From each according to his ability, to each according to his need [Archive]

View Full Version : From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Desperado

31st May 2010, 20:29

I feel that this might seem somewhat like a bourgeois criticism, but it's long bugged me.

What happens if somebody doesn't give according to his ability?

mikelepore

31st May 2010, 20:53

As I see it, the problem with the slogan is that it's what lawyers call a "precatory" rule, like the educational goal "no child left behind" or President Johnson's "war on poverty." It's not much more than a wish. By the nature of it, it can't be enforced as written.

Crusade

31st May 2010, 20:55

I feel that this might seem somewhat like a bourgeois criticism, but it's long bugged me.

What happens if somebody doesn't give according to his ability?

They get a stern talkin' to. :laugh:

I actually don't know. Whenever I bring this up to people they always say that you won't have to worry about this in a communist society because all evils of the earth are the result of class war. There has to be a system in place that assures that you're contributing as much as you consume. I've always seen socialism(communism included) as a network. And if you're not living up to the agreement of the network(or at the very least, limited in what you gain from it), you can be cut off from this network. You don't need to be put in prison or killed (:lol:), but you certainly can't consume when you don't contribute anything. And who decides when someone "needs" something? I tell my girl I need a quickie before work, I'd be terrible communist if this rule were the law of the land. There will be arguments constantly over who needs something more. People will certainly want to be obese because they'll likely need food more than slimmer individuals. Now I feel like watching lord of the flies again.

robbo203

31st May 2010, 21:58

I feel that this might seem somewhat like a bourgeois criticism, but it's long bugged me.

What happens if somebody doesn't give according to his ability?

This is the lazy person argument and, together with its close cousin, the greedy person argument, these two constitute the human nature argument against communism.

I dont buy either of them. Not one bit

Communism will be what is called in anthropological circles a "moral economy". It can only be achieved from the bottom up consciously and willingly by the mass of workers. They will understand what it entails. They will understand very well that with a system of voluntary labour we will each depend vitally upon each other for a communist society to function properly. With that recognition goes a sense of moral reponsibility.

This is the bottom line. The safety net that a communist society will have to fall back upon to ensure its effective functioning. But over and above that I think you have to look at the nature of work in a communist society in a complete different way.

Marx talked about how in communism work will be transformed from a drudge into life's prime want (Critique of the Gotha Programme). Work is creative expression, its not simply about getting the appreciation and esteem of our fellows for fulfilling our moral oblkigation to contribute to society. It is about self expression. In my view, the distinction between work and leisure wiull become extremely blurred if not disappear altogether in communism.

Imagine what it could be like without a boss class on our backs? Imagine what our workplaces could become without the cost cutting constraints of capitalism and having the freedom to decide on these matters ourselves. Imagine not being tied tdown to one single kind of job all the time but being given the opportunity to experiment with different jobs, to travel abroad to work in new places, to taste new experiences. Imagine a moneyeless wageless communist world in which most of the occupations that we do today - from bankers to pay departments to armamanets producers to salespeople - will simply disappear at a stroke releasing vast amounts of resources and, yes, human labour power as well for socially useful production.

I seriously think that the problem will be not so much "who is going to do the work" but rather will there be enough work to share around to satisfy the rampant demand for it. Well actually that is not really a problem since there is always something we can do if we put our mind.

So what if the odd individual does not carry their weight - the so called "free rider"problem. This is no big deal, we can carry them with ease. The problem is not so much for a communist society as for the individual concerned. Does he or she realise just how much she is missing out on life by just loafing about doing nothing. Besides, even the most committed loafer will probably sooner or later tire of it. There can be nothing so tedious and frustrating as doing nothing at all.

mikelepore

1st June 2010, 03:08

So what if the odd individual does not carry their weight - the so called "free rider"problem. This is no big deal, we can carry them with ease. The problem is not so much for a communist society as for the individual concerned. Does he or she realise just how much she is missing out on life by just loafing about doing nothing. Besides, even the most committed loafer will probably sooner or later tire of it. There can be nothing so tedious and frustrating as doing nothing at all.

