Can someone please explain how entitlement plays a role in socialism. When does someone "deserve" something, and when is thier suffering "earned"?

Even though socialists claim they are immune to these kinds of value judgements, I see you people make them anyways. Clearly you have entitlement standards. I want to know what they are

Other urls found in this thread:


People are entitled to the value of their work.


No one "deserves" or "earns" anything.
They are spooks

So what you are telling me is that myself, as a subway worker, are only entitled to the value of slapping about a hundred subs together?

That's fucked up man.

The value of your work is determined by the number of hours socially necessary labour you perform.

If you're referring to economically, by participating in a workplace directly in a meaningful way, rather than putting some capital its way or owning a share in it in absence.

In a just society, a machine would have taken your job by now.

I can't speak for others but personally my support for socialism is based around ideas on how to maximize individual freedoms. The only thing people deserve is as much freedom over themselves and agency in their own lives as possible. I think it's obvious that universal access to the basic necessities of life as well as a measure of political power is a core part of that.

That guy is wrong, from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. You're entitled to as much as you need and can a reasonable amount of what you want depending on the supply of resources.

I agree, but can anyone say they aren't motivated by some idea of who deserves what? We are inherently spooky.

Personally I think this is a workerist view of economic desert/justice. My value isn't determined by whatever BS job capitalism assigns to me. And even if someone wasn't working at all I think they would deserve the basic means of subsistence at least.


who decides this and how
who decides this and how
who decides this and how

That makes sense, but it also makes me think a little. For instance, if I were to get a better job, it would probably feel unfair.

Also, there are some human needs that aren't able to be addressed that easily, and are inherently competitive. The need for companionship for example

"Entitled" means that there is a law proscribing that such benefits be transfered. It's not referring to a moral or divine entitlement.


it's literally in the word. your muh privileges and rights correspond to your legal position. in feudal society for example your income could only be derived from that which is stipulated in either your legal charter or whatever is included in the document of your nobility.

you know Robin Hood? all that shit happened because John and English kings in general were severely limited in what they could tax and how. stuff like the magna carta happened because the king, having to run the whole government from his own pocket, was constantly strapped for cash and having to either find new things to tax, or to tax his current entitlements even further.

When the government hands out welfare, there are laws describing who the welfare is supposed to go to and how it's supposed to be disbursed. There's practically no rationale (descriptions of how welfare became necessary or why certain people deserve it) within the letter of the law; rationales are usually filled in later by court decisions. This is what is referred to as an entitlement.

dear reader ever since conception of the Internets millions of fuckers around the world are doing their best to cure everyone from the dreary pitfalls of motivation

Show me a time when people weren't possessed by spooks? Religion and spiritual practices go way back. You aren't manipulated if you knowingly consent to being possessed by the spook, and you may even enjoy it.

"You aren't being raped if you don't resist"

I think being an egoist entails constructing as many spooks as possible so as to manipulate people. Call it rape if you want but any idea that we should not construct spooks to manipulate people is moral and thus a spook.

Spoken like a true egolet microbrain.

People deserve a fair day's wages for a fair day's work.


Good job making the same lame as fuck point every teenager makes but instead throwing on a couple more sentences before it so people are forced to waste their time.

Read the communist manifesto and conquest of bread, that should answer 99% of your questions far better than anyone here has the patience to


Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

>Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural muh privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!'

I do

Great shitpost OP I will give you all of my "bretty gud" Memes if you wire me 10 months of Reddit gold.
The meme that all socialists agree needs to stop. This is an intervention user. I know you won't read so here. How much food, water, housing, etc… will still exist, it will just be supplied by need. Yes I understand you won't be able to go get three hundred chicken livers at the the Supermarket during the revolution, but the vast majority of peoples quality of life will be the same but during a revolution. Things will get made based on need, which can and will be done. How do you think companies know how many products to make? It will be similar to that but without unsupervised competition ruining things. There will inevitably be scarcity and saturation, but that is more of a supply/demand issue independent of The Spooky Gommunism.