>
>
>
>
>On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Justin wrote:
Marx rejected egalitarianism for nonconsequentialist reasons. One can be an egalitarian for consequ reasons or others, and a nonegal, likewise. The positions cross classify. You would hate, I mean absolutely hate, my reasons--the incentive stuff, from rawls, no consequentialist, is the only part that even has echoes of consequ. Anyway, I am sure everyone else is utterly bored by this discussion.
Do I think that equality of income has any prior weight for any reason? No. But I think that if there is a principle adopted it has to9 have some justification. Do I think there is a baseline? Maybe: minimal adequacy. Everyone gets enough. That won't be the same for each. Beyond that, it's a complicated story.
^^^^^^^
CB: Rumor has it that Marx's own formulation on this issue for socialism is " from each according to ability, to each according to work", for communism "from each according to ability , to each according to need ".
At the break through it's more like "All Power to the Soviets".