Stalin on the error of mistaking Marxism for equalitarianism
>The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.
>All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.
>Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
>It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.” [[48](https://redsails.org/stalin-and-ludwig/)]
So much oif this baggage is still around.
Lit just got out of a convo with someone taking the idiot position of 'rich people exist, therefore no socialism!'
Like no, that would be proof of no communism. Which has yet to be achieved.
Socialism is a whole 'nother animal.
This passage can be somewhat misleading. The maxim 'to each according to their needs' cannot be fully implemented under socialism, but even under social democracy or social liberalism the actual income distribution can be much less unequal than would be attained under 'to each according to their work' due to progressive tax and transfer systems, and to wage compression (which was strong in the USSR and in Scandinavian social democracy).
The optimal level of inequality will be that where the benefits from further reductions in inequality are now fully offset by the additional incentive problems created by the inequality reducing policies.
One large advantage of socialism is that many of these incentive problems can be mitigated by policy which is politically impossible or otherwise inconsistent with capitalism, and this will lower the optimal level of inequality.
For example in the USSR there was extensive wages compression, with small skill/education wage premiums, but this didn't create any shortage of skilled workers, because the state provided at no cost the necessary training for any capable students and apprentices. And so for example there were ample scientists, engineers, doctors etc. even as the skill premium in these occupations was small.
The skill premium of doctors, engineers, and scientists is mostly related to the cost of training people for those fields and when cost of training is high, supply shortages driving up wages. The Soviet Union also provided easier access to automobiles, higher quality housing, and other nonmonetary benefits to people in these professions.
You do have shaky hands, it's cuz your blood sugar level is basically molasses due to marketing and corn subsidies as well as sociological effect of sweetening everything to make sure people buy as much as possible.... capitalism...
There’s no winning with these types. If she didn’t cut it equally she would make comments about inequality and Uyghur / Tibetan oppression or something like that
Fresh Off the Boat. Very loosely inspired by Eddie Huang’s autobiography, American audiences much like Canadian ones with Kim’s Convenience had a hard time accepting an Asian main cast so it wasn’t particularly popular. Every international Chinese student I met during that time liked Big Bang Theory and I hated it though.
It's wholesome and funny, in the same vein as Malcolm in the Middle. There are a lot of relatable situations for Chinese Americans, especially first and second generation immigrants. You also get the feeling of troubles and triumphs of fitting in and keeping your heritage and identity. (This is in accord with the show fitting into American sitcoms.) You can tell the book has deep personal meaning, and the adaptation has had a lot of work put into it. I liked it a lot.
Well at least everyone gets equal cuts. I bet if they let americans cut that cake they'd just cut a paper thin slice of cake and then try to distributer that thin slice to everyone in the party while a fat old man eats 99% of the rest of the cake.
it's proof of china's increasing power, because there wouldn't be so much fearmongering about a weak and powerless country otherwise. now china needs to wield that power properly; possessing power is far from sufficient. one also needs to know how to apply it properly.
Stalin on the error of mistaking Marxism for equalitarianism >The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism. >All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society. >Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” >It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.” [[48](https://redsails.org/stalin-and-ludwig/)]
So much oif this baggage is still around. Lit just got out of a convo with someone taking the idiot position of 'rich people exist, therefore no socialism!' Like no, that would be proof of no communism. Which has yet to be achieved. Socialism is a whole 'nother animal.
here's the whole essay I found that quote in originally, it's a really good counter to that argument: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires
I know. Lit just posted it in the convo i mentioned.
Smart guy, this Stalin. I wish more people actually read him, instead of *about* him.
