x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 1 3. "The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of
labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of
the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor.
对于上面这段话，马克思作了如下的评点：
"Promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property" ought
obviously to read their "conversion into the common property"; but this is
only passing.
What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in
the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of
the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of
production consumed?
"Proceeds of labor" is a loose notion which Lassalle has put in the place of
definite economic conceptions.
What is "a fair distribution"?
Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And
is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the
present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal
conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of
economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied
notions about "fair" distribution?
To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair
distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The
latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common
property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first
paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with
equal right to all members of society."
"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains
then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of
society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of
society?
But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases.
The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker
must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".
Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the
product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total
social product.
From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of
production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production.
Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents,
dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.
These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic
necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available
means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are
in no way calculable by equity.
There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as
means of consumption.
Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again
, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to
production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted
in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as
the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common
satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the
outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society,
and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for
those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called
official poor relief today.
Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under
Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion -- namely, to
that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual
producers of the co-operative society.
The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become
converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is
deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or
indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.
Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared,
so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.
Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of
production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little
does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these
products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to
capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect
fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "
proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity,
thus loses all meaning.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has
developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges
from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically,
morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old
society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer
receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly
what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of
labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the
individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual
producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share
in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-
and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds)
; and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of
consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of
labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the
exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content
and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can
give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can
pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption
. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual
producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of
commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for
an equal amount of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although
principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of
equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the
individual case.
In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized
by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the
labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is
made with an equal standard, labor.
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies
more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to
serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise
it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal
right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because
everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes
unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural
privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like
every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application
of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be
different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an
equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are
taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are
regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else
being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more
children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal
performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one
will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another,
and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would
have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as
it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist
society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society
and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of
the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis
between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not
only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have
also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all
the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then
can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and
society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs! | a*******d
发帖数: 7538 | 2 英文的也是翻译的
还不如找个懂德文的，翻成中文
in
of
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 3. "The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of
: labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of
: the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor.
: 对于上面这段话，马克思作了如下的评点：
: "Promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property" ought
: obviously to read their "conversion into the common property"; but this is
: only passing.
