Actually socialism under Marxism (which is only one type of socialism) is each according to their work (with I presume exceptions for the disabled, the retired, children, those in ill health). I personally would interpret "To each according to their work" as "to each according to their effort or sacrifice". (Marxist) "Communism is each according to their needs". Either would be a hell of a lot more equal than capitalism -- and with the exception of people who require unusually large consumption due to disability or health needs -- would be pretty close to equal. I suppose you can be a socialist without being an egalitarian, but I can't see why you would. Equality of wealth and income to the degree possible -- with the main exceptions being special needs, and extraordinary sacrifices -- strikes me as a major reason for being a socialist. I mean we have had posts on how income inequality creates health problems, causes crime. A great deal of the corruption of capitalist governments comes from the ability of the rich and powerful to buy polticians. I would guess that even the non-socialists on this lists (it feels very strange to be in a cyber-environment where socialists are a majority) would like to see wealth and income more equally distributed than at present. Are you telling me that there are a large group on this list who would not like to see income and wealth more equally distributed than at present -- even if that is not their main object? Does anyone on this list really think that income and wealth distribution are unimportant, or that the current degree of income inequality is acceptable? I admit, that when I express curiourosityy about what wages would be if wealth and income were divided more or less equally worldwide per hour worked that I am taking it farther than many on this list are wont to. For the Marxists on this list, I will point out that even holy father Marx suggested a labor hour form of accounting for the early stages of socialism which provided each person an equal claim on collective stores per hour worked. Ken Hanly wrote: > > Gar Lipow wrote: > > > I know that equality of wealth and income is not the only point of > > socialism, but it is one of the points, and an important one. > > > > I wasn't aware the equality of wealth and income was something > that socialism aimed at. The Marxist slogan, at least, is to each based > upon their needs. This would not imply equality of income. Under > socialism most wealth would not be individual but collective. During the > transition stage reward or income would be according to social > contribution. Certainly present disparities of income would not be > sanctioned under any socialist system but the main point of socialism is > the socialization of the major, means, of production, distribution and > exchange. Production would fill social neeeds not the need for profit. > Distribution would be on the basis of need not income. There seems to > nothing in all of that which would imply that equality of wealth or > income is even desirable let alone an aim of socialism. > Cheers, Ken Hanly -- Gar W. Lipow 815 Dundee RD NW Olympia, WA 98502 http://www.freetrain.org/
