From each according to his ability...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

...to each according to his need.

I'm forever intrigued by this ideal of Marx's.

How is Marx defining 'need'? Surely, if it excludes the category of 'wants', and refers only to an individual's needs in terms of housing, groceries, clothing and transport, then it really doesn't solve the economic problem of distribution, as the idea of the allocation of 'wants' is still not solved, and we still have to decide who gets what size allocation for their 'wants'.

Can anybody help me out here? I'd like to get a good discussion going on this, if possible.

[Tim Finnegan]

As far as I can tell, Marx makes no categorical distinction between "want" and "need" in his philosophical anthropology, but rather concerns himself with the conditions necessary for a flourish life. For him, authentic desires express the human striving for fulfilling life, which he identifies as consisting in creative social activity, and so identifies "needs" as anything and everything which can be considered a prerequisite for this fulfilment. (He was consciously influenced in this by Aristotle's ethics, although in his shift from abstract virtues to concrete activity he anticipates the existentialists.)

Furthermore, Marx took a very holistic view of human flourishing, describing (as you'll be aware) the capitalistic division of "work" and "life" as an expression of alienation rather than a universal characteristic of human society, and so would have understood these "conditions" in a very general sense, extending to anything which was necessary for you to live well, so that a ready supply of, say, good literature or decent coffee could be considered just as much a "need" as well-made tools or a nutritious diet. It doesn't provide a particularly obvious logic of distribution, but I honestly don't think that it was meant to, and that attempts to squirrel that out of it tend to represent the thought of a Second International Marxism preoccupied with the limits of material scarcity, rather than, as Marx was, aspiring to explore the possibility of material abundance.


(Hopefully German-speaking posters can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm lead to believe that the term used in the original, "Bedürfnissen", doesn't actually translate directly into "need" in the English sense, but rather describes that which is compulsively strived for, and so lacks the puritanical overtones of the literal translation. A small point, but one which I think should certainly colour our reading.)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think we have to concern ourselves with the limits of material scarcity, because we're fighting a struggle that not only has an end and an ideal (i.e. some future expected period that we'll call 'communism'), but a current struggle (the current period, we'll call that Capitalism) and a far shorter period that will be post-Capitalist but [probably] not communist (i.e. some future expected period we'll call 'transition').

So you have 3 periods: the present, the immediate future (i.e. post-Capitalism, not tomorrow!) and the distant future. In only one of those periods can we consider there to be the possibility of material abundance where distribution is not a problem; we know that there is material scarcity and poor distribution in the Capitalist world, and we know that in the period post-Capitalism, output will not adjust, labour will not become (much) more productive and technology will not advance overnight. Rather, it will take a period of adjustment for this to happen, before we see the material benefits of Socialism in terms of material abundance. In the absence of immediately appearing material abundance, the immediate future period (post-Capitalism) will be concerned with improving the conditions of distribution of goods, services, work and needs/wants. This immediate future period may overlap with 'communism'; it is perfectly conceivable that there could be a moneyless, stateless, classless world where material abundance has not occurred. Again, this is due to a lag effect. Material abundance, if it were to occur, would be because of the absence of money, classes and the state. There would clearly be a lag involved, and it is unlikely that money, classes and the state will disappear all at once. Rather, it's likely (in my opinion) that the order would be classes and state, and then money at some later period.

Also, does Marx utilise economics to justify his prediction of material abundance? I mean, i'm sure he does, but could someone give me an overview (given that i've not read Kapital and am not in a position to do so currently...). I'm still sceptical that the problems of economic scarcity can be so overcome that the principle 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his want', can be fulfilled 'as it says on the tin', so to speak.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

I think we have to concern ourselves with the limits of material scarcity, because we're fighting a struggle that not only has an end and an ideal (i.e. some future expected period that we'll call 'communism'), but a current struggle (the current period, we'll call that Capitalism) and a far shorter period that will be post-Capitalist but [probably] not communist (i.e. some future expected period we'll call 'transition').
Well, we could use these, but I'm not going to in my explanation. The reason is due to the historical argument that I'll represent that only extended for about 4 years.