: What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in
: the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of
: the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of
| x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 3 英文版的也应该足够传达其意思了。
其实，读过这篇，发觉这“按需分配”是马克思的一个很不具体的一个概念，世人把这
个东西炒的神乎其神了。
如果你从头到尾读一遍，你会发觉他有点像个邓产党员了，用大幅的段落阐述人的差别
，然后说由于差别，在共产主义社会的初级阶段，人们的收入的差别也是合理的。
按需分配是最后一段，好像是为上面的收入差别合理论辩护似的，安慰大家说，到了共
产主义的高级阶段，就什么都有了。 | l******t
发帖数: 55733 | | a*******d
发帖数: 7538 | 5 看英文版的，不如看中文版的
贴个中文版的
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 英文版的也应该足够传达其意思了。
: 其实，读过这篇，发觉这“按需分配”是马克思的一个很不具体的一个概念，世人把这
: 个东西炒的神乎其神了。
: 如果你从头到尾读一遍，你会发觉他有点像个邓产党员了，用大幅的段落阐述人的差别
: ，然后说由于差别，在共产主义社会的初级阶段，人们的收入的差别也是合理的。
: 按需分配是最后一段，好像是为上面的收入差别合理论辩护似的，安慰大家说，到了共
: 产主义的高级阶段，就什么都有了。
| x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 6 来看看马克思像不像邓产党：
3．“劳动的解放要求把劳动资料提高为社会的公共财产，要求集体调节劳动并公平分
配劳动所得。”“把劳动资料提高为社会的公共财产”（！），应当是说把它们“变为
社会的公共财产”。这不过是顺便提一句罢了。
什么是“劳动所得”呢？是劳动的产品呢，还是产品的价值？如果是后者，那末，是产
品的总价值呢，或者只是劳动新添加在耗费掉的生产资料的价值上的那部分价值？
“劳动所得”是拉萨尔为了代替明确的经济概念而提出的一个模糊观念。
什么是“公平的”分配呢？
难道资产者不是断定今天的分配是“公平的”吗？难道它事实上不是在现今的生产方式
基础上唯一“公平的”分配吗？难道经济关系是由法权概念来调节，而不是由经济关系
来产生出法权关系吗？难道各种社会主义宗派份子关于“公平的”分配不是有各种极为
不同的观念吗？
为了弄清楚“公平的”分配一语在这里指什么东西，我们必须把第一段和本段对照一下
。本段设想的是这样一个社会，在那里“劳动资料是公共财产，总劳动是由集体调节的
”，而在第一段里我们则看到，“劳动所得应当不折不扣和按照平等的权利属于社会一
切成员”。
“属于社会一切成员”？也属于不劳动的成员吗？那末，“不折不扣”的劳动所得又在
那里呢？只属于社会中劳动的成员吗？那末社会一切成员的“平等的权利”又在那里呢？
“社会一切成员”和“平等的权利”显然只是些空话。问题的实质在于：在这个共产主
义社会里，每个劳动者都应当得到“不折不扣的”拉萨尔的“劳动所得”。
如果我们把“劳动所得”这个用语首先理解为劳动的产品，那末集体的劳动所得就是社
会总产品。
现在从它里面扣除：
第一，用来补偿消费掉的生产资料的部分。
第二，用来扩大生产的追加部分。
第三，用来应付不幸事故，自然灾害等的后备基金或保险基金。
从“不折不扣的劳动所得”里扣除这些部分，在经济上是必要的，至于扣除多少，部分
地应当根据概率论来确定，但是这些扣除根据公平原则无论如何是不能计算的。
剩下的总产品中的其它部分是用来作为消费资料的。
把这部分进行个人分配之前，还得从里面扣除：
第一，和生产没有关系的一般管理费用。
和现代社会比起来，这一部分将会立即极为显著地缩减，并将随着新社会的发展而日益
减少。
第二，用来满足共同需要的部分，如学校，保健设施等。
和现代社会比起来，这一部分将会立即显著地增加，并将随着新社会的发展而日益增加。
第三，为丧失劳动能力的人等等设立的基金，总之，就是现在属于所谓官办济贫事业的
部分。
只有现在才谈的上纲领在拉萨尔的影响下偏狭地专门注意的那种“分配”，就是说，才
谈的上在集体中的个别生产者之间进行分配的那部分消费资料。
“不折不扣的劳动所得”已经不知不觉地变成“有折有扣”的了，虽然从一个处于私人
地位的生产者上扣除的一切，又会直接或间接地用来为处于社会成员地位的这个生产者
谋福利。
在一个集体的，以共同占有生产资料为基础的社会里，生产者并不交换自己的产品；耗
费在产品生产上的劳动，在这里也不表现为这些产品的价值，不表现为 它们所具有的
某种物的属性，因为这时和资本社会相反，个人的劳动不再经过迂回曲折的道路，而是
直接地作为总劳动的构成部分存在着。于是，“劳动所得”这个 由于含意模糊就是现
在也不能接受的用语，便失去了任何意义。
我们这里所说的是这样的共产主义社会，它不是在它自身基础上已经发展的了， 恰好
相反，是刚刚从资本主义社会中产生出来的，因此它在各方面，在经济，道德和精神各
方面都还带着它脱胎出来的那个旧社会的痕迹。所以，每一个生产者，在 作了各项扣
除之后，从社会方面正好领回他所给予社会的一切。他所给予社会的，就是他个人的劳
动量。例如，社会劳动日是由所有的个人劳动小时构成的；每一个 生产者的个人劳动
时间就是社会劳动日中他所提供的部分，就是他在社会劳动日里的一份。他从社会方面
领得一张证书，证明他提供了多少劳动（扣除他为社会基金 而进行的劳动），而他凭
这张证书从社会储存中领得和他所提供的劳动量相当的一份消费资料。他以一种形式给
予社会的劳动量，又以另一种形式全部领回来。
显然，这里通行的就是调节商品交换（就它是等价的交换而言）的同一原则。内容和形
式都改变了，因为在改变了的环境下，除了自己的劳动，谁都不能提供 其它任何东西
，另一方面，除了个人的消费资料，没有任何东西可以成为个人的财产。至于消费资料
在各个生产者中间的分配，那末这里通行的是商品等价物的交换 中也通行的同一原则
，即一种形式的一定量的劳动可以和另一种形式的同量劳动相交换。
所以，在这里平等的权利按照原则仍然是资产阶级的法权，虽然原则和实践在这里已不
再互相矛盾，而在商品交换中，等价物的交换只存在于平均数中，并不是存在于每个各
别场合。
虽然有这种进步，但这个平等的权利还仍然被限制在一个资产阶级的框框里。生产者的
权利是和他们提供的劳动成比例的；平等就在于以同一的尺度－劳动－来计量。
但是，一个人在体力或智力上胜过另外一个人，因此在同一时间内提供较多的劳动，或
者能劳动较长的时间；而劳动，为了要使它能够成为一种尺度，就必须 按照它的时间
或强度来确定，不然它就不成其为尺度了。这种平等的权利，对不同等的劳动来说是不
平等的权利。它不承认任何阶级差别，因为每个人都像其它人一 样只是劳动者；但它
默认劳动者不同等的个人天赋，因而也就默认劳动者不同等的工作能力是天然特权。所
以就它的内容来讲，它像一切权利一样是一种不平等的权 利。权利，就它的本性来讲
，只在于使用同一的尺度；但是不同等的个人（而如果他们不是不同等的，他们就不成
其为不同的个人）要用同一的尺度去计量，就只有 从同一个角度去看待他们，从一个
特定的方面去对待他们，例如现在所讲的这个场合，把他们只当做劳动者；再不把他们
看作别的什么，把其它一切都撇开了。其 次，一个劳动者已经结婚，另一个则没有；
一个劳动者的子女较多，另一个的子女较少，如此等等。在劳动成果相同，从而由社会
消费品中分得的份额相同的条件 下，某一个人得到的事实上比另一个人多些，也就比
另一个人富些，如此等等。要避免所有这些弊病，权利就不应当是平等的，而应当是不
平等的。
但是这些弊病，在共产主义社会第一阶段，在它经过长久的阵痛刚刚从资本主义社会里
产生出来的形态中，是不可避免的。权利永远不能超出社会的经济结构以及由经济结构
所制约的社会的文化发展。
在共产主义社会高级阶段上，在迫使人们奴隶般地服从分工的情形已经消失，从而脑力
劳动和体力劳动的对立也随之消失之后；在劳动已不仅仅是谋生的手 段，而且本身成
了生活的第一需要之后；在随着个人的全面发展生产力也增长起来，而集体财富的一切
源泉都充分涌流之后，－只有在那个时候，才能完全超出资产 阶级法权的狭隘眼界，
社会才能在自己的旗帜上写上：各尽所能，按需分配！
【在 a*******d 的大作中提到】
: 看英文版的，不如看中文版的
: 贴个中文版的
| w***u
发帖数: 17713 | 7 英文作为德语的一个方言，而且由于英语对词汇接受很快，足够接近原意了。 | x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 8 是的。读中文版好像很不顺似的。毕竟讲的是西方的东西
【在 w***u 的大作中提到】
: 英文作为德语的一个方言，而且由于英语对词汇接受很快，足够接近原意了。
| x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 9 这些难道不是邓产党的观点？
“但是这些弊病，在共产主义社会第一阶段，在它经过长久的阵痛刚刚从资本主义社会
里产生出来的形态中，是不可避免的。权利永远不能超出社会的经济结构以及由经济结
构所制约的社会的文化发展。”
也就是说，按“能力”分配是完全合理的。 | k****r
发帖数: 9629 | 10 自古如此.
毛泽东同志的工资是普通工人的十倍.
合理么?