The problem isn't about people doing nothing. The problem is in the conflicting conditions in the idea of individuals having access to the material goods even if they don't produce wealth at a corresponding rate. The behavior of the wealthiest people today demonstrates the activities that people would have available to them, which is to visit the world's tropical hotels and exotic sites, amusement parks, invite large groups to banquets, and try out every adventure and hobby that has been invented. The problem isn't that they will do nothing. The problem is that what they would be busy doing consumes wealth instead of producing it. In fact, with no requirement to work a measured minimum of time, and free access to the wealth, the ousted capitalists could continue in their non-productive and super-consumption way of life as though the revolution had never occurred at all. The capitalists' supporters and admirers also, anyone who fantasizes about the emperor's lifestyle, could do the same thing. There is a serious systemic problem there: consumption rapidly increasing while production is rapidly dropping, and that means shortages and shutdown within a short time.

I hope that new visitors to this site will not misunderstand my position. I have been a dedicated Marxist since the 1960s. But reasoning tells me that the fanciful 19th century conjecture "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is an unworkable concept. For a classless society to function with stability, individuals must be required to perform productive work for the amount of time that corresponds to the rate that they consume wealth.

$lim_$weezy

1st June 2010, 03:36

But if one buys into the "post-scarcity" theory then what robbo203 is saying makes sense. After an initial period of lowered production caused by revolutionary upheaval, production will be free of capitalist fetters and create an abundance of goods, supposedly.
Besides, human nature is not a fixed thing, as far as I understand it. Most of it is caused by environmental factors, such as parenting and society. Obviously, there are people around today who care for the good of society and are neither greedy nor lazy. Surely, in the future, the number of people who behave this way could increase, no? Even if there are fundamental problems in human nature, it's nothing that can't be fixed by reason once people realize how good a communist society would be. Or maybe I'm just being optimistic...

hammer&sickle

1st June 2010, 04:59

The slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is most appropriate for our times. Asking what happens if someone doesn't produce according to his ability is looking at it backasswards.

Human civilization has reached a point where it is possible for everyone to have the basic necessties of life..poverty and scarcity are for the most part manufactured. Capitalism redirects human capacity, squanders human productivity away from what we all need to live a productive life..imagine what we all could have done withthe trillions of dollars spent on the cold war? For fifty something years the industrial capacity of two great nations were totally wasted. What could man have accomplished if the greatest minds of their time put their efforts towards abolishing hunger and disease rather than building a bigger and more destructive weapon?

Take for example the "health care debate' here in the US. Millions of people thrown out of work have little,no or poor access to healthcare. At the same time these folks are demanding healthcare as a human right. Look at all the people unemployed..here and abroad..they have nothing to sell for the basic necessities but yet they..we..all demand the right to live..what is that demand but "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need"?

x371322

1st June 2010, 05:55

Gulag? :lol:

ckaihatsu

1st June 2010, 13:56

The capitalists' supporters and admirers also, anyone who fantasizes about the emperor's lifestyle, could do the same thing. There is a serious systemic problem there: consumption rapidly increasing while production is rapidly dropping, and that means shortages and shutdown within a short time.

In input-output terms what you're describing is called 'diminishing returns' (combined with the swamping from increased consumption). It's positing a scenario in which the sea change of economics and politics, from capitalism to communism, would see 'diminishing returns' due to increasing numbers of people freely opting for unproductive lives of leisure -- increasingly available after the overthrow of monolithic bourgeois authority.

However -- there's a certain inherent *conservatism* built-in to these kinds of assumptions of 'diminishing returns' -- they don't acknowledge the "flipside" to the scenario, which may contain a condition of *increasing* returns.

Consider that a post-capitalist society would be freed up to *collectivize* its productivity -- particularly industrial-based production -- on *massive* scales, surpassing even the scales of economy (efficiency) currently enjoyed by today's largest corporations.

Just like turning a faucet to "produce" water, we could realize conditions of productivity that tap incredibly leveraged capabilities, to the point where the line between 'effort' and consumption becomes incredibly blurred. It's easy to forget past accomplishments since we're always rushing headlong into the future, but these days we already have conditions of hyper-leveraged productivity that would make past generations deeply envious of what we call 'work' today....