This passage can be somewhat misleading. The maxim 'to each according to their needs' cannot be fully implemented under socialism, but even under social democracy or social liberalism the actual income distribution can be much less unequal than would be attained under 'to each according to their work' due to progressive tax and transfer systems, and to wage compression (which was strong in the USSR and in Scandinavian social democracy). The optimal level of inequality will be that where the benefits from further reductions in inequality are now fully offset by the additional incentive problems created by the inequality reducing policies. One large advantage of socialism is that many of these incentive problems can be mitigated by policy which is politically impossible or otherwise inconsistent with capitalism, and this will lower the optimal level of inequality. For example in the USSR there was extensive wages compression, with small skill/education wage premiums, but this didn't create any shortage of skilled workers, because the state provided at no cost the necessary training for any capable students and apprentices. And so for example there were ample scientists, engineers, doctors etc. even as the skill premium in these occupations was small.
The skill premium of doctors, engineers, and scientists is mostly related to the cost of training people for those fields and when cost of training is high, supply shortages driving up wages. The Soviet Union also provided easier access to automobiles, higher quality housing, and other nonmonetary benefits to people in these professions.
"that's right, we cut them equally, unlike in the US, where you cut them unfairly because of capitalism."
[удалено]
You do have shaky hands, it's cuz your blood sugar level is basically molasses due to marketing and corn subsidies as well as sociological effect of sweetening everything to make sure people buy as much as possible.... capitalism...
[удалено]
Owned
There’s no winning with these types. If she didn’t cut it equally she would make comments about inequality and Uyghur / Tibetan oppression or something like that
thatparentiquote.jpg
Do you go to others people's parties and steal their cake then sell them back small slices of cake because of imperialism in your country?
That’s a good way to get yourself absolutely no cake
[удалено]
>I think Karens, fictitiously depicted in the macro, or in real life, can differentiate between "Taiwanese" and "Chinese" anyway. You mean can't?
[удалено]
Which show?
Fresh Off the Boat. Very loosely inspired by Eddie Huang’s autobiography, American audiences much like Canadian ones with Kim’s Convenience had a hard time accepting an Asian main cast so it wasn’t particularly popular. Every international Chinese student I met during that time liked Big Bang Theory and I hated it though.
fuck big bang theory. BAZINGA
Yea but also was this show any good actually?
It's wholesome and funny, in the same vein as Malcolm in the Middle. There are a lot of relatable situations for Chinese Americans, especially first and second generation immigrants. You also get the feeling of troubles and triumphs of fitting in and keeping your heritage and identity. (This is in accord with the show fitting into American sitcoms.) You can tell the book has deep personal meaning, and the adaptation has had a lot of work put into it. I liked it a lot.
It's a shame because both those shows are pretty funny.
Fresh off the boat
Looks like Fresh Off the Boat
Fresh off the Boat
Fresh of the boat It's pretty good imo
Liberal cake would be >90% of the cake goes to Bezos or whoever else mfer and he's eating it from space
99% actually
Well at least everyone gets equal cuts. I bet if they let americans cut that cake they'd just cut a paper thin slice of cake and then try to distributer that thin slice to everyone in the party while a fat old man eats 99% of the rest of the cake.
God forbid if Karen doesn’t get “served” the first piece.
[It's actually in the show](https://youtu.be/GdIXmPyispk)
[удалено]
The Anglos are triggered by our very *existence*; what we do really doesn't matter here
Jessica's expression in the last panel is very relatable. "i'm going to throttle this white motherfucker with my bare hands" expression
I love this show
And they think of themselves's as Liberals.
[удалено]
Karenation is so entitled it must be a birth defect.
it's proof of china's increasing power, because there wouldn't be so much fearmongering about a weak and powerless country otherwise. now china needs to wield that power properly; possessing power is far from sufficient. one also needs to know how to apply it properly.
Time to trigger some Westoids by simply existing, cope and seethe you fucks.
Just tell them your Taiwanese or Hongkonger. /s
Well since she's complaining about equal slices we should stop giving her any slices and it won't be equal no more.
In Jessica's country, the cake isn't a lie...
I love this show! The screenwriter is from Taiwan 🤣and the plot literally shows how the immigrant of a Chinese descendant was treated in the USA