In only one of those periods can we consider there to be the possibility of material abundance where distribution is not a problem; we know that there is material scarcity and poor distribution in the Capitalist world, and we know that in the period post-Capitalism, output will not adjust, labour will not become (much) more productive and technology will not advance overnight. Well, sure, I agree to an extent. In regards to Capitalist distribution, I agree completely. Post-Capitalist society, however, I do disagree. Production greatly increased as-well technologically it advanced rather quickly. "Technicians and agronomists helped the peasants to make better use of the land. Scientific methods were introduced and in some areas yields increased by as much as 50%. Food was handed over to the supply committees who looked after distribution in the urban areas." (Source -- "The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action"). I do know that example used wasn't post-Capitalism, but looking towards this example, we can discover how quickly production/innovations could increase rather quickly.
Rather, it will take a period of adjustment for this to happen, before we see the material benefits of Socialism in terms of material abundance. I agree with this as-well. On the other hand, I don't believe it to be as sluggish as you do. Even with mild progress in production, and with 'need' allocated not according to purchasing power, distribution among society as a whole, wouldn't be unequal, where a minority can possess an abundance of goods.
In the absence of immediately appearing material abundance, the immediate future period (post-Capitalism) will be concerned with improving the conditions of distribution of goods, services, work and needs/wants. This immediate future period may overlap with 'communism'; it is perfectly conceivable that there could be a moneyless, stateless, classless world where material abundance has not occurred. Again, this is due to a lag effect. The lag effect, in my opinion, which I believe has a different conception to yours, is production during transition, or the fight and security of obtained territory, would consist of materials going into defense, instead of personal needs/wants. Once this has become unnecessary, and if the materials needed to produce needs/wants, we'd find it not a problem.
Material abundance, if it were to occur, would be because of the absence of money, classes and the state. There would clearly be a lag involved, and it is unlikely that money, classes and the state will disappear all at once. Some communes in Spain abolished money internally (Source : Bolloten op. cit., p.65-66.) "Although no hard and fast rules were observed in establishing libertarian communism, the procedure was more or less the same everywhere. A CNT-FAI committee was set up in each locality where the new regime was instituted. This committee not only exercised legislative and executive powers, but also administered justice. One of its first acts was to abolish private trade and to collectivize the soil of the rich, and often that of the poor, as well as farm buildings, machinery, livestock, and transport. Except in rare cases, barbers, bakers, carpenters, sandalmakers, doctors, dentists, teachers, blacksmiths, and tailors also came under the collective system. Stocks of food and clothing and other necessities were concentrated in a communal depot under the control of the local committee, and the church, if not rendered useless by fire, was converted into a storehouse, dining hall, cafe, workshop, school, garage, or barracks. In many communities money for internal use was abolished..."

[Tim Finnegan]

I think we have to concern ourselves with the limits of material scarcity, because we're fighting a struggle that not only has an end and an ideal (i.e. some future expected period that we'll call 'communism'), but a current struggle (the current period, we'll call that Capitalism) and a far shorter period that will be post-Capitalist but [probably] not communist (i.e. some future expected period we'll call 'transition').

So you have 3 periods: the present, the immediate future (i.e. post-Capitalism, not tomorrow!) and the distant future. In only one of those periods can we consider there to be the possibility of material abundance where distribution is not a problem; we know that there is material scarcity and poor distribution in the Capitalist world, and we know that in the period post-Capitalism, output will not adjust, labour will not become (much) more productive and technology will not advance overnight. Rather, it will take a period of adjustment for this to happen, before we see the material benefits of Socialism in terms of material abundance. In the absence of immediately appearing material abundance, the immediate future period (post-Capitalism) will be concerned with improving the conditions of distribution of goods, services, work and needs/wants. This immediate future period may overlap with 'communism'; it is perfectly conceivable that there could be a moneyless, stateless, classless world where material abundance has not occurred. Again, this is due to a lag effect. Material abundance, if it were to occur, would be because of the absence of money, classes and the state. There would clearly be a lag involved, and it is unlikely that money, classes and the state will disappear all at once. Rather, it's likely (in my opinion) that the order would be classes and state, and then money at some later period.
I don't think that "to each according to his need" is to be understood as a goal to be achieved, but rather as an logic on which an emancipated humanity will by necessity organise itself. It's not possible that we could give everyone just anything that their heart may desire- there just aren't enough battleships to catapult into the moon for that- so the question could only ever be about how we produce "according to need" to the best of our ability to do so. It's not that technological advancement is a precondition of communist relations, but rather than technological advancement magnifies the potential for human flourishing within communist social relations, the relations themselves emerging as a the both the means and consequence of proletarian self-emancipation.


Also, does Marx utilise economics to justify his prediction of material abundance? I mean, i'm sure he does, but could someone give me an overview (given that i've not read Kapital and am not in a position to do so currently...). I'm still sceptical that the problems of economic scarcity can be so overcome that the principle 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his want', can be fulfilled 'as it says on the tin', so to speak.
The prediction of abundance is an inference made from observed trends of technological and scientific development, not from economics. Marx's study of economics was concerned with the internal laws of motion of capitalism, so to the extent that it has any relevance here it's in exposing the technological retarding effect of a mode of production orientated towards profit rather than need (which is to say, profoundly so, even in capitalism's "progressive" period).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Tim - do you not think it is a contradiction in terms to use the maxim 'to each according to his need' as a supply-side motivator, with the other supply-side motivator being 'from each according to his ability'. What if the two do not match? What if the skill set in the economy does not match those needed to produce for needs? Where do we adjust?

