"To each according to need..."

[percept¡on]

I hear a lot of talk about distributing goods according to necessity in a communist society. My question is this: if we (as I hope we should) manage to produce more than enough goods sufficient to supply everyone's immediate needs and still have excess, how are they distributed? Or is the goal as you see it to tune production to only be sufficient to supply for the necessities?

Probably just an academic/hypothetical exercise, but I'm curious of ya'lls take on this.

[Anti-Prophet]

Science and technology is always a good way to use excess supplies and there is no limit to how much supplies it can make use of. So if it were my choice i would distribute it amongst the scientific community.

[monkeydust]

I hear a lot of talk about distributing goods according to necessity in a communist society. My question is this: if we (as I hope we should) manage to produce more than enough goods sufficient to supply everyone's immediate needs and still have excess, how are they distributed? Or is the goal as you see it to tune production to only be sufficient to supply for the necessities?

Surely the answer should be fairly simple.

If we produce sufficient amounts and have stuff left over, people will, essentially, have more stuff.

Surplus will presumably be distributed on a fairly level basis.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 10:44 PM

If we produce sufficient amounts and have stuff left over, people will, essentially, have more stuff.

Surplus will presumably be distributed on a fairly level basis.
1) People don't value things the same. So if everything is divided evenly it would be grossly inefficient. A man with no arms gets the same number of gloves as everyone else?

2) It's about 'wants' after we get past the necessities. So if you want a car and someone else would rather have a guitar or something, there needs to be a way to ration these.

3) Even if we say distribution will be 'even', and assume away differences in preferences, what if there are 1,000,000 of us and we produce 1,200,000 "widgets". What then?

It's not as simple as you think.

[ComradeRed]

1) People don't value things the same. So if everything is divided evenly it would be grossly inefficient. A man with no arms gets the same number of gloves as everyone else? Why not? Why would you prevent the handicapped people from having equal goods as a non-handicapped?

2) It's about 'wants' after we get past the necessities. So if you want a car and someone else would rather have a guitar or something, there needs to be a way to ration these. Well, in theory, if there is a town that produces a surplus, it could then be traded for luxuries.

3) Even if we say distribution will be 'even', and assume away differences in preferences, what if there are 1,000,000 of us and we produce 1,200,000 "widgets". What then? Trade the extra 200000 for luxeries for the community. Why else keep 200000 "widgets"?

[Don't Change Your Name]

5 families = 5 TVs
It should be that simple

If there's a surplus in production it could be sold to other countries, either by those that produced them or by society "as a whole". Maybe an alternative voluntary market could be created, or maybe those goods could get recicled (to create better ones "next time"), or be saved for the future generations. Maybe those who helped in it's production can keep them. Or they could be kept to be analized by those responsibles to improve, test or upgrade that product, or give it alternative uses.

[Essential Insignificance]

People don't value things the same. So if everything is divided evenly it would be grossly inefficient. A man with no arms gets the same number of gloves as everyone else?

The necessities would be divided evenly, such as food, toothbrushes, soap, and even "gloves". But luxury items such as computers, cars, Sony play stations, X-boxes would not.

For I have no "intrinsic" interest in playstations, so why would I request for one to be produced. Where instead I would opt for the computer, if given the chance.


It's about 'wants' after we get past the necessities. So if you want a car and someone else would rather have a guitar or something, there needs to be a way to ration these.

It’s properly a little difficult to fathom it now; and how we will distribute, exchange and consume items; especially luxury ones.

But I think "we" will work it out after a few "trails" and "errors".



Even if we say distribution will be 'even', and assume away differences in preferences, what if there are 1,000,000 of us and we produce 1,200,000 "widgets". What then?

They would go into storage; and the amount of people that went into producing those would not be need in a year or so as there would already be surplus of the product.

Therefore leaving more free-time to enjoy the product.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 11:41 PM


1) People don't value things the same. So if everything is divided evenly it would be grossly inefficient. A man with no arms gets the same number of gloves as everyone else? Why not? Why would you prevent the handicapped people from having equal goods as a non-handicapped?

The point is something that one has no use for. Shoes for an individual with no feet. Spectacles for an individual with no eyes. Books for an individual with no reading comprehension skills ;) . They are wasted, or given away to their close relations which would create unfair distributions. For example, one could befriend a bald man to get his shampoo ration.

I know this sounds trite but it's actually something important to think about.

[ComradeRed]

The point is something that one has no use for. Shoes for an individual with no feet. Spectacles for an individual with no eyes. Books for an individual with no reading comprehension skills . They are wasted, or given away to their close relations which would create unfair distributions. For example, one could befriend a bald man to get his shampoo ration. Well, then I guess he wouldn't need those commodities. Afterall, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

[mEds]

Im pretty sure there is enough raw material for everyone/every family to live a near middle class "american" lifestyle without all the needless shit and waste. A computer in raw materials is like two-three hundred dollars. Not 3,000. Ergo, it will be more efficient. Also, the "money" and "earnings" system should be dismantled. It is only antagonistic to societies.

[Pawn Power]

i dont know if these problems would take place in the purest of communist socities. From my understanding in a pure communist society one does not have possesions or owns anything, everything is shared and you just take what you need.

[Essential Insignificance]

From my understanding in a pure communist society one does not have possesions or owns anything

Agreed, kind of.

The populace will indeed, in the large scheme of things, have no possessions of "significance"; such as raw materials, cultivatable(ed) land, means of production, and factors of production; instead, however there will be a "communal" usage of these "implications" of mass, large scale production by society with their combined and moderated regulation.

However small, of no consequence articles, such as soap, toothbrushes, etc will be, I believe, ordained as "personal possessions", which of course will not divide society or bring back class society.

[Rasta Sapian]

"Do not waste your time on several questions. What is the matter with the poor is poverty. What is the matter with the Rich is Uselessness."
George Bernard Shaw

[Essential Insignificance]

"Do not waste your time on several questions. What is the matter with the poor is poverty. What is the matter with the Rich is Uselessness."


It's not quite as simple has that, Mr Shaw.

[monkeydust]

1) People don't value things the same. So if everything is divided evenly it would be grossly inefficient. A man with no arms gets the same number of gloves as everyone else?

You need to distinguish between equality and universality.

I may consider a pair of gloves to be 'eqaul' (just as useful) as a scarf. Conversely a man with no arms may get equal treatment, whilst not having exactly the same treatment.

We can divide evenly, though on a basis for use.

A man with no arms has no use for a pair of gloves, that isn't to say he couldn't have something else of equal value, and of considerable use to him.

Of course, I'm simplifying matters for sake of clarity.


2) It's about 'wants' after we get past the necessities. So if you want a car and someone else would rather have a guitar or something, there needs to be a way to ration these.

Of course, nobody will have 'luxuries', in the sense that they will have a private swimming pool, or private library.

Bear in mind that many issues of luxury are dealt with by maximising capability for communal use. Guitars for example, could be used on a public basis, though of course this won't be case all the time. Similarly, car pooling could be used to effect.



3) Even if we say distribution will be 'even', and assume away differences in preferences, what if there are 1,000,000 of us and we produce 1,200,000 "widgets". What then?

Distribute the other 200,000 to the people who could make most use of them, I suppose. The benefit one man achieves by having another widget will most likely be offset by another man having something else different.

I can't see a great amount of resentment stemming from "unequal widget distribution" anyhow.