter-human relationship. The individual, at the same time, is an all encompassing entity, the center of that person's universe. So, we are at the same time intimately linked to others and totally isolated in our consciousness, in our mind, in our existential essence. The universe starts at the debut of our perception and is extinguished when our perceptions cease.
What is most human about humans is our creativity and desire to know what is behind the veil of illusion. It is not material. Other animals display very little of this.

 

[sparky]

Ok, so we've individuals existing in societies that allow individualism (if that's a word?) more under some systems than others.

methinks my farm boy brain can get that far....

Just how much of that is an illusion is another matter, as any system has it's flaws, as well as obvious predators.

That is something this the USMB is lousy with , one can set their watch on the constant comparatives to other systems

IE> someone points out political stripe, and it's thrown back in his/her face as socialist,communist, fascist ,anarchist ,libertarian, etc etc ad nauseam.....

Few can point out the true meaning ,and by that i mean that veil of illusion torn away...

I'll even stick my ascii neck out and ask for a definition as example

'what is freedom'?

thx

~S~

 

[there4eyeM]

Ok, so we've individuals existing in societies that allow individualism (if that's a word?) more under some systems than others.

methinks my farm boy brain can get that far....

Just how much of that is an illusion is another matter, as any system has it's flaws, as well as obvious predators.

That is something this the USMB is lousy with , one can set their watch on the constant comparatives to other systems

IE> someone points out political stripe, and it's thrown back in his/her face as socialist,communist, fascist ,anarchist ,libertarian, etc etc ad nauseam.....

Few can point out the true meaning ,and by that i mean that veil of illusion torn away...

I'll even stick my ascii neck out and ask for a definition as example

'what is freedom'?

thx

~S~

To clarify, if you will:
the veil of illusion is clearly our 'senses', the paths of perception.

"freedom" is, quite literally and with a nod to Janis, "nothin' left to lose". Absolute freedom is when one no longer can 'lose' anything.

 

[sparky]

Ok, so we've individuals existing in societies that allow individualism (if that's a word?) more under some systems than others.

methinks my farm boy brain can get that far....

Just how much of that is an illusion is another matter, as any system has it's flaws, as well as obvious predators.

That is something this the USMB is lousy with , one can set their watch on the constant comparatives to other systems

IE> someone points out political stripe, and it's thrown back in his/her face as socialist,communist, fascist ,anarchist ,libertarian, etc etc ad nauseam.....

Few can point out the true meaning ,and by that i mean that veil of illusion torn away...

I'll even stick my ascii neck out and ask for a definition as example

'what is freedom'?

thx

~S~

To clarify, if you will:
the veil of illusion is clearly our 'senses', the paths of perception.

"freedom" is, quite literally and with a nod to Janis, "nothin' left to lose". Absolute freedom is when one no longer can 'lose' anything.

methinks maybe you're right Mr. 4eyeM , albeit janis' metric somewhat altrusitic , because i DO have something to loose imposes the freedom ain't free antithesis against it

~S~

 

[Gdjjr]

Or did i simply fall into an opportunity?

Based on what you've said I'd say you put forth an effort to achieve something you wanted- I wouldn't call that falling or opportunistic for one simple reason. One man's trash is another man's treasure - where you saw opportunity if the effort was put in others saw just a place on earth. To acquire your place you were subjugated to whoever/however you acquired the capital to invest in it- you still pay taxes on it so you are subjugated to the tax collector(s). In this day and time there is little choice if one wants to acquire land.

There used to be a saying- you got the right string but the wrong yo-yo- I think that was Marx's problem. The collective breeds reliance on another. It, like Individual effort, is self perpetuating through example so it's up to the Individual to choose which example to look to, unless he is coerced to make a decision contrary to how he thinks/feels. His choice can be effected, or infected, depending on perspective and wiring from birth.
If the majority is reliant on others for sustenance it stands to reason that would be a factor in the decision making process.
If the opposite were the norm then that would be a factor- ultimately it comes down to the Individual effort to actually make a decision on his own.

I don't abide labels, as such, especially political and/or religious- you can call yourself whatever your heart desires. Labels class people into groups and I despise the label makers (especially political and religious) and their process and results so I'm not a good person to ask.