I know these are questions that you can't really answer off the cuff without a pretty staggering amount of original research, they're more intended to be rhetorical. I'm questioning the base of the phrase: what are we aiming for, in terms of the allocation of supply-side elements? And what are we aiming for, in terms of the ability of people to consume? These are key questions, as i'll explain:

If we are indeed as you say, using 'to each according to his need' as something not "to be understood as a goal to be achieved, but rather as a logic on which an emancipated humanity will be necessity organise itself" then that leads surely to a dark and dangerous logic: something other than the person - or the community - will decide what the person - or the community - consumes above their basic needs. This seems a great un-answered question of communism and one that, whilst we clearly cannot theorise in exact terms as doing so for something in the very-long run is always a pretty sloppy exercise in ego-ism, I feel, it's also something we mustn't throw into the long grass. I've heard nobody, nobody on this board, nobody currently in the movement today and historically going back to the bearded fellow himself, actually enunciate a proper answer to this question and it frustrates me because it gives some level of legitimacy to those who call us utopian because, for all our theories, we are ultimately still resting on a society in some future long-run period where everything will be sunny, the people will own everything and somehow everything will be distributed equally, fairly and without quarrel, yet there is no explanation of how. We can vaguely explain how we get there - by abolishing money, state and (obviously) class, but there's little discussion of the tangible effects this will have on society; on consumption; on production and on the distribution of produced resources to be consumed.

I'm ranting because it frustrates me. Perhaps there's no answer?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anarcho-Brocialist: you may be right about my rather pessimistic assertions regarding the lag effect on the function of the economy. It's just difficult to say, quantitatively, either way, so I guess it's a moot point for this discussion, especially after my post above.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The prediction of abundance is an inference made from observed trends of technological and scientific development, not from economics. Marx's study of economics was concerned with the internal laws of motion of capitalism, so to the extent that it has any relevance here it's in exposing the technological retarding effect of a mode of production orientated towards profit rather than need (which is to say, profoundly so, even in capitalism's "progressive" period).

Just a quick point: technology is endogenous (i.e. technological development occurs - at least partly - for economic reasons, i.e. higher wages make it financially necessary for the profit-seekers, or higher labour productivity means less labour are needed/wanted to produce a given level of output), so surely Marx's observations on technology were inherently economic, at least partly.

But yes, I do agree that a lot of Marx's writing on economics seemed focused (successfully, we should add!) on critiquing Capitalism. I find his stuff on enunciating an alternative, beyond the basic Marxist notion of abolishing class relations, quite woolly, hence my frustrations!

[Tim Finnegan]

Tim - do you not think it is a contradiction in terms to use the maxim 'to each according to his need' as a supply-side motivator, with the other supply-side motivator being 'from each according to his ability'. What if the two do not match? What if the skill set in the economy does not match those needed to produce for needs? Where do we adjust?

I know these are questions that you can't really answer off the cuff without a pretty staggering amount of original research, they're more intended to be rhetorical. I'm questioning the base of the phrase: what are we aiming for, in terms of the allocation of supply-side elements? And what are we aiming for, in terms of the ability of people to consume? These are key questions, as i'll explain:

If we are indeed as you say, using 'to each according to his need' as something not "to be understood as a goal to be achieved, but rather as a logic on which an emancipated humanity will be necessity organise itself" then that leads surely to a dark and dangerous logic: something other than the person - or the community - will decide what the person - or the community - consumes above their basic needs. This seems a great un-answered question of communism and one that, whilst we clearly cannot theorise in exact terms as doing so for something in the very-long run is always a pretty sloppy exercise in ego-ism, I feel, it's also something we mustn't throw into the long grass. I've heard nobody, nobody on this board, nobody currently in the movement today and historically going back to the bearded fellow himself, actually enunciate a proper answer to this question and it frustrates me because it gives some level of legitimacy to those who call us utopian because, for all our theories, we are ultimately still resting on a society in some future long-run period where everything will be sunny, the people will own everything and somehow everything will be distributed equally, fairly and without quarrel, yet there is no explanation of how. We can vaguely explain how we get there - by abolishing money, state and (obviously) class, but there's little discussion of the tangible effects this will have on society; on consumption; on production and on the distribution of produced resources to be consumed.

I'm ranting because it frustrates me. Perhaps there's no answer?
Well, it's a cliché to say that Marx wasn't in the business of drafting utopias, but I think that beyond that we should recognise that Marx was wise enough to realise that the process by which communism is achieved depends to a significant extent on where you're starting from. Different periods present different working classes which compose themselves in different ways, and so the period by which a working class overcomes itself is going to be to a certain degree an expression of its particular relationship to capital. This means that the nature process of communisation isn't something that can be inferred from the basic terms of capitalism, but has to be learned through revolutionary practice. To put it glibly, I don't know about you, but my interest in forming a workers' council in a supermarket is just about zero.

