(urth) from each according to his abilities (was: Gollancz list (was: Re: Book of the New Sun won!)

[James Wynn]

On 8/7/2011 1:56 PM, Jack Smith wrote:
> I'm not convinced that this is socialism or that it tells us anything 
> about a socialist system of government.  You entered into a family 
> business and you worked at it.   Perhaps you worked harder than 
> others;  perhaps others thought they worked harder than you.  You grew 
> disenchanted and you left, but there must have been rewards for you to 
> stay as long as you did.

I believe the moral of Marc's story is that there were not rewards. He 
speculated on a socialist system in *hope* that he would gain the love 
of a woman -- and perhaps he presumed he would also gain the respect of 
her family. Ultimately he gained neither. He speculated and lost his 
investment. In Life, we are all capitalists.

> You might draw a very different conclusion from the same 
> circumstances:   That monarchy (the rule of one man who has inherited 
> his position as the head of the family) exploits the lower classes, 
> such as yourself.

Every system that involves an attempt to "fairly" divide scarce 
resources among many involves a person or organization who determines 
the meaning of the word, who are the needy, who are the able, who are 
the deserving, who are the gluttons. That person or persons is empowered 
by that responsibility. Every such system breaks down (if/when it breaks 
down) at the point of actual *work* -- the place where limited, 
fallible, greedy humans start cutting portions. The cleverness of Adam 
Smith economics is that Smith largely refuted the need for such a person 
or persons.

For more on this, check out Wolfe ingenious propaganda piece "The Devil 
in a Forest."

J.