/lit/ - Literature

>>14323275
>It means that you are both giving what people deserve for their ability in something and what they need for their lack of ability in something else
i dont know who are right, maybe neither you or me. but i think "needs" is not "lack of ability" like you interpret it.
you make a reciprocity in the sentence i think is not there. in part, that is the point of my post.
people deserving something for their ability is a big propagandistic capitalist thing. that is what i refer as the trojan horse. the notion that your ability in something make you deserving of something is the trojan horse (capitalism) behind an egalitarian vision of the world. i only said is a contradiction. you never listen to the hipercapitalist "if i have the ability to make a idea that sell then i deserve the money of it".
ability is a shitty word, its not my fault his faulty choose of words.

like i said in the post, the "each according to his needs" part makes no sense at all. you cant make a subjectivist claim like that and at the same time want a egalitarian society. the "needs" have to be something universal or makes no sense. if the "needs" its a subjectivist thing there is no union behind it except little subjectivist "needs".

post your poetry in this thread!