[lbo-talk] Entitlements and Rights

Mike Ballard swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au
Tue Apr 12 07:14:45 PDT 2011

There are two sources of wealth in the world: nature and human labour.  The fact of the matter is that 88% of the wealth in capitalist societies go to the upper 10% of the population while the working class creators of wealth, 90% of the population, get 12% back for selling their labour power for wages.  Labour is actually *entitled* to all it produces, IMO, although I know this assertion will upset the lib cap ideologists who attend this blog.  The parasites at the top rake in most of the wealth because of the legalised system of robbery, enforced by armed bodies of men hired by their employees in the political State.  Fortunately for the ruling class, most the producers continue to view the world 'camera obscura' (in a reified way) thus, seeing the employing class as the creators of wealth, which is why they tolerate, vote for and even emulate them.

As for Marx, he was not a market socialist. Marx was communist, for common ownership of the collective product of labour; production for use and need (as opposed to commodity production for sale) and for a classless association of free producers, instead of a class dominated political State, although he did allow for a Paris Commune style 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (DOP).

Note to Charles: Marx never talked about socialism being the transition to communism. The DOP as conceived by Marx was a proletarian democracy, not socialism as it represented a class dominated, as opposed to a classless society. The socialism transition to communism conceptual construction was one taken by the leadership of the CPSU and other M-Ls.

For the works! Mike B)  *************** // ravi

I am writing up a response to this libertarian blog post that was quoted by a friend:


(the author is an Indian journalist who is a research fellow at Cato)

And one thing with which I can use some help from youse guys is this claim by Aiyar (the author) that "Welfarism was once touted as the great Marxist vision". From the little I know of Marx and his ideas, this does not make much sense. In my understanding, Marx's prescriptions are not the sort of market socialism one sees in the West which provides the context for talk of "entitlements".




CB:  Marx's rough and ready formula for socialism, as a transitional phase between capitalism to communism, is " from each according to ability , to each according to work."   He who does not work does not eat (!), if they are capable of working.  But everybody can work , because  socialism provides full employment, so there are jobs for all.  There is a right and responsibility to work.  However, a social and pension fund for the elderly, children and sick is definitely part of it.

With capitalism , there are _never_ enough jobs for all. There is always mass unemployment or a mass relative surplus population forced thereby into misery.  In the circumstance of capitalism, therefore, the Marxist demand is jobs _or income_ , i.e. welfare . for all.  If society systematic does not provide jobs for all, then it must give income without work to those who are unemployed by the system's failure to provide enough jobs.  The capitalist lie is that there is mass unemployment because of mass laziness. ***********************************************************************

Wobbly Times


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list