Under Socialism, do people have inherent worth?

Under socialism people are likely going to get assistance for various normal stages in life like having children. Payments for having children existed in the USSR. That is just a matter of politics. A belief in people's "inherent value" isn't incorporated in my reasoning for socialism at all, but political and material self-interest is. Most people have kids at some point, so it is safe to say that if they had it their way they'd receive even more support in doing so.

However, it is conceivable that a socialist state would overturn this expectation, as it did in China with the one child policy. This could be for any number of reasons. It could be that de-growth becomes a big ideological fixation in response to climate change, which translates into political action to disincentivize having too many children. Historically there has also been cultural institutions around getting rid of undesirable children etc. when the material conditions demand it. But if there is abundance, people's desire to have children will probably win out politically.

Would raising a family not have value under Communism for continuing that system as well?

I doubt nearly as much. After all communism would be a world in which material incentives would be abolished, labor would be mostly or entirely done away with and people would be able to lounge around for 14 hours a day reading hawthorne and Shakespeare. In such a system people will make kids because it makes them happy, not because the state is mandating so many kids need to be born a year for the wheel to keep churning.

i think socialism would allow for the opportunity for self-worth. Which is more than capitalism offers.

I have no idea what "inherent worth" is even supposed to mean

I think you are worth something simply by existing. My interpretation of from each according to their ability to each according to their need, is that an able bodied person may work 20 hours a week and receive food housing shelter education healthcare minimum while a quadriplegic would do 0 hours a week and receive food housing shelter education and healthcare minimum.

This is because they both have potential. We don't know what the potential is or what it is for but they are both human and should be ensured by the community the autonomy to fully express themselves however they wish. Maximizing potential human permutations gives us access to real data on how humans express themselves in given material conditions and is always good. Limiting human potential puts control of experimentation and progress in the hands of those who control the limits rather than distributing it horizontally across the maximum amount of consciousnesses. All expressions should be honored and recorded because they have potential utility for unknown future situations.

In communism people are not a commodity so they don't have economic worth.

Usually capitalists calculate a sort of sacrifice coefficient, as in how much money can be spend with regards of preventing deaths, usually with regards to costs of safety measures. They calculate the worth of a person and then allocate resources in according to that.
For a communist system You do something similar but but instead of relating it to a worth of a person, you divert the resources that can be allocated towards accident reduction towards to most effective avenues, on the hole of the system. That way you ought to be able to get more effective resource allocation.

In capitalism this can also manifest in terms like Car-autopilots, having an inbuilt privilege hierarchy when it comes to prioritising accident behaviour in no-win scenarios and choosing who gets sacrificed. This entails basically figuring out a way to quantify morality, in a very precise manor, You would have to continuously measure moral priorities of people not only in general but also in particular, where in an optimal manor you would have a "moral profile" of all the people involved in an accident as well as moral profiles of indirectly involved people, where you also would have to make predictions about the future of people, to be able to approximate a moral-machine-subsystem.
In a communist system you just put in a random number generator for no-win scenarios and divert all the resources capitalists would spend on profiling morality, and use that for improving security systems instead. Fewer deaths > correct order of sacrifice.

Your notion of "inherent worth" could also be a sort of linguistic placeholder for something else. Place holders like these usually are interpreted differently by people. For example there is this notion of human rights, where you still have human rights even if they are violated, which is a kind of reification of a social norm. Are you referring to such a social norm ? You could also refer to society as a reproduction scheme of human existence, it seems very convoluted to try to expresses such systemic pressures in terms of worth. Any Society that wants to persist has to divert considerable resources for welfare and reproduction. You could try to see existence as a type of work, to attempt to shoehorn this into a value-based framework.

Attached: g5654.png (337x331, 17.17K)

lets say for instance that I am referring to human rights. Would it be completely reactionary to say humans do not have human rights? That capitalism only believes in human rights because it allows us all to be consumers rather than have to worry about being killed by some nazi? It seems like such a notion would be completely outdated under communism as every person wouldn't need rights to remain equal. Also rights are kind of only real when someone tells you they have them. Which the person can either choose to ignore or observe anyway.

I agree with the whole post

It kind of depends what you mean with human rights. I would say that rights are universal, so if it doesn't apply to every human it can by definition only be a privilege. Further i would say that rights have to be enforced for it to count as right, for practical reasons, if you have something, it should really be there, and not just be an empty promise. So if you grant a human right to not being murdered by a Nazi, you kind of are in a pickle, because you might have to kill the Nazi to enforce the right. The same would hold true for wars, you can't have a situation where 2 or more groups are killing each other in a sort of mass murder competition, while still proclaiming that this situation would conform to human rights being observed.

Anyway It would be easier to use the more descriptive term of social norm, or legal promise. I don't find anything wrong with using those social norms for communism as well. Well they recently made prostitution a human right, that seems a bit cynical for a social norm, you know it's basically saying that rapists should at least have to pay.

Your second point is, I believe, part of what Max Stirner tried to get at with his notion of the unique Ego. It's clear that he meant that you should regard yourself as a unique god-like entity that imparts meaning on the world, but in later parts of the book it becomes clear that this notion of uniqueness also plays a part in how we consider other humans, especially when he critiques different forms of what he calls liberalism. In the last of these critiques he inspects the notion of humane liberalism, which liberates people qua their being human. It is because we share things in common that we have value, and thus it is this commonality that needs to be valued. Stirner absolutely rejects this logic, instead asserting that it is precisely our irreducible difference that makes us valuable.

Yes, you're worth whatever your labor value is.

This basically highlights the difference between positive rights, ie the right to something, and negative rights, freedom from something. The liberal conception of rights is negative property rights, freedom from others restrictions to do what you want with your property, where the marxist conception of rights would be positive, freedom to posses property itself. So for freedom of speech a liberal would want freedom to publish what they want with their press free of restrictions, a marxist would want free access to the actual press and publishing to provide the positive right to speech.

Freedom in a liberal sense is freedom to do with yourself what you want as property, like rent yourself to an employer or pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Freedom in a marxist sense would be freedom to access the required property to actualize your will autonomously.

Exactly what I was going for. I was thinking along the lines of Deleuze, and the uniqueness extends from individuals to groups and communities. Survival of the fittest species is a group effort and differentiated permutations of individuals our own type teach us about ourselves as much as our environment. We see the failures of neoliberal humanism in our lives as conflict when the limiting contradictions of capitalism suppress natural difference in favor of commodified stereotyping of individuals as indistinguishable undifferentiated parts in a set with equal properties.

You could I think return to Spinoza/Hegel if I'm not misunderstanding or oversimplifying too much that each consciousness is a unique aspect of god as the universe infinitely determined by its frame of reference to all other consciousnesses and is thereby infinitely unique in its perspective which is inherently valuable no matter how trivial.

Nope…

The negative and positive rights distinction is peak undialectical thinking. How is the right to have property not a positive right? Every freedom from is simultaneously a freedom to have yourself protect against this something. Every freedom to is simultaneously a freedom from being deprived of this something.

It does not. If you look at any working socialist system (china, USSR, Israeli Kabutz, etc) you are TOLD what to do with your life based on community needs. Your own desires don't matter.