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 这些难道不是邓产党的观点？
: “但是这些弊病，在共产主义社会第一阶段，在它经过长久的阵痛刚刚从资本主义社会
: 里产生出来的形态中，是不可避免的。权利永远不能超出社会的经济结构以及由经济结
: 构所制约的社会的文化发展。”
: 也就是说，按“能力”分配是完全合理的。
| | | x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 11 从这句话来看，
共产主义是从资本主义社会来的。
这样说来，是不是说，笑贫同志在中国发展资本主义是对的？
“我们这里所说的是这样的共产主义社会，它不是在它自身基础上已经发展的了， 恰
好相反，是刚刚从资本主义社会中产生出来的，因此它在各方面，在经济，道德和精神
各方面都还带着它脱胎出来的那个旧社会的痕迹。” | l*****i
发帖数: 20533 | 12 可见我国改开以前基本符合马克思共产主义初级阶段标准。 | l*****i
发帖数: 20533 | 13 这跟小学-中学-大学必须一步步来不一样。因为马克思批判了资本主义，说了资本主义
是不对的，所以就没有必要非要专门去经历那个了。这就好像如果现在有某原始部落要
发展，你也不会非要让他经过奴隶社会之类。
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 从这句话来看，
: 共产主义是从资本主义社会来的。
: 这样说来，是不是说，笑贫同志在中国发展资本主义是对的？
: “我们这里所说的是这样的共产主义社会，它不是在它自身基础上已经发展的了， 恰
: 好相反，是刚刚从资本主义社会中产生出来的，因此它在各方面，在经济，道德和精神
: 各方面都还带着它脱胎出来的那个旧社会的痕迹。”
| p******o
发帖数: 9007 | 14 马克思认为共产主义之前是资本主义，到了列宁才认为资本主义可以省去。
【在 l*****i 的大作中提到】
: 这跟小学-中学-大学必须一步步来不一样。因为马克思批判了资本主义，说了资本主义
: 是不对的，所以就没有必要非要专门去经历那个了。这就好像如果现在有某原始部落要
: 发展，你也不会非要让他经过奴隶社会之类。
| l*****i
发帖数: 20533 | 15 马克思只不过是从自身环境出发阐述了资本主义过渡到共产主义，没有说过不可以越过
资本主义。
至于到底可不可以省去？一般大家总是期望选择最好的，所以如果共产主义更好，当然
没有必要再走资本主义。这就好比说，玩西式民主中国是后进，很多东西没经历过。比
如仅限于少数人，非全民的精英民主，发达国家早期都经历过。那么中国现在如果搞这
个，‘补课’，多少‘民主派人士’会愿意呢？
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: 马克思认为共产主义之前是资本主义，到了列宁才认为资本主义可以省去。
| x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 16 所以今天看来，列宁是错的。因为没有经过资本主义阶段，结果苏联帝国垮了。
按照马克思的意思，高级共产主义社会的前提是：
1. 迫使人们奴隶般地服从分工的情形已经消失
2. 脑力劳动和体力劳动的对立也随之消失
3. 劳动已不仅仅是谋生的手段，而且本身成了生活的第一需要
4. 个人的全面发展生产力也增长起来，而
5. 集体财富的一切源泉都充分涌流
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: 马克思认为共产主义之前是资本主义，到了列宁才认为资本主义可以省去。
| x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 17 何左哥同志，我知道你的英文好，再来读读这几段，来看看我说马克思是支持邓产党“
以才分配”的说法有没有错：
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has
developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges
from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically,
morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old
society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer
receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly
what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of
labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the
individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual
producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share
in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-
and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds)
; and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of
consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of
labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the
exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content
and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can
give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can
pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption
. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual
producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of
commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for
an equal amount of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although
principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of
equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the
individual case.
In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized
by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the
labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is
made with an equal standard, labor.