As such, Marx was only able to sketch the very vaguest of outlines of how the future proletarian self-emancipation would develop. His famous maxim amounts to a description of the principle on which any emancipated humanity emerging out of the collapse of capitalism will be forced to act: not a moral compulsion, not as the means to an end of "communism", not even as a good idea, but simply by necessity, simply because the process of their own emancipation, the breaking of their bonds to capital, demands that they organise in such a manner. It is not a logic to replace capital, but to shatter it.

(I will admit that this is making a move heavily in the direction of communisation theory and away from the claims made by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Program, but at the risk of sounding pompous, I think that this is the proper conclusion to be drawn from Marx's work, and that his own dallying with labour-vouchers and what not represents a wariness of the radical implications of his own theories. The communism of the early Marx, uncoloured by the company of dour reformists, shows no such hesitance. (Although, ironically enough, this is the same period in which his ideas on political organisation amounted to a warmed-over Jacobinism, and only later did he understand the depth of the political rupture with the bourgeois order that revolution required. World's funny like that.))

The thing that we really need to apprehend, and I'll admit that this is no easy business, is exactly how we go about parsing the various levels of abstraction at play, and by that I mean a more complex layering than the unhelpful reductionism of "objective factors/subjective factors" popular among the left. It's something that I think that most of the left is consistently terrible at, and even the greatest minds, right down to Cherlie and Freddo, have stumbled on. Some observations are true of any and all capitalisms, others are true for about half another, but neither is more true than the other, and it most of the problems that you identify of the latter variety, specific, contingent problems that emerge in the process of social reorganisation. Marx was attempting to lay down those long-terms truths, those which could be inferred from the fundamental functioning of capital, understanding that the half-hour truths could only be discovered in the half-hour to which they apply.


Just a quick point: technology is endogenous (i.e. technological development occurs - at least partly - for economic reasons, i.e. higher wages make it financially necessary for the profit-seekers, or higher labour productivity means less labour are needed/wanted to produce a given level of output), so surely Marx's observations on technology were inherently economic, at least partly.
That's certainly true within the terms of capitalism, but not when compared to a hypothetical communism. Capital doesn't pursue technological progress in itself, but as you say for profit, and only in certain circumstances do the two coincide; it may equally come from beating down wages, from the reorganisation of labour, or the transplanting of production to regions were the cost of the reproduction is lower. Certainly, the overall movement is towards technological progress, but it's a movement of two steps forward, one step back.

An historical example: the classic image of early industrialisation is the mechanisation of British textile manufacture, a process, we are told, in which the old, inefficient hand-loom weavers were swept away almost over night by the sheer force of bourgeois ingenuity. But that is not, in fact, true: mechanised production only constituted a a part of the market until well into the 19th century, a "core" that was present in both good times and bad, while that the difference was made up by the remaining (and chronically under-employed) hand-loom weavers. The technology was always there to industrialise the market in its entirety, but it would not have been profitable to do so, and only very gradually did hand-loom weaver cease entirely (in a large part through sons sensibly refusing to take up their fathers' trade). Technological development was thus retarded by capital.

We can think of many other examples today: the predominance of inefficient hand-labour in sweatshop manufacture, the amount of revenue ploughed into the unproductive advertising sector, the manufacture of CDs and DVDs when the information could just as easily be streamed directly, the greater bulk of the service sector (and I say that as a service sector worker!)- all practices which are objectively wasteful, but are none the less profitable.

...Which is a long-winded way of saying that, yes, the economics is relevant in examining historical development under capital, but "technology under capital" is a very specific kind of technology, so it's difficult if not impossible to withdraw any general principles from it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

On the contrary to what you say, I think Marx was particularly clear about how the future self-emancipation of the working class would develop. Besides his critique of Capitalism, I believe this was his strongest theoretical point. But the very idea of emancipation, or self-emancipation, implies that there is a constraint (in this case the bourgeoisie, and Capitalist economic relations) on the current and future well-being of a group (in this case, the working class). Really what i'm more interested in, at this stage, is discussing the period post-emancipation. I often find that, getting locked down in the nitty gritty of 'defending the revolution' and the idea of Capitalist encirclement, and trying to plan every stage of the revolution in its current and its immediate future period to the tiniest detail, the left - in theory as well as praxis - actually loses sight of the end goal.

This is what i'm asking: what is the end goal? Not, as you say, in the drafting of a utopia, and not either something that is planned to the very last, because clearly that is neither practical nor realistic, nor possible. But surely a plan of how goods will be produced and distributed to fulfil the maxim of 'to each according to his need'.

