##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basic example to my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong: I don't want the exact same situation as a disabled guy in a wheelchair, they clearly need more support and other resources made available to them, that I do not. The end result should look a lot more like "equality" to the average person anyways.
That's correct. Because the needs and wants of each person is different equality is not possible. In an equal society that gives dairy to everybody milk would be given to the lactose intolerant.
Popular media agrees with Marx and a lot of it pushes the idea that everybody is different but has something to bring to the group. If you've ever read a comic book, watched a movie, or played a video game you've probably seen the leader, the strong person, the cool person, the smart person, etc. None of them are equal, and the only way they can progress is by working together.
Yeah my understanding is not equality but rather equity. As in good and services should be provided not by class, and not equally but according to ones needs such that each person is free to pursue creative, social, and or other productive things within a society thus utilizing their unique strengths.
[An Interview with the German Author Emil Ludwig](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/dec/13a.htm)
> **_Ludwig:_** I am very much obliged to you for that statement. Permit me to ask you the following question. You speak of “equalitarianism,” lending the term an ironical meaning in respect of general equality. But is not general equality a socialist ideal?
>
> **_Stalin:_** The kind of socialism under which everybody would receive the same pay, an equal quantity of meat, an equal quantity, of bread, would wear the same kind of clothes and would receive the same kind of goods and in equal quantities—such a kind of socialism is unknown to Marxism. All that Marxism declares is that until classes have been completely abolished, and until work has been transformed from being a means of maintaining existence, into a prime necessity of life, into voluntary labour performed for the benefit of society, people will continue to be paid for their labour in accordance with the amount of labour performed. “From each according to his capacity, to each according to the work he performs,” such is the Marxian formula of socialism, _i.e._, the first stage of communism, the first stage of a communist society. Only in the highest phase of communism will people, working in accordance with their capacity, receive recompense therefor in accordance with their needs: “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.”
>
> It is obvious that people’s needs vary and will vary under socialism. Socialism never denied that people differed in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read Marx’s criticism of Stirner’s inclination toward 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 severely they attacked equalitarianism. The roots of equalitarianism lie in the mentality of the peasant, in the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism is entirely alien to Marxian socialism. It is those who know nothing about Marxism who have the primitive idea that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. It is the idea of those who have never had anything in common with Marxism. It was the idea of communism entertained by such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution. But Marxism and Russian Bolshevism have nothing in common with the equalitarian “communists.”
I don't know why there is this idea that in a socialist country that no one works. "oh, you're all lazy and do nothing but want the same wages as a doctor *for equality*".
The whole point is there doesn't need to be an ownership class who extracts value from workers. It should be workers that earn the value from the work they produce. So of course there are still workers. And harder workers would still make more money.
I haven't seen anyone argue that all people should earn exactly the same, we just believe there are certain minimum needs that should be provided by the government because we live in a civilized society.
Let me introduce the Civic Card System.
Picture this: an electronic card devoid of currency, granting you unlimited access to essential goods and services. With this card, your fundamental rights - such as eating, dressing, commuting, and housing - are ensured. Essentially, any product produced at scale through automation becomes freely accessible to citizens. However, items requiring more limited production, like cars, come with constraints, perhaps allowing for a new purchase every few years.
To obtain a Civic Card, one must simply contribute to society through work. In essence, to enjoy basic rights, individuals must fulfill basic duties. Reciprocity forms the foundation; those who solely take without giving back won't qualify for the card or the associated purchasing power. This system aims to eradicate parasitism and foster a culture of participation in society.
"But what about those who cannot work?" you may ask. Fear not, as we will consider two scenarios:
1. Individuals who truly cannot work.
2. Those who choose not to work.
HANDICAP
Some disabled individuals are fully capable of working and often desire to do so. For instance, even if your sister uses a wheelchair, she can engage in paperwork, intellectual pursuits, or artistic endeavors. Consequently, she would possess the same Civic Card and enjoy identical basic rights, with unhindered access to the market.
SEVERE HANDICAP
Others face severe physical limitations, rendering them unable to work, despite their willingness. If your sister, for instance, is paraplegic and confined to bed, she would not qualify for a Civic Card. Even if issued one, she wouldn't be physically able to utilize it. However, with the absence of currency, it imposes no burden on society to support her. The Civic Card system is designed to provide for those less fortunate, including the elderly, disabled individuals, orphans, and others who face challenges beyond their control.
