No, you wont starve.
We have, in the west, produced enough infrastructure to be able to feed leeches, and feeding them will be cheaper than having to deal with the consequences of not doing so.
Sooner or later these leeches will realize that living as a leech is not a very satisfying existence.
Have no job
Nathaniel Anderson
Camden Edwards
A ruling class is not the same thing as the bourgeoisie. The next state after Socialism is Communism.
Ayden Collins
And a member of the ruling class is given the exact same benefits of the person unclogging toilets?
Camden Allen
The ruling class under Socialism/Communism is the proletariat. The person cleaning the toilet is the ruling class.
Chase Peterson
Sounds good on paper
Justin Thomas
the person unclogging toilets is deserving of the best treatment and rewards, why not?
Dylan Ortiz
Because someone will always wind up living in that high-end suite longer than others
Jaxson Foster
I never stated this, the bourgeoisie class is something specific to capitalism. I assumed you read at least the basics of Marxism before coming to a largely Marxist board.
In what way?
Marxists are not utopians. We are not in this for "perfect systems", but out of an analysis of capitalism and our view of historical necessity.
It's a question of scale and power. Societies are not shaped by specific individuals in the long run, but the economic systems those societies utilize. We wish to change the economic system and thus change society, and the bourgeoisie happen to be obstructions to that.
In socialism? Will depend on the circumstances, but excluding childcare, yes. However, a job will always be provided, so it's actually a matter of you not deciding not to work.
Ian Scott
And? Socialists are not in the business of making people equal or have the exact same things.
Colton Baker
Marx makes two main points about equality in his 1875 ‘Critique of the Gotha Programme’. (Geuss 2008, 76-80) Firstly, Marx claims that it makes no sense to speak of equality in the abstract. This is because we can only understand what it means for x to be equal or unequal with y if we first specify the dimensions along which they are being compared. For x to be equal to y is for them to be equal in a particular concrete respect. For example, if x and y are people then they can only be judged equal relative to particular criteria such as their height, how many shoes they own, or how much cake they have eaten. Therefore, one can only be in favour of equality along specific dimensions, such as equality of cake consumption, and never equality as an abstract ideal.
Secondly, Marx claims that advocating equality along one dimension, such as everyone in a society earning the same amount of money per hour worked, will lead to inequality along other dimensions. Everyone earning an equal amount per hour of work would, for example, lead to those who work more having more money than those who work less. As a result, those unable to work a large amount (if at all) such as disabled people, old people, or women who are expected to do the majority of housework, will be unequal with those who can work more, such as the able-bodied, young people, or men. Or those doing manual labour, and so unable to work long hours due to fatigue, will be unequal to those who engage in non-manual labour and so can work more hours. If a society decides to instead ensure equality of income by paying all workers the same daily wage then there would still be inequality along other dimensions. For example, workers who don’t have to provide for a family with their wage will have more disposable income than workers with families. Therefore we can never reach full equality but merely move equality and inequality around along different dimensions.