I hope that new visitors to this site will not misunderstand my position. I have been a dedicated Marxist since the 1960s. But reasoning tells me that the fanciful 19th century conjecture "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is an unworkable concept. For a classless society to function with stability, individuals must be required to perform productive work for the amount of time that corresponds to the rate that they consume wealth.

Even 'consumption' is often a misnomer -- many consumer items that we use, especially from the past decade or so, have become increasingly well-designed, consumer friendly, *and* durable. If materials can just be taken or left, with no anxieties over shortages, then there's really no societal problem, or need for politics, around those items anymore.

We *know* that there's been a productive capacity *surplus* around *agricultural* production for thousands of years now, so as far as *food* is concerned it's all about the problems of commodification, *not* of productive capacity....

If we're to put a firm societal / political basis under the marketing slogan of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" then we need to first get past the predations of capitalist privatization, but we also need to encourage the understanding that 'work' could continue to get increasingly leveraged, with infinity-oriented 'increasing returns' from past labor efforts combined with those from the present.

robbo203

1st June 2010, 20:43

The problem isn't about people doing nothing. The problem is in the conflicting conditions in the idea of individuals having access to the material goods even if they don't produce wealth at a corresponding rate. The behavior of the wealthiest people today demonstrates the activities that people would have available to them, which is to visit the world's tropical hotels and exotic sites, amusement parks, invite large groups to banquets, and try out every adventure and hobby that has been invented. The problem isn't that they will do nothing. The problem is that what they would be busy doing consumes wealth instead of producing it. In fact, with no requirement to work a measured minimum of time, and free access to the wealth, the ousted capitalists could continue in their non-productive and super-consumption way of life as though the revolution had never occurred at all. The capitalists' supporters and admirers also, anyone who fantasizes about the emperor's lifestyle, could do the same thing. There is a serious systemic problem there: consumption rapidly increasing while production is rapidly dropping, and that means shortages and shutdown within a short time.

I hope that new visitors to this site will not misunderstand my position. I have been a dedicated Marxist since the 1960s. But reasoning tells me that the fanciful 19th century conjecture "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is an unworkable concept. For a classless society to function with stability, individuals must be required to perform productive work for the amount of time that corresponds to the rate that they consume wealth.

Mike

Your first error is to project the behavioural patterns of people in a capitalist society into communism. You cant just say "look at what the wealthiest people in capitalism do today" (actually some of them do some useful work even if it bears no relation to their income) and assume therefore that people in a free access system are similarly going to simply indulge themselves in such an extravagant fashion, once freed of the requirement to "earn" a living. This is a completely ahistorical approach which ignores the radically different social context of communism and, in particular, the radically different way in which people will acquire social esteem.

Unlike in capitalism where status is closely linked to wealth accumulation and patterns of consumption, in a free access society this will be meaningless. Free access undermines the whole concept of status based on consumption and instead opens the possibility of a new kind of status system based on your contribution to society. I dont have any problem with this and in fact it helps to overcome the difficulty you see with the idea having a system of voluntary or unpaid labour. People will work partly because they attract the esteem of others and the more inherently unattractive the work, the more will people be esteemed and valued for volunterring to do it in communism.

Secondly, let us suppose by some remote chance your prognosis was correct. What would happen? If people are just interested in doing things that are not particularly useful - perhaps just pursing their own particular hobbies or pastimes or whatever - whats going to happen then? Obviously the material basis of social existence is going to come under increasing strain. Many of the interesting things people might prefer to do they may not be able to for this very reason. So if they want do the more interestings they are going to have to do the less interesting things. There is no way round that. And that in itself is an incentive to do the less interesting things!

After all, who are they going to complain to when they cant do what they want to? Think about it. You are in no position to complain about other people not working in a society in which all labour is voluntary when you are not willing to put in some effort yourself. So by a reductio ad absurdum argument your objections to a free access voluntaristiuc society are thus rendered null and void.

This is why I keep on emphasising that the proper way in which we need to percieve communism is as a "moral economy" as the anthropologists would say. We will all recognise in a way that is simply not conceivable today in our dog-eat-dog society of capitalism that we all depend vitally upon each other in a very direct sense and that our own interests are very much bound up with the interests of others.