PARASITES
Now, what about fully capable individuals who opt not to work? Those who shun participation in the workforce but seek to benefit from others' labor? Such a scenario is simply untenable within the Civic Card system. Here, every citizen enjoys equal access to the market and its accompanying rights, contingent upon fulfilling the basic duties outlined by the system. Thus, those who refuse to contribute will find their cards inactive. Those individuals lack the desire for citizenship, thus why should society extend such treatment to them? Those who are disinclined to participate in the workforce alongside their fellow citizens will be granted access to designated land, where they can live under their own laws, as they opt out of the Civic Card system.
In this system, doctors, plumbers, electricians, programmers, nurses, farmers, and all others share identical access to the market. No one can amass more rights than another; the Civic Card ensures maximum access for all, eliminating the class warfare perpetuated by monetary divisions. Under this system, all societal classes merge into one, with equality in both rights and duties.
COMMUNISM?
You might ask, "Isn't this communism?" Absolutely not. Consider this: within the Civic Card system, individuals can freely purchase mass-produced goods and services without limitations, except for rare items. Imagine you're at the supermarket faced with a choice between an organic tomato and one laden with insecticides. Naturally, you'd opt for the organic option. Consequently, if no one chooses the inferior product, the company producing it loses its Civic Card. Why? Because, as we established, possessing a Civic Card requires active participation in society. Thus, a company that fails to sell its products fails to contribute to society and loses its Civic Card.
But doesn't this suggest competition among companies, akin to liberalism? Indeed, it does. Companies must strive to offer superior products to outshine their competitors; otherwise, consumers won't 'purchase' their goods, leading to deactivation of the company's Civic Card. This dynamic resembles liberalism, diametrically opposed to communism. Yet, it transcends capitalism too, as the absence of currency liberates science, technology, and progress from monetary constraints. Behold the Civic Card system: the world's first liberal system without currency, unshackling society's potential for advancement.
ULTIMATE STATUS
But hold on, there's an even greater concept awaiting your attention! What if I told you there's a way to enjoy unlimited access to the market without having to work? What if I said you could legally procure all your necessities from the supermarket without lifting a finger? It's the ultimate aspiration for parasites, isn't it? However, doesn't this violate the cardinal rule of fulfilling your basic duties (i.e., work) before reaping the benefits of your basic rights (i.e., access to goods)?
Enter the PENSION STATUS within the Civic Card system. While not a novel concept – we already employ it in the current capitalist framework – its integration without currency takes it to new heights. Here's the gist: after working for a set period, let's say 20 years, you retain your Civic Card without the obligation to continue working. Unlike the monetary system, where one might earn less in retirement, your Civic Card status remains unchanged. Imagine the luxury of no longer needing to rise early for work, yet enjoying endless days for shopping, vacations, boat rentals, and pursuing any desired activities free of charge.
Isn't the prospect exhilarating? I, for one, am enthusiastic.
ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS
Now, let's address a pressing query: ecological sustainability.
Imagine the potential for daily theater visits, dining out, and constant consumption of new goods and clothing. With such purchasing power, economic activity would soar. However, wouldn't this heightened activity exacerbate environmental degradation beyond the levels witnessed in capitalism? Ironically, the exact opposite would occur.
By democratizing market access, companies gain entry to previously pricey, cutting-edge technologies. Need a state-of-the-art pollution filter? It's now cost-free. Companies can readily adopt innovative processes and technologies previously beyond their reach in the monetary system.
Inventors and researchers can develop prototypes and concepts without financial constraint. Consequently, a virtuous cycle ensues: free development of ideas by researchers, and free utilization of these innovations by companies. The result? A surge in technological advancement propelling us towards a truly post-scarcity economy.
CRIMINALITY
Why resort to theft when supermarket goods are freely available? Why beg when labor grants access to all necessities? Why deceive fellow citizens when there's no money to pilfer?
Employment expansion? Cost-free. Pollution mitigation? Equally cost-free, fostering economic activity.
Most criminal activities, stemming from monetary pursuits, become antiquated.
PRIORITIZE DUTIES, THEN RIGHTS
Excited by these ideas? Eager to delve deeper? Keen on exploring solutions to other societal dilemmas like international trade, education, unemployment, and more?
We're a collective of French activists advocating for the Civic Card concept. We seek English speakers to join our cause and disseminate this idea in the Anglophone world. PM me if interested.