First we obviously need to define 'need', which this discussion shows is clearly difficult to pin down. Do you interpret (i.e. not what you think Marx meant, but what do you think..) 'need' within this maxim as meaning basic requirements, or luxuries, or a mixture of both? I think this is really key to being able to put together an idea of the way goods will be produced and distributed to fulfil the idea; it needs to be properly defined first.

Btw, just reading Luxemburg's 'Accumulation' atm, if it sheds any light i'll be sure to let you know/bring it to the discussion:D

[Vanguard1917]

First we obviously need to define 'need', which this discussion shows is clearly difficult to pin down. Do you interpret (i.e. not what you think Marx meant, but what do you think..) 'need' within this maxim as meaning basic requirements, or luxuries, or a mixture of both? I think this is really key to being able to put together an idea of the way goods will be produced and distributed to fulfil the idea; it needs to be properly defined first.

What are considered "basic requirements" depend on social context, though. Computers with internet access are considered a basic requirement for a decent higher education nowadays, but that wasn't always the case. The same goes for many other goods which were considered luxuries in different periods, or which simply did not exist then. I think Marx saw needs as always evolving, rather than as static, set in stone and predeterminable. He talked of needs as socially created - he argued, for example, that the "expansion of needs" was one of capitalism's revolutionary and "civilising" features (source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch08.htm)). Hence the difficulty in "properly defining" what needs will exist in a communist society: needs constantly evolve under capitalism, and they won't cease to do so under communism. The aim of the latter will be material abundance - a plentiful supply of the goods that people need at that given time - made possible through constant technological progress.

[Rafiq]

I wouldn't, by any means interperate this little gem from Marx as some sort of universalist ethical tenet of revolutionary thought. It wasn't, after all, something that originated from Marx. It sounds nice and all, but it has little to no meaning to it of great quality.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes, but you think that humans beings are fleshy robots, so you were never going to say anything particularly insightful.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What are considered "basic requirements" depend on social context, though. Computers with internet access are considered a basic requirement for a decent higher education nowadays, but that wasn't always the case. The same goes for many other goods which were considered luxuries in different periods, or which simply did not exist then. I think Marx saw needs as always evolving, rather than as static, set in stone and predeterminable. He talked of needs as socially created - he argued, for example, that the "expansion of needs" was one of capitalism's revolutionary and "civilising" features (source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch08.htm)). Hence the difficulty in "properly defining" what needs will exist in a communist society: needs constantly evolve under capitalism, and they won't cease to do so under communism. The aim of the latter will be material abundance - a plentiful supply of the goods that people need at that given time - made possible through constant technological progress.

Thanks. This is exactly what i've been getting at, the first part of your post anyway. Needs do constantly evolve and they are not static; moreover because of their dynamic properties, because of changes in prices, in production, because of shocks etc., basic goods and luxury/consumer goods often overlap at any one period, making the definition difficult, in a theoretical sense.

Couple of questions:

If material abundance is merely a plentiful supply of constantly evolving needs, then this surely is to say nothing about the production and distribution of non-basic goods. In short, does this not play into the hands of those who say communism is a lowest common denominator system, that allows everybody to live a basic life free of poverty, but allows nobody access to the highest, most luxurious supplies that are embodied in the combination of human labour and technological progress.?

Is technological progress the only input (besides Labour) that will result in the supply-side meeting the demand for the production of a constant supply of ever-changing needs? If so, is technology not endogenous? i.e. what drives technology? Are there not a myriad of factors here that come into play? Institutions, prices [though I guess this becomes redundant in a moneyless communism], trade, resources, geography etc.?

In short, is this idea not just too bloody simplistic to actually work in reality? Would a better maxim not be: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his basic needs & a as great a proportion of his wants as is possible by the production process'?

[Rafiq]

Yes, but you think that humans beings are fleshy robots, so you were never going to say anything particularly insightful.

What does this have to do with the thread?

Oh, I forgot, you're a condescending, worthless, Moralist piece of shit who believes Humans to be mere instruments of their "Souls", that of which have a free will that is somehow exempt from material conditions.

[Tim Finnegan]

Oh, Rafiq, you and your wacky theories.


In short, is this idea not just too bloody simplistic to actually work in reality? Would a better maxim not be: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his basic needs & a as great a proportion of his wants as is possible by the production process'?
That's basically the same thing, isn't it? "To each according to his needs" doesn't mean that everyone will have very possible want fulfilled, simply that distribution will be on a basis of human wants, rather than of status (as in feudal or tributary society) or profit (as in capitalism). It's a very general principle.

[Vanguard1917]

In short, is this idea not just too bloody simplistic to actually work in reality? Would a better maxim not be: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his basic needs & a as great a proportion of his wants as is possible by the production process'?

