You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
That’s a bit of a cop out. “There’s no Robin Hood at that specific point because it’s already been taken at gunpoint by the time we dole it out”.
That doesn’t erase the fact that they’re very much is a Robin Hood figure with a gun. And if you want to seize everything at gunpoint You should at least be up front about it.
If your point is true and right in virtuous you do not need a spin on it.
The question that you originally responded to was IMO about early socialism and revolution. It assumes that people have something to give (besides labor) and you picked up on that when you referenced robbing.
You’ve moved the goalposts. First you conceed that yes there will have to be “theft” (your word not mine), then when I agreed with you (while not being so judgey as to call it theft), you pivoted to “no, we only start counting what happens after we’ve seized power. Everything before that doesn’t count” (paraphrasing of course).
I agree with you that if you laid out a timeline and point to where the economy would be reorganized, it comes after seizing everything at gunpoint. Obviously you can’t reorganize till you’ve taken ownership. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.
Didn’t realize you weren’t the original person, but the conversation thread still holds, the original question was:
How do you force people to give according to their ability? What if they don’t want to?
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” refers to communism. It’s a direct response to the OP. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work" refers to socialism and revolution, but wasn’t the subject of the OP.
No. I answered OP’s question about communism, then it got shifted to socialism and revolution. This is important, as the original question was framed as how do you keep communism going.
That’s what I was getting at. Don’t soft pedal it.
“There WILL be a Robin Hood type taking shit at gunpoint”.
You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
That’s a bit of a cop out. “There’s no Robin Hood at that specific point because it’s already been taken at gunpoint by the time we dole it out”.
That doesn’t erase the fact that they’re very much is a Robin Hood figure with a gun. And if you want to seize everything at gunpoint You should at least be up front about it.
If your point is true and right in virtuous you do not need a spin on it.
I’m not spinning anything, you asked a question about communism and I answered, and now you’re moving the goalposts to revolution and early socialism.
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” refers to communism. It’s a direct response to the OP. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work" refers to socialism and revolution, but wasn’t the subject of the OP.
No. I answered OP’s question about communism, then it got shifted to socialism and revolution. This is important, as the original question was framed as how do you keep communism going.
Sure.