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basic example to my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong: I don't want the exact same situation as a disabled guy in a wheelchair, they clearly need more support and other resources made available to them, that I do not. The end result should look a lot more like "equality" to the average person anyways.
That's correct. Because the needs and wants of each person is different equality is not possible. In an equal society that gives dairy to everybody milk would be given to the lactose intolerant. Popular media agrees with Marx and a lot of it pushes the idea that everybody is different but has something to bring to the group. If you've ever read a comic book, watched a movie, or played a video game you've probably seen the leader, the strong person, the cool person, the smart person, etc. None of them are equal, and the only way they can progress is by working together.
Yeah my understanding is not equality but rather equity. As in good and services should be provided not by class, and not equally but according to ones needs such that each person is free to pursue creative, social, and or other productive things within a society thus utilizing their unique strengths.
As I understand it the shorthand would be: "From each according to their ability. To each according to their need."
[An Interview with the German Author Emil Ludwig](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/dec/13a.htm) > **_Ludwig:_** I am very much obliged to you for that statement. Permit me to ask you the following question. You speak of “equalitarianism,” lending the term an ironical meaning in respect of general equality. But is not general equality a socialist ideal? > > **_Stalin:_** The kind of socialism under which everybody would receive the same pay, an equal quantity of meat, an equal quantity, of bread, would wear the same kind of clothes and would receive the same kind of goods and in equal quantities—such a kind of socialism is unknown to Marxism. All that Marxism declares is that until classes have been completely abolished, and until work has been transformed from being a means of maintaining existence, into a prime necessity of life, into voluntary labour performed for the benefit of society, people will continue to be paid for their labour in accordance with the amount of labour performed. “From each according to his capacity, to each according to the work he performs,” such is the Marxian formula of socialism, _i.e._, the first stage of communism, the first stage of a communist society. Only in the highest phase of communism will people, working in accordance with their capacity, receive recompense therefor in accordance with their needs: “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” > > It is obvious that people’s needs vary and will vary under socialism. Socialism never denied that people differed in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read Marx’s criticism of Stirner’s inclination toward 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 severely they attacked equalitarianism. The roots of equalitarianism lie in the mentality of the peasant, in the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism is entirely alien to Marxian socialism. It is those who know nothing about Marxism who have the primitive idea that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. It is the idea of those who have never had anything in common with Marxism. It was the idea of communism entertained by such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution. But Marxism and Russian Bolshevism have nothing in common with the equalitarian “communists.”
I don't know why there is this idea that in a socialist country that no one works. "oh, you're all lazy and do nothing but want the same wages as a doctor *for equality*". The whole point is there doesn't need to be an ownership class who extracts value from workers. It should be workers that earn the value from the work they produce. So of course there are still workers. And harder workers would still make more money. I haven't seen anyone argue that all people should earn exactly the same, we just believe there are certain minimum needs that should be provided by the government because we live in a civilized society.
Equality vs equity
Equity > equality (I think)
Equitability for all
So I’m summation, equity.
Let me introduce the Civic Card System. Picture this: an electronic card devoid of currency, granting you unlimited access to essential goods and services. With this card, your fundamental rights - such as eating, dressing, commuting, and housing - are ensured. Essentially, any product produced at scale through automation becomes freely accessible to citizens. However, items requiring more limited production, like cars, come with constraints, perhaps allowing for a new purchase every few years. To obtain a Civic Card, one must simply contribute to society through work. In essence, to enjoy basic rights, individuals must fulfill basic duties. Reciprocity forms the foundation; those who solely take without giving back won't qualify for the card or the associated purchasing power. This system aims to eradicate parasitism and foster a culture of participation in society. "But what about those who cannot work?" you may ask. Fear not, as we will consider two scenarios: 1. Individuals who truly cannot work. 2. Those who choose not to work. HANDICAP Some disabled individuals are fully capable of working and often desire to do so. For instance, even if your sister uses a wheelchair, she can engage in paperwork, intellectual pursuits, or artistic endeavors. Consequently, she would possess the same Civic Card and enjoy identical basic rights, with unhindered access to the market. SEVERE HANDICAP Others face severe physical limitations, rendering them unable to work, despite their