This totally changes the whole ball game as I see it. You are projecting into communism what happens today without seeing that the rule of the game will have radically changed

Taikand

1st June 2010, 21:05

robbo203

1st June 2010, 22:52

All this "moral economy" thingie... I agree with it.
But there's one problem I've seen for quite some time.
The shift from this dog-eat-dog economy to a moral one can't take place in an instant.
I think that it will require generations after generations for it to become a reality.
My questions is, how do we shift from capitalism to communism? There must be a transitionary phase (that's exactly why I call myself a marxist).How will that transitionary phase look like?
Sorry for such a short reply but I find it hard to express myself in English at this hour.

Personally, I think we should stop trying to think in terms of some "transition" between capitalism and communism. The transition is now, while we are still in a capitalist society. Now is when we need to develop and strengthen the values, outlook and institutions that will prefigure a future communist society

mikelepore

1st June 2010, 23:15

Reference for new readers: To investigate the "free access" concept of socialism that robbo203 proposes, please see www.worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org) and www.worldincommon.org (http://www.worldincommon.org) . To investigate the "labor credits" concept that I suggest, please see the first three sections of De Leon's pamphlet "Fifteen Questions about Socialism", http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf

__________________________________

Mike

Your first error is to project the behavioural patterns of people in a capitalist society into communism. You cant just say "look at what the wealthiest people in capitalism do today" (actually some of them do some useful work even if it bears no relation to their income) and assume therefore that people in a free access system are similarly going to simply indulge themselves in such an extravagant fashion, once freed of the requirement to "earn" a living. This is a completely ahistorical approach which ignores the radically different social context of communism and, in particular, the radically different way in which people will acquire social esteem.

Everything always seems "historical" when we ourselves look at the record and we think that we can tell from it what will happen, and everything seems "ahistorical" when the other guy looks at the record and makes what we believe to be an incorrect projection.

There is no unambiguous data to tell us how people might behave in the future classless society. Here's the truth: I am guessing, and you are guessing.

Since all of us are guessing, we have to look at the risks associated with being wrong. What would be the impact if each of us is wrong?

I believe that my wrong would only produce a redundant social institution than can later be scrapped after its unnecessity becomes evident. I think your wrong would produce a catastrophic economic failure.

Suppose that society goes with my suggestion, workers get issued credits to limit their consumption proportionately to their work. Then suppose that my whole idea of human behavior is wrong, and people have no inherent drive to escape from working or to consume exhorbitant amounts. My proposal to have everyone record their time at work and their marterial consumption, to keep our behavior in check, would be a redundancy. No system collapse. We make it through revolution day plus one, and then revolution day plus two, with no chaos. After some time delay, the former capitalists are now all assimilated into classless society, and there is some sort of evidence that people find work to be intrinsically enjoyable, then my work credit proposal can be abolished. No breakdown.

However, lets ask the same question about your Free Access suggestion. Let's say that society adopts a system of voluntary work and free products. Then suppose that your expectations about human behavior are wrong. An inadequate number of people show up to work at the electric power plant, and the lights go out. An inadequate number of people show up at the reservoir pumping station, and the water stops coming out of the faucet. Not enough people show up for work on the farms, and we are out of bread. A general system crash.

Because of this problem, I compare the socialist transformation of society to an airplane, with a new kind of engine that has never been tested before, being loaded with passengers and then driven off a runway at the edge of a cliff. I call for a package of functionality checks that may later be found to be redundant and unnecessary.

Unlike in capitalism where status is closely linked to wealth accumulation and patterns of consumption, in a free access society this will be meaningless. Free access undermines the whole concept of status based on consumption and instead opens the possibility of a new kind of status system based on your contribution to society. I dont have any problem with this and in fact it helps to overcome the difficulty you see with the idea having a system of voluntary or unpaid labour. People will work partly because they attract the esteem of others and the more inherently unattractive the work, the more will people be esteemed and valued for volunterring to do it in communism.

