Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 1 day agoSpooooookyyyyy Scaaaaaaaarrryyyylemmy.worldimagemessage-square169fedilinkarrow-up1643arrow-down1126
arrow-up1517arrow-down1imageSpooooookyyyyy Scaaaaaaaarrryyyylemmy.worldReturn_of_Chippy@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 1 day agomessage-square169fedilink
minus-squareReturn_of_Chippy@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down5·6 hours agoNo idea what that means
minus-squareAmnesigenic@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up3arrow-down1·6 hours agoIt means that between communism and capitalism there’s exactly one option that says being paid for labor someone else did is fine and one that doesn’t
minus-squareboonhet@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·4 hours ago… Both of them though? One based on investments, the other based on being unable to work. From each according to their abilities and all that. Not that it’s a bad thing. To some degree we already do it in most sane capitalist countries too.
minus-squareAmnesigenic@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·8 minutes ago“To each according to their need” doesn’t necessarily mean pay, you could just provide housing and food directly to people who can’t otherwise afford it. Passive income necessarily requires exploitation and accounts for neither need nor ability.
No idea what that means
It means that between communism and capitalism there’s exactly one option that says being paid for labor someone else did is fine and one that doesn’t
… Both of them though?
One based on investments, the other based on being unable to work. From each according to their abilities and all that.
Not that it’s a bad thing. To some degree we already do it in most sane capitalist countries too.
“To each according to their need” doesn’t necessarily mean pay, you could just provide housing and food directly to people who can’t otherwise afford it. Passive income necessarily requires exploitation and accounts for neither need nor ability.
Which one?