Cool.
It's inherent in Marx's philosophy. Where Marx diverges from you is in his conclusions. He very fervently argues a point that much trade is conducted within coercive relationships. This leads him to a conclusion that a freer society is one which eliminates the coercion and force and allows human beings to engage in agreements with one another as equals. The "from each, to each" portion of Marx's philosophy largely results from his acceptance of altruism as a valid moral, and you are somewhat inexplicably hammering him for this even though you claim to agree with his views about altruism and the "from each, to each" line is more or less taken from the Bible.
Your qualms with Marx are not because he rejected the notion of mutually beneficial trade. On the contrary it's very necessary to accept that premise to understand the vast majority of what Marx advocated.
If trade is conducted under coercive relationships, (the use of force or the threat of it) there are or should be laws to deal with that. If by coercion you mean that life is hard and you have to do certain things to survive, that's reality.
I do not agree with Marx's views on altruism. I believe that a certain level of altruism is necessary within families, not the government, for society to function.
Marx's view was certainly NOT taken from the Bible. The Bible tells each individual to care for other individuals, giving as he sees fit. We see the immediate and direct results of our charity or lack of charity. This fosters close, loving relationships between individuals. Marx advocates a governmental system of forced altruism, where your only relationship is with the bureaucrat who takes what you have or hands out what he's taken from some other stranger. It absolves the individual of any responsibility for himself or others in any real sense and isolates individual actions from their natural consequences. It takes away our ability to be charitable through free will, and replaces it with coercion. This fosters isolation and selfishness.
Here's a different way to look at God and His commands. It's not meant to be a perfect theological analogy, but to help clarify the relationship between Christianity and liberty.
God gives us full use of life, of a body and of the earth to preserve them, from which we get food, clothing, etc. These things belong to God, and are His to do with as He will. In exchange for this, we are asked to obey His commands. We have the ability to accept or reject this trade. If we reject His offer, we will have to surrender the life He gave us. He's very generous, He has provided an account we can draw on (Christ's perfect life and innocent death) to make full payment for everything He has given us, and everything we've taken beyond what He gave. Not only this, but we will be allowed a share in the profits of His venture in the form of eternal life and joy. You have the right to use the life God has provided according to His terms. Each individual makes his agreement with God, there is no collective contract. Nobody else has a right to dictate those terms or to take that life, or to enforce or interfere with the contract between you and God. God owns our lives, but our use or abuse of them is between us and God, not the government, not the community and not any other individual or group.
Upvote
0