I also expect material accumulation as a status system to disappear. However, consumption that is viewed as a path to self-fulfillment in a human being's limited life span, and not viewed as an addiction to displaying status symbols, is a separate case. I don't need a 100-meter radio telescope to display it as a status symbol to the neighbors, I need it because I enjoy astronomy. I expect the over-consumption tendency to remain with us.

I think the desire to attract the esteem of others is all but kaput, permanently. People now believe that "to be free" means to say to hell with whatever other people may think and say about us. If I dye my hair purple and other people don't like it, to hell with them. Why would I ever want to go to work on a regular basis just so that the neighbors might see me pulling out of the driveway every morning and then they may think something approving about me? That would be too much of a personal cost for too little of a personal gain.

Secondly, let us suppose by some remote chance your prognosis was correct. What would happen? If people are just interested in doing things that are not particularly useful - perhaps just pursing their own particular hobbies or pastimes or whatever - whats going to happen then? Obviously the material basis of social existence is going to come under increasing strain. Many of the interesting things people might prefer to do they may not be able to for this very reason. So if they want do the more interestings they are going to have to do the less interesting things. There is no way round that. And that in itself is an incentive to do the less interesting things!

After all, who are they going to complain to when they cant do what they want to? Think about it. You are in no position to complain about other people not working in a society in which all labour is voluntary when you are not willing to put in some effort yourself. So by a reductio ad absurdum argument your objections to a free access voluntaristiuc society are thus rendered null and void.

Well, I think the way people would complain about the situation after the fact is to have another social dialogue about modifying the economic system, and then they would say, "We felt so sure that 'from each according to his ablity' was going to be feasible, but now we can see that the shelves in the store are empty and that economic concept isn't feasible, so let's go back to having workers punch the clock to earn their right to consume."

This is why I keep on emphasising that the proper way in which we need to percieve communism is as a "moral economy" as the anthropologists would say. We will all recognise in a way that is simply not conceivable today in our dog-eat-dog society of capitalism that we all depend vitally upon each other in a very direct sense and that our own interests are very much bound up with the interests of others.

This totally changes the whole ball game as I see it. You are projecting into communism what happens today without seeing that the rule of the game will have radically changed

The difference between your and me is in how MUCH we claim for socialism, the amount of generality that each of us uses when offering socialism as the panacea. You are fully positive and optimistic about the potential of socialism generally. I only advocate the specific operations that I can analyze on the drawing board and check them off as having passed my own standards of testability. Whatever parts I don't see as being sufficiently testable, I say scratch them off the plan. You see socialism generally as the dawn of a new day for humanity. I see socialism as a finely tuned mechanical clock; we can identify a few ways that it can be assembled right and then function well, but also a great number of ways that it can be assembled wrong and then break down. Your approach to socialism is closer to Marx and Engels than mine is.

Ocean Seal

1st June 2010, 23:29

My simple response to the lazy person argument is that people when working together for the whole will contribute more and more, because they have been empowered and because we have gotten rid of the unproductive capitalist classes then the people will be able to work freely and they will realize that they are in fact working for themselves for the first time in their lives.

Also this will not happen as we enter the first phases of socialism. However, in the same way that the bourgeoisie provide the false incentives of capital, we can also provide false incentives such as medals. The difference is that with medals you are wasting less resources than with money. You can provide medals without dipping too far into the treasury, but with money people can buy expensive cars, houses, and the such. This causes a deep inequity in wealth and some citizens will starve or be forced to sell their labor to a point of absolute slavery to avoid doing so. Medals give a good incentive and at the end of the day everyone still has the same amount of wealth and no one is starving and people are encouraged to produce more.

ckaihatsu

2nd June 2010, 03:59

Many of the interesting things people might prefer to do they may not be able to for this very reason. So if they want do the more interestings they are going to have to do the less interesting things. There is no way round that. And that in itself is an incentive to do the less interesting things!

After all, who are they going to complain to when they cant do what they want to? Think about it. You are in no position to complain about other people not working in a society in which all labour is voluntary when you are not willing to put in some effort yourself.

This is why I keep on emphasising that the proper way in which we need to percieve communism is as a "moral economy" as the anthropologists would say.

