"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a working sentence. And yes, every economic proposal the Democrats make is based on this principle. That Marx wrote it is largely irrelevant. He wasn't the first, and certainly not the last, to believe that the function of the State was to equalize wealth and property. This has nothing to do with democracy on the face of it, other than that the consistent and constant application of this principle eventually erodes freedom.
You can reword it if you like so you don't get huffy about the Marxist connection.
The idea that it is not only moral, but right and proper to strip wealth from the prosperous by force to give it out to those who are not, is part and parcel of almost everything in the social field that Democrats have proposed for decades. Think about it for a while. Run examples through your mind. Taxation? Health care? Retirement? Education?
Almost two thirds of the Federal Budget falls into this category.
The modern roots of socialism were born long before Marx, in eras where the very wealthy were primarily those who had inherited land and positions for generations.
It ain't 1700 any more, either.
Off Topic » in reply to No. It's this cycle's version of the 1920s.
Words have exact meanings.
The whole thread (39 posts)
- Aren't you Americans glad you don't have to live with socialized medicine?
- Favorite single-payer quote
- Market forces
- State of health "care" in shambles
- And those are the lucky ones - many just don't get the care to have bills. (n/t)
- I have lived under socialized medicine...
- I had a car once
- I was underwhelmed by Australian socialized medicine
- Yugos were. There was a reason for that. (n/t)
- Oh right - I forgot - anything connected with socialism is automatically bad
- I had a car once
- re: Yeah.