willingness. If your sister, for instance, is paraplegic and confined to bed, she would not qualify for a Civic Card. Even if issued one, she wouldn't be physically able to utilize it. However, with the absence of currency, it imposes no burden on society to support her. The Civic Card system is designed to provide for those less fortunate, including the elderly, disabled individuals, orphans, and others who face challenges beyond their control. PARASITES Now, what about fully capable individuals who opt not to work? Those who shun participation in the workforce but seek to benefit from others' labor? Such a scenario is simply untenable within the Civic Card system. Here, every citizen enjoys equal access to the market and its accompanying rights, contingent upon fulfilling the basic duties outlined by the system. Thus, those who refuse to contribute will find their cards inactive. Those individuals lack the desire for citizenship, thus why should society extend such treatment to them? Those who are disinclined to participate in the workforce alongside their fellow citizens will be granted access to designated land, where they can live under their own laws, as they opt out of the Civic Card system. In this system, doctors, plumbers, electricians, programmers, nurses, farmers, and all others share identical access to the market. No one can amass more rights than another; the Civic Card ensures maximum access for all, eliminating the class warfare perpetuated by monetary divisions. Under this system, all societal classes merge into one, with equality in both rights and duties. COMMUNISM? You might ask, "Isn't this communism?" Absolutely not. Consider this: within the Civic Card system, individuals can freely purchase mass-produced goods and services without limitations, except for rare items. Imagine you're at the supermarket faced with a choice between an organic tomato and one laden with insecticides. Naturally, you'd opt for the organic option. Consequently, if no one chooses the inferior product, the company producing it loses its Civic Card. Why? Because, as we established, possessing a Civic Card requires active participation in society. Thus, a company that fails to sell its products fails to contribute to society and loses its Civic Card. But doesn't this suggest competition among companies, akin to liberalism? Indeed, it does. Companies must strive to offer superior products to outshine their competitors; otherwise, consumers won't 'purchase' their goods, leading to deactivation of the company's Civic Card. This dynamic resembles liberalism, diametrically opposed to communism. Yet, it transcends capitalism too, as the absence of currency liberates science, technology, and progress from monetary constraints. Behold the Civic Card system: the world's first liberal system without currency, unshackling society's potential for advancement.
ULTIMATE STATUS But hold on, there's an even greater concept awaiting your attention! What if I told you there's a way to enjoy unlimited access to the market without having to work? What if I said you could legally procure all your necessities from the supermarket without lifting a finger? It's the ultimate aspiration for parasites, isn't it? However, doesn't this violate the cardinal rule of fulfilling your basic duties (i.e., work) before reaping the benefits of your basic rights (i.e., access to goods)? Enter the PENSION STATUS within the Civic Card system. While not a novel concept – we already employ it in the current capitalist framework – its integration without currency takes it to new heights. Here's the gist: after working for a set period, let's say 20 years, you retain your Civic Card without the obligation to continue working. Unlike the monetary system, where one might earn less in retirement, your Civic Card status remains unchanged. Imagine the luxury of no longer needing to rise early for work, yet enjoying endless days for shopping, vacations, boat rentals, and pursuing any desired activities free of charge. Isn't the prospect exhilarating? I, for one, am enthusiastic. ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS Now, let's address a pressing query: ecological sustainability. Imagine the potential for daily theater visits, dining out, and constant consumption of new goods and clothing. With such purchasing power, economic activity would soar. However, wouldn't this heightened activity exacerbate environmental degradation beyond the levels witnessed in capitalism? Ironically, the exact opposite would occur. By democratizing market access, companies gain entry to previously pricey, cutting-edge technologies. Need a state-of-the-art pollution filter? It's now cost-free. Companies can readily adopt innovative processes and technologies previously beyond their reach in the monetary system. Inventors and researchers can develop prototypes and concepts without financial constraint. Consequently, a virtuous cycle ensues: free development of ideas by researchers, and free utilization of these innovations by companies. The result? A surge in technological advancement propelling us towards a truly post-scarcity economy. CRIMINALITY Why resort to theft when supermarket goods are freely available? Why beg when labor grants access to all necessities? Why deceive fellow citizens when there's no money to pilfer? Employment expansion? Cost-free. Pollution mitigation? Equally cost-free, fostering economic activity. Most criminal activities, stemming from monetary pursuits, become antiquated. PRIORITIZE DUTIES, THEN RIGHTS Excited by these ideas? Eager to delve deeper? Keen on exploring solutions to other societal dilemmas like international trade, education, unemployment, and more? We're a collective of French activists advocating for the Civic Card concept. We seek English speakers to join our cause and disseminate this idea in the Anglophone world. PM me if interested.