I'm going to just quickly jump in here and ask one thing: Would there be some systematic record-keeping of all of the material being produced, distributed around, and consumed?

If so then part of people's daily routine, then as now, would be "keeping up" with the (generalized) news about where the politics of the day are, what's being collectively produced where, what's hot, what's not, etc. -- right?

My reason for introducing this is to say that certainly people couldn't get a proper "feel" -- make assessments -- about how those around them are doing work-wise and consumption-wise when any one of us is limited to "knowing" maybe a few dozen people around us *at most*...(!) How exactly could we ever *sample* and *know* the larger, *societal* picture of things except by using *formalized* channels of news-gathering and reporting -- ?

So, finally, once we're using generalized news reports about mass, *aggregated* quantities of production, distribution, and consumption, would it be such a travesty to extend that record-keeping down to tracking data for *individual* productivity and consumption -- ? There would be *some kind* of specific data tracked, at least down to the factory level, on the scale of discrete projects and production runs. By extending the data down to matters of individuals' work hours and work roles we would have a *more precise* picture of how exactly labor contributes to the production of the resulting products.

Would the open availability of this kind of data be compatible with your conception of a 'moral economy'?

Suppose that society goes with my suggestion, workers get issued credits to limit their consumption proportionately to their work.

For the record I'd like to note that I favor a certain system of labor-hour-based credits that I developed myself. It establishes a post-capitalist, self-selected liberated labor force as the starting point of *all* material (production) that is supplied to society -- (the "no surplus" row in the model).

In this model there's a column for 'determination of material values' which details that "Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived."

And, under the 'propagation' heading, the model details that "Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality."

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg

Agnapostate

2nd June 2010, 10:22

Zanthorus

2nd June 2010, 15:07

Martin Blank

2nd June 2010, 18:10

There is an awful confusion about this phrase, which is exploited by bourgeois elements to throw mud at communist theory. It centers specifically on the word "ability". The bourgeoisie interprets that in the sense of intensive labor, as in someone works until they reach the limits of their physical or mental ability -- until they drop. But this is not what Marx meant when he used the term.

The original German word used by Marx that is translated as "ability" is Fähigkeiten. This word is used generally to speak about skill or capability, not brute ability. In modern German, Fähigkeiten is more often used to speak of professional (learned or developed) skills.

This sheds light on the slogan, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". It might be more accurately translated, "From each according to their skill, to each according to their need". In other words, you do the work that you're good at or trained for, and you receive from society what you need.

Now, this can raise other questions, such as unevenness in socially-necessary skills. After all, for example, the world needs ditch diggers, too. But it's presumptuous, to say the least, to expect that there will be people in the world whose only solid skill is ditch digging, or who will want to make that a career.

For the moment, though, let's not get hung up on bad English translations and spin them into elaborate arguments. The bourgeoisie does enough of that for us. :D

mikelepore

3rd June 2010, 03:00

Thanks for that, Miles. I didn't even know that anyone had a dispute about "ability" meaning skill, and the fact that that it doesn't mean someone works until they reach the limit. Somehow I missed that dialogue.

But the aspect of the individual deciding what time to knock off work, or, perhaps more critically, on which days to make it a point to show up at work, is still a consideration in making socialist production efficient. To that extent I would revert to some connotation of "reaching the limit." The problem I foresee is the human tendency to tell ourselves something convenient until we believe it. "I am working according to my ability. I know myself spiritually. I need forty-five weeks of vacation to recover from my seven weeks of work per year. The artist in me requires that." I think that society would be rewarding people to say things like that if the work hours were voluntary and the goods were free.

mikelepore

3rd June 2010, 03:14

some systematic record-keeping of all of the material being produced, distributed around, and consumed

I expect there must be. If a cook following a recipe has to sure of having enough eggs before starting, and an electrician wiring a house has to know how switches come in a box, etc., I think the same is true of the whole economy. Everything has to be counted. (Fortunately, computers can do it.)

But not all consumption has to be tracked to each individual. It's probably enough counting to say a million people per day ride the train into the city.

mikelepore

3rd June 2010, 03:20

Paul Cockshott points out would be that "from each according to his ability" requires a system for assessing needs and doesn't actually have to imply free access as so many "communists" have taken it as meaning.