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies
more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to
serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise
it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal
right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because
everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes
unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural
privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like
every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application
of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be
different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an
equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are
taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are
regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else
being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more
children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal
performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one
will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another,
and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would
have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as
it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist
society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society
and its cultural development conditioned thereby. | x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 18 你看啊，马克思的借口就是：
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society | r***k
发帖数: 13586 | 19 脑体分工什么的绝对不可能消失，甚至任何两个不同的工作岗位，其所需的劳动都不可
能简单的量化，单位劳动时间的报酬也不可能完全相等，这需要劳动力市场自行调剂劳
动的价格。
至于劳动为何能成为生活的第一需要，真正合理的解释还是偶给出的，只要社会给予每
个人免费教育免费医疗外加每个月2000美元，劳动才真正不是用来谋生的，而是改善生
活的，也就是自发的需要了。
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 所以今天看来，列宁是错的。因为没有经过资本主义阶段，结果苏联帝国垮了。
: 按照马克思的意思，高级共产主义社会的前提是：
: 1. 迫使人们奴隶般地服从分工的情形已经消失
: 2. 脑力劳动和体力劳动的对立也随之消失
: 3. 劳动已不仅仅是谋生的手段，而且本身成了生活的第一需要
: 4. 个人的全面发展生产力也增长起来，而
: 5. 集体财富的一切源泉都充分涌流
| k*******g
发帖数: 7321 | 20 说的没错！
大学里教经济学的老师讲了无数遍了，“马克思认为共产主义之前是资本主义”，“共
产主义是资本主义自然演进的最终结果”！
BTW：列宁就一213！TG抱住列宁的13狂啃！
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: 马克思认为共产主义之前是资本主义，到了列宁才认为资本主义可以省去。
| | | s*******t
发帖数: 1743 | 21 这种理论问题，你就交给大毛轮左阁好了
这个不适合你这种小毛轮
in
of
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 3. "The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of
: labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of
: the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor.
: 对于上面这段话，马克思作了如下的评点：
: "Promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property" ought
: obviously to read their "conversion into the common property"; but this is
: only passing.
: What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in
: the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of
: the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of
| B**r
发帖数: 2109 | 22 老马显然是对的。
有差别就会有不平。所以在共产主义社会，人类应该是无区别的生命单元，大家完全一
样，没有性别，没有差异，收入的差别就是一白噪声，给定一段时间就都补回来了。对
于社会来说，熵值最大。
in
of
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 3. "The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of
: labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of
: the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor.
: 对于上面这段话，马克思作了如下的评点：
: "Promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property" ought
: obviously to read their "conversion into the common property"; but this is
: only passing.
: What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in
: the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of
: the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of
| s********n
发帖数: 26222 | 23 你现在也成了恍然大悟党了？
【在 x******g 的大作中提到】
: 英文版的也应该足够传达其意思了。
: 其实，读过这篇，发觉这“按需分配”是马克思的一个很不具体的一个概念，世人把这
: 个东西炒的神乎其神了。
: 如果你从头到尾读一遍，你会发觉他有点像个邓产党员了，用大幅的段落阐述人的差别
: ，然后说由于差别，在共产主义社会的初级阶段，人们的收入的差别也是合理的。
: 按需分配是最后一段，好像是为上面的收入差别合理论辩护似的，安慰大家说，到了共
: 产主义的高级阶段，就什么都有了。
| x******g
发帖数: 33885 | 24 没志气。
【在 s*******t 的大作中提到】
: 这种理论问题，你就交给大毛轮左阁好了
: 这个不适合你这种小毛轮
:
: in
: of
| G**L
发帖数: 22804 | 25 问题是这个所谓最好的是YY出来的，没人经历过也没人知道应该怎么干
列宁搞了一阵共产，后来发现不行，还得搞实际是资本主义的新经济政策。中国搞大跃
进做梦跑步进入共产主义，最后脸都被摔肿了。最后都得老老实实去搞资本主义。
经济制度不行，政治制度只能是更不行。经济决定政治是马克思说的吧，经济都资本主
义了，政治也应该是啊
【在 l*****i 的大作中提到】
: 马克思只不过是从自身环境出发阐述了资本主义过渡到共产主义，没有说过不可以越过
: 资本主义。
: 至于到底可不可以省去？一般大家总是期望选择最好的，所以如果共产主义更好，当然
: 没有必要再走资本主义。这就好比说，玩西式民主中国是后进，很多东西没经历过。比
: 如仅限于少数人，非全民的精英民主，发达国家早期都经历过。那么中国现在如果搞这
: 个，‘补课’，多少‘民主派人士’会愿意呢？
|
|