Lol, perhaps. I think that's pretty much how i imagine things would work. Democratic planning would seek to ensure that production reflects society's priorities (as democratically decided). I don't see why people will not generally be able to reach agreements on such matters. But i imagine also that heated debates will be had over many aspects of what the production plan should consist of, and i don't think that there's anything wrong with that - debate is central to any thriving democratic process, and i think that it will in fact be indispensible to replacing the market with a superior system of allocating society's resources (labour, wealth, etc.).


Is technological progress the only input (besides Labour) that will
result in the supply-side meeting the demand for the production of a constant supply of ever-changing needs? If so, is technology not endogenous? i.e. what drives technology? Are there not a myriad of factors here that come into play? Institutions, prices [though I guess this becomes redundant in a moneyless communism], trade, resources, geography etc.?

Good question. You could also ask: if technological progress under capitalism is driven by factors inherent to capitalism itself, what will drive technological progress under communism?

I think it comes back to what i said above. Communism would require the active and conscious planning of the people as a whole, and i think people generally desire improvements to their conditions of existence. There's the assumption (by bourgeois ideologues) that progress will come to a standstill without the capitalist market. But technological leaps were made in societies prior to capitalism. Also, technological development today is in many serious ways retarded by capitalism - if development is not in the interests of the capitalist.

And generally, as well as always wanting more from life, human beings are essentially lazy when it comes to economic production: they want more/better with as little time and energy expended as possible. I can see how that combination of traits would work in technology's favour under communism!

[ckaihatsu]

I'm still sceptical that the problems of economic scarcity can be so overcome that the principle 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his want', can be fulfilled 'as it says on the tin', so to speak.





It's not possible that we could give everyone just anything that their heart may desire- there just aren't enough battleships to catapult into the moon for that- so the question could only ever be about how we produce "according to need" to the best of our ability to do so.





Really what i'm more interested in, at this stage, is discussing the period post-emancipation.




This is what i'm asking: what is the end goal? Not, as you say, in the drafting of a utopia, and not either something that is planned to the very last, because clearly that is neither practical nor realistic, nor possible. But surely a plan of how goods will be produced and distributed to fulfil the maxim of 'to each according to his need'.

First we obviously need to define 'need', which this discussion shows is clearly difficult to pin down. Do you interpret (i.e. not what you think Marx meant, but what do you think..) 'need' within this maxim as meaning basic requirements, or luxuries, or a mixture of both? I think this is really key to being able to put together an idea of the way goods will be produced and distributed to fulfil the idea; it needs to be properly defined first.





What are considered "basic requirements" depend on social context, though. Computers with internet access are considered a basic requirement for a decent higher education nowadays, but that wasn't always the case. The same goes for many other goods which were considered luxuries in different periods, or which simply did not exist then. I think Marx saw needs as always evolving, rather than as static, set in stone and predeterminable.





Thanks. This is exactly what i've been getting at, the first part of your post anyway. Needs do constantly evolve and they are not static; moreover because of their dynamic properties, because of changes in prices, in production, because of shocks etc., basic goods and luxury/consumer goods often overlap at any one period, making the definition difficult, in a theoretical sense.

Couple of questions:

If material abundance is merely a plentiful supply of constantly evolving needs, then this surely is to say nothing about the production and distribution of non-basic goods. In short, does this not play into the hands of those who say communism is a lowest common denominator system, that allows everybody to live a basic life free of poverty, but allows nobody access to the highest, most luxurious supplies that are embodied in the combination of human labour and technological progress.?




[W]hat drives technology?




In short, is this idea not just too bloody simplistic to actually work in reality? Would a better maxim not be: 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his basic needs & a as great a proportion of his wants as is possible by the production process'?





Lol, perhaps. I think that's pretty much how i imagine things would work. Democratic planning would seek to ensure that production reflects society's priorities (as democratically decided). I don't see why people will not generally be able to reach agreements on such matters. But i imagine also that heated debates will be had over many aspects of what the production plan should consist of, and i don't think that there's anything wrong with that - debate is central to any thriving democratic process, and i think that it will in fact be indispensible to replacing the market with a superior system of allocating society's resources (labour, wealth, etc.).




There's the assumption (by bourgeois ideologues) that progress will come to a standstill without the capitalist market.


I'm *continually* interested in the original question since this *should* always be at the back of our minds, at least, if we're going to politically identify as revolutionaries. All someone has to do is ask, "So how would that work, exactly?" and we *should* be able to come up with something a little more detailed than just blurting out 'economic democracy'.

I'll suggest that it helps to think of this on a *per-item* basis, if only so we don't get overwhelmed by the gauzy, expansive blanket terms of 'scarcity' and 'abundance' -- but then committing to a *per-item* specification only begs the original question:





[S]urely a plan of how goods will be produced and distributed to fulfil the maxim of 'to each according to his need'.