I noticed that in Paul's writing of May 25. It was a new thought for me. He said:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1752713&postcount=25

robbo203

3rd June 2010, 23:54

As has already been pointed out in the thread, the "free access" slogan is not accepted by all communists. Marx himself advocated a system of labour credits in the "lower stage of communism". Also one interesting point to make that Paul Cockshott points out would be that "from each according to his ability" requires a system for assessing needs and doesn't actually have to imply free access as so many "communists" have taken it as meaning.

I think Paul Cockshott is quite mistaken. Certainly, we can all accept that Marx's lower stage of communism based on labour credits is not compatible with free access. However, I would say that the higher stage definitely is. Iin fact there is no other way in which one logically grasp what the this higher stage is about except in terms of free access. Marx might not have used the precise words "free acess" but it is most definitely implied

In the Critique of the Gotha programme he says this

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!

Clearly, Marx is saying here that labour vouchers/credits will be dispensed with in the higher phase of communism. Which begs the question - what will they be replaced with? Labour vouchers were justified on the grounds that

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.

In other words, labour vouchers were a form of rationing under conditions of still existing scarcity. But in the higher phase of communism 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 rationing can be dispensed with and hence also the system of labour vouchers. Or to put it differently the fact that labour vouchers in the higher phase are discontinued strongly suggests that there is no further need for rationing - unless you want to suggest that some other form of rationing is being proposed which is not the case. The only other foprm of ratioing I can think of is the wages system and that is certainly not what Marx advocated.

If you dispense with rationing this can only mean one thing: individuals have free access to the goods and services society produces (and of course voluntarily help to produce these self same goods and services).

This gets to the very heart of what a genuine communist society is about

Paul Cockshott

3rd June 2010, 23:58

I have just replied to an almost identical post on the state capitalism thread, so I refer people to that.

ckaihatsu

4th June 2010, 20:22

Or to put it differently the fact that labour vouchers in the higher phase are discontinued strongly suggests that there is no further need for rationing - unless you want to suggest that some other form of rationing is being proposed which is not the case. The only other foprm of ratioing I can think of is the wages system and that is certainly not what Marx advocated.

If you dispense with rationing this can only mean one thing: individuals have free access to the goods and services society produces (and of course voluntarily help to produce these self same goods and services).

This gets to the very heart of what a genuine communist society is about

With conditions of abundance and without the objective need for rationing, yes, individuals would have free access to the goods and services society produces, likewise producing the same. This would also surpass the need for any kind of wages system, as you've noted.

But I think that there would still be some utility in record-keeping -- at very least for the sake of posterity -- possibly down to the individual level of labor input (and consumption). This information infrastructure back-end would also enable a truly post-commodity political economy, or *planned* economy. I have to stress that this point is particularly relevant around matters of *societal progress* -- how should a post-capitalist society direct its material production for maintaining, upgrading, and innovating its means of mass production, and for artistic and scientifically experimental projects, especially large-scale ones?

hammer&sickle

5th June 2010, 12:34

The economic law that the distribution of the goods produced in a society has to match the productive relations under which they are produced makes the slogan "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" a possibility.

We are witnessing a revolution in the productive forces..automation and robots are replacing human labor and thus destroying the basis by which we exchange commodities..the amount of socially necessary labor contained within them. If a commodity can be produced for free..or almost free..it then follows that it must be distributed in the same way. The economic crisis we see today is a crisis of capitalist commodity realization..our technology enables us to churn out products for which there are no consumers. Why are there no consumers?? Cause everyone has been layed off..automated out of a job.

Take for one example this hoopla around file sharing and the music industry. Once music is digitized it can be produced for almost nothing..nothing the music industry can do will prevent its free distribution. They can try all they want, pass all sorts of intellectual property laws but they are fighting a losing battle.

The auto industry..once the auto factories in Michigan employed thousands upon thousands of people..a few factories today can produce as many cars as we need with a fraction of the labor force..if this trend continues.,.and it must..it will be the capitalist masters themselves that will make a reality out of our slogan..ain't dialectics great!