Did Marx seek to empower the poor or the workers? Is there a difference?

[Proud Libertarian]

Do you think Marx would like the idea of handouts to those who do not work? Though his motto for Communism was “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” (which assumed social / technological innovation sufficient as to eliminate the need for labor ) Later Marxists used the motto “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” to apply to a less advanced socialist society. Does this sound like a ideology that embraces the welfare class?

[I Have a Dream]

In the end, what matters is who has the numbers, the guns, and the will to use them.

Everything else is BS.

[Fearlesssquirrel708]

The point you're making about things both Marx and Democrats would favor is pretty weak.

I could just as easily say referring to Cons:
didn't Hitler also support a massive authoritative/military apparatus to control his people and others?

[James]

Any idea that mandates you do something is a loss of freedom.

When you have no freedom, you have nothing.

[Happyladybug573]

He sought to empower a new ruling class, using workers as useful stooges. The poor were irrelevant, and often the focus of murder.

[daniel10492003]

Ask Obama. He's a real fan of Marx.

[SCOTT M]

Marx sought to empower the workers , not the poor. He was more of a philosopher than a politician.

When I was in Ecuador many years ago, I asked my friends (almost all of whom claimed to be socialists), "Why should a garbage make the same amount of money as a doctor?"

My friends told me that was not the goal of socialism. The socialist motto was, "To each according to his needs and to each according to his contribution."

I have heard nothing over the years that suggests socialism advocates public support of people who choose not to work, those non-contributors who stand outside our figurative windows and yell, "We want more of what you earned!" Unfortunately, we have some of those among us, and not just here in the United States. Sweden and many other socialist states offer generous assistance to those who have lost their jobs, but the idea is not to wed them to sloth and dependency, but to give them time to find new work. Many of those countries have little tolerance for those who might choose not to work and prefer to live off the labors of others. We are one of the few countries in the world that tolerates a permanent welfare class of people who don't work, don't want to contribute, and want to live off the fat of the land.

We need to deal with those people not by condemning them, but by providing them with remedial education and training in job skills so they can get meaningful jobs to support themselves and their families. The proverbial "Sanitation Engineer," a/k/a Garbage Collector, makes more money than an unemployed accountant or attorney.

[zealot144]

The short answer is that Marx strove to empower the workers, and make them less poor.

Marx believed that the basis for wealth lies in labor. Thus, diamonds have no intrinsic value, only the labor to mine, transport, cut, set, and retail have value. This perspective gives no notice of the value of rarity, whether that be a precious stone or the accomplishments of a truly gifted artist, musician, athlete, film maker, etc. According to Marx, the diamond should be sold for whatever market value, and the money distributed to all involved according to the relative value of their contribution. If diamonds demand big money, then everyone involved should share in big money. Of course, if no person has a big income, no one will pay big money for a diamond. Get it?

In contrast, capitalism believes that labor is a commodity that can be traded and purchased from the lowest bidder. That is, if a twenty dollar an hour employee can be replaced by a twelve dollar an hour employee, then so be it. Right now, it is possible to hire hundred thousand dollar a year sales managers for minimum wage. Right now, talent and experience have minimal value. They are less rare than diamonds.

Capitalism works on supply-demand terms. If no one wanted diamonds, their rarity would count for naught. They would be so cheap that the expense of mining and cutting would not be covered by their sales revenues, and there would be no market, thus, no diamonds. With the possible exception of diamonds being a very compact and convenient currency, Marxism does not find any value in diamonds at all.

Marxism is all about labor. A really smart guy who is a successful manager is worth more than an assembly line laborer, but not hundreds or thousands of times more. In capitalism, the value of the manager is measured by profits, and he might be paid thousands of times what the workers get. This culture is being assaulted in America today, but it still exists.

Neither system provides philosophically for poverty per se. Even today, in America, many farm workers do very exhausting jobs for less than minimum wage, commission sales people often work (literally) for free, In Communist nations (not precisely Marxist, I know), poverty is dealt with at the lowest possible level, meaning that the poorest might get a handful of rice and a night in a public shelter.

When Marxist Communism meets Capitalism, you end up with twelve hour a day, six days a week employees who get paid room and board plus a dollar a day (as in China).

In practical terms, Marxism does not provide for those who do not work, nor does Capitalism, from a purely philosophical perspective. In practice, Marxist governments have created poverty and turned away from the helpless, while Capitalistic governments have helped the poor to reduce violence and insure that everyone is a consumer. Marx disdained lazy people, Capitalism has found profit in them. Odd, don't you think?