I'll suggest that the issue in front of us is how to *systematize* this as much as possible, so that we *don't* have to rely on the dynamic of raw politics ("democracy") to decide every little thing. Our grounding in materialism *should* be a help here, but I agree that it still feels undefined overall.

I have contributions of my own, which you've probably already seen elsewhere on the board, but I'll hold off for now to see others' responses.

[ckaihatsu]

What are Labor credits and how're they different?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labor-credits-and-t172359/index.html?p=2459413

[MotherCossack]

...to each according to his need.

I'm forever intrigued by this ideal of Marx's.

How is Marx defining 'need'? Surely, if it excludes the category of 'wants', and refers only to an individual's needs in terms of housing, groceries, clothing and transport, then it really doesn't solve the economic problem of distribution, as the idea of the allocation of 'wants' is still not solved, and we still have to decide who gets what size allocation for their 'wants'.

Can anybody help me out here? I'd like to get a good discussion going on this, if possible.


make way for the wierd, skinny lady.... her aging intellect heaves into gear... l[jesus mother.... get on with it.... you will forget what you were gonna say in a minute.... oops too late.... not really.....]
the new state [the lovely socialist one] will expect, from each of us, the amount and type of contribution that is relevant to our individual ability....
and it will provide for each one of us what our particular circumstances indicate that we need.
so ... a 14 year old talented young scientist... will be expected to study further, be given all the recources, necessary, for such study.... and will be fed, clothed, and housed and generally supported to that end.
Whereas... a 43 year old unemployed teacher.... will be assessed to determine whether he/she would benefit from supplementary training/education, if teaching skills are lacking ..... Alternatively, if a fresh start is desired.... training in a field with some use for existing skills can be considered..... in the meantime... an allowance will be paid, until he/she has found the best course of action and is established on that... and so on....

of course if money were to be abolished it would get very complicated to plan.... well the state would take a more central role in everything like distribution... even if it was localised....
you know what... this is doing my head in..... it is too late ......i have officially bitten off more than i can chew.....
very interesting thread though!

btw. our wants do tend to become less pressing when all our real needs are met... but sometimes needs are not recognised and are buried ...it gets complicated.... it does not always have to be......quite!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

make way for the wierd, skinny lady.... her aging intellect heaves into gear... l[jesus mother.... get on with it.... you will forget what you were gonna say in a minute.... oops too late.... not really.....]
the new state [the lovely socialist one] will expect, from each of us, the amount and type of contribution that is relevant to our individual ability....
and it will provide for each one of us what our particular circumstances indicate that we need.
so ... a 14 year old talented young scientist... will be expected to study further, be given all the recources, necessary, for such study.... and will be fed, clothed, and housed and generally supported to that end.
Whereas... a 43 year old unemployed teacher.... will be assessed to determine whether he/she would benefit from supplementary training/education, if teaching skills are lacking ..... Alternatively, if a fresh start is desired.... training in a field with some use for existing skills can be considered..... in the meantime... an allowance will be paid, until he/she has found the best course of action and is established on that... and so on....

of course if money were to be abolished it would get very complicated to plan.... well the state would take a more central role in everything like distribution... even if it was localised....
you know what... this is doing my head in..... it is too late ......i have officially bitten off more than i can chew.....
very interesting thread though!

btw. our wants do tend to become less pressing when all our real needs are met... but sometimes needs are not recognised and are buried ...it gets complicated.... it does not always have to be......quite!

Couple of things i'd like to clarify:

a) there will be no 'state' for people to interact with. People will own their own possessions, will trade freely in the open market (note the difference between this notion of an 'open market' and the Capitalist 'free market'), and will own their own workplaces and other social institutions.

b) I think you are putting too much faith in the organisational efficiency of the state. The state is not benevolent. It is merely an extension of class politics, class rule. Furthermore, as the USSR showed, it lacks efficiency just as much as the Capitalist free market.

C) Finally, I think your last point is false. Look at Britain during the industrial period - when the agricultural revolution led to the food needs of the rising industrial population being met, domestic demand for foreign luxuries actually increased, spurring (I think, i'm not totally sure) the process of import substitution, hence sugar, tea, tobacco moving from being luxury goods to being common everyday items now, with lots of different (cheap) brands.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What are Labor credits and how're they different?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labor-credits-and-t172359/index.html?p=2459413

That's a pretty helpful take on labour credits. I'm particularly interested that you do not tie labour credits to abstract valuations of products. It is helpful in that it is clearly a good transition between a capital economy and a moneyless economy, as you lose the relationship between wages and prices which categorises the dependence on money and differing valuations on goods produced.

What i'm also impressed with is the process of surveying people to determine a level of hazard/difficulty for different professions. Whilst this is a technocrats nightmare, it is a great step towards fleshing out an actual plan for economic democracy. Moreover, it totally defeats the argument of those who question communism as 'wanting everyone to be paid the same', as nobody will be paid, simply remunerated for the social-democratic value of their labour time, and would finally put the final nail in the coffin of the 'yeah but under communism doctors and janitors will be paid the same' argument.

I think that, in order to make this a more sound proposal, we need to go further to the direction of economic democracy. So perhaps those surveyed would be surveyed on a small proportion of professions that bear no relation to their own. That way you move towards eliminating statistical inefficiencies/bias', and towards a genuinely abstracted, democratic system of assigning labour value, without having to worry about any negative effects of price shocks, as there will be no prices. Genius, yet so simple!

[ckaihatsu]

That's a pretty helpful take on labour credits. I'm particularly interested that you do not tie labour credits to abstract valuations of products. It is helpful in that it is clearly a good transition between a capital economy and a moneyless economy, as you lose the relationship between wages and prices which categorises the dependence on money and differing valuations on goods produced.


Thanks.





What i'm also impressed with is the process of surveying people to determine a level of hazard/difficulty for different professions. Whilst this is a technocrats nightmare, it is a great step towards fleshing out an actual plan for economic democracy. Moreover, it totally defeats the argument of those who question communism as 'wanting everyone to be paid the same', as nobody will be paid, simply remunerated for the social-democratic value of their labour time, and would finally put the final nail in the coffin of the 'yeah but under communism doctors and janitors will be paid the same' argument.


Yeah -- I appreciate the appreciation.

It's taken awhile, but through successive discussions with comrades here at RevLeft I've been able to build up to this point. It's always felt like something crucial that's been lacking in our position, though I suppose just overthrowing capitalist exploitation for good is certainly a sufficient politics for most.

The model attached to post #5 of that thread includes a couple of links to past discussions that laid some foundational ground -- as a footnote here.





'A world without money'

tinyurl.com/ylm3gev


'Hours as a measure of labor’

tinyurl.com/yh3jr9x





I think that, in order to make this a more sound proposal, we need to go further to the direction of economic democracy. So perhaps those surveyed would be surveyed on a small proportion of professions that bear no relation to their own. That way you move towards eliminating statistical inefficiencies/bias', and towards a genuinely abstracted, democratic system of assigning labour value, without having to worry about any negative effects of price shocks, as there will be no prices. Genius, yet so simple!


Yeah -- this kind of input is more than welcome, and though my education focused on sociology I actually have nothing to add here in the way of sociological methodology. Feel free to run with it, especially if you can base your method and reasoning in well-founded statistical practice. (Same for anyone else, of course.)

[ckaihatsu]

of course if money were to be abolished it would get very complicated to plan.... well the state would take a more central role in everything like distribution... even if it was localised....





a) there will be no 'state' for people to interact with. People will own their own possessions, will trade freely in the open market (note the difference between this notion of an 'open market' and the Capitalist 'free market'), and will own their own workplaces and other social institutions.


I'm going to have to take exception to this conception here, TB.

(In accordance with the model at the other thread) I would much prefer to see a mass administration of material goods that tilts more toward continuous centrally-planned mass production and distribution rather than one that bothers everyone with petty trading in 'the open market'. Such a practice would be dangerously close to employing abstract valuations (currency), something you just complimented me for avoiding.

Certainly people could do whatever people do on a personal interpersonal basis, but in terms of societal production it'd be preferable to *flood* everyone with well-engineered, well-designed implements of everyday living, and then just have a system to recycle and reuse anything that people *aren't* actively using anymore. If such a system would require an overarching 'state', or administration, then I'd be in favor of that institution, under mass workers control.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I was thinking more of an informal barter, or a literal non-ownership market, or perhaps soemthing that was tied into labour credits.

I'm very much against labour credits allowing citizens of the state to access the products they produce for the state, or any similar mindset.

Labour credits can only work if not imposed, if democratically decided upon, if the value of labour is democratically decided on via the methods we discussed, and if there is room for the freedom of informal trade, based on something more social and less value-based.

[ckaihatsu]

I was thinking more of an informal barter, or a literal non-ownership market, or perhaps soemthing that was tied into labour credits.


Right -- it would have to be this, going by what you've written up to this point.

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.





I'm very much against labour credits allowing citizens of the state to access the products they produce for the state, or any similar mindset.


I *hear* you, but at the same time I think it would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice I don't think this would be an issue anyway -- everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)





Labour credits can only work if not imposed, if democratically decided upon, if the value of labour is democratically decided on via the methods we discussed, and if there is room for the freedom of informal trade, based on something more social and less value-based.


Agreed.