from each according to his ability...

[James]

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Quite simply, who decides what ones ability is and what one's need is. How is it measured. Logically it follows to question who or how is it decided whether one has given according to this ability, and whether one has got according to their need (or had too much, too little)? How is it adminstered in practise. Are there to be safeguards?


So it is basically a question regarding the measurement and administration.

[redstar2000]

I surmise that this will be decided in practice by each individual...who better, after all, to judge their ability and their need?

We can use existing "card-swipe" technology to measure individual consumption and to ration those "goodies" which may be in short supply.

What capitalist ideologues assert with dreary persistence is that if there's no one to make you work, then you'll always set your "ability" at "zero" and just "ride for free".

This assertion so wildly contradicts the observed behavior of people who don't have to work that it's a wonder in itself that people don't just bust out laughing when the assertion is voiced in public.

What would you do if you won $10 or $20 million in a lottery? Well, you'd certainly quit that shit-eating job that you have now!

And then what? Do nothing but play computer games or watch 300 different dummyvision channels? Travel from place to place like a permanent nomad? Spend the rest of your life in bars and nightclubs?

How long would it take for BOREDOM to set in???

How long until you wanted to do something real?

That is, productive!

Next thing you know, you're contributing "according to your ability"...not because someone is standing over you with a whip (literal or metaphorical) but because your own sense of purpose demands it.

Our human desire to "shape our world" seems to be genetically "built-in"...all humans try to do that no matter what their technological level might be.

Capitalists tell us, we "are" what we buy!

In a communist society, we are what we achieve!

Big difference. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Janus]

We can use existing "card-swipe" technology to measure individual consumption and to ration those "goodies" which may be in short supply.
That sounds very interesting, could you explain how this technology would work? So you think that information should be placed on a card that would measure how much someone or a family needed?
I would think that family size would be the major determiner of the needs and of course other factors would also have to be placed in as well. Of course there should be some safeguards but in a communist society, people should have understood by then that there is no need to hoard food and supplies. That type of mindset would hopefully be transcended once capitalism collapsed.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 05:12 PM
I surmise that this will be decided in practice by each individual...who better, after all, to judge their ability and their need?

We can use existing "card-swipe" technology to measure individual consumption and to ration those "goodies" which may be in short supply.

I do see the use of "Card-Swipe" technology in planning out rations of all the products that are not necessary for survival (Computers, Furniture, Video Games, Television) and in watching how much is being consumed.

But, would there not be shortages of petroleum during and just right after the revolution?
If so, we would have to ration out petroleum as well and that would put the monitoring of what people would consider desirable products in a awkward position.

I believe that there should be the use of cardboard-paper printed labor notes as a solution.

Moreover, I believe that there should be a "credit" attached unto the desirable product(s) that have been in mass manufacturing production. This credit should have no value - one labor note for one Computer, for instance.

[redstar2000]

I think we have to keep in mind that it will take some time to actually set up the mechanisms of communist society...to figure out what will work and what is just a useless pain in the ass.

For example...


Originally posted by Communist Firefox+--> (Communist Firefox)But, would there not be shortages of petroleum during and just right after the revolution?[/b]

And possibly much else. We'd have little choice but to begin with rationing for everything.

And redistribution of surpluses. If you had more than one car at the time of the revolution, you'd have to give up the extras so that people without one could get one. You don't normally need more than one house or apartment, one computer, one dummyvision set, one stereo, etc.

I think we'd use the same technology now used for debit cards to keep track of what people had and what people got from the common store of goods...and this would tell us what people needed and wanted over an extended period of time. That is, it would allow us to plan production on a local, regional, or even ultimately global basis for stuff that would actually get used.

In the short term, this would undoubtedly involve a bureaucracy...an unfortunate necessity. But the idea would be to automate the process as quickly as possible.

There will initially be many inequities, no question about it. But revolutionaries will have a powerful incentive to rectify those inequities quickly...to avoid the growth of counter-revolutionary sentiments.

Remember that we really won't know what will actually be possible in technological terms until a few years (at most) immediately prior to the revolution itself.


Janus
I would think that family size would be the major determiner of the needs and of course other factors would also have to be placed in as well.

Considering present trends, it's debatable just how many "traditional families" will be left to consider. I imagine that every individual over the age of 8 or so will have their own personal "smart card" with provision for their own needs and consumption patterns.

People who were particularly "hoggish" would be noted by the "central supercomputer" that stored all this information. If you happened to be such a person, you might discover that the supercomputer just sent a letter to all your neighbors...who would then show up at your door wondering just what you needed four computers for. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[piet11111]

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

i think marx means you will work as much as you can handle and get everything you need to live a comfortable life.
the difference being that in communism a lot of work will be extensively automated to the point where there just is not much work to be done anymore.
but before that is achieved you would work hard to make sure everyone gets the set goal of a minimum life quality.

then again i could be wrong im still learning and quite young (20)

also i dont think shortages after the revolution would be a serious problem as we can turn say 50 tv factory's that produce 20 types of tv's into 10 factory's only making the best tv possible.
the rest of the factory's can then be used to produce other things.
also food would be not much of an issue as the european union is effectively killing of farms and america is destroying food surplusses.
we are more likely going to face the problem of overproduction in the case of food.
that ofcourse has to be used to help out africa.

[Kamerat Voldstad]

I think the best way to decide is the democratic way.

When we decentralize the democracy and give the workers command over the production, what one needs will work itself out democratically, through practice.

And anyway, its easy to reason about this, because what a human needs to live a decent and enjoyable life is pretty universal, and only needs to be adapted to the special situations.

The easiest way of rationing, when we at this point have a economy with a purpose, is by just continuing to use money, so that people can buy what they need according to their ration which is according to their situation, their needs (which again is according to health of mind and body, family relations, amount of work, type of work, etc).
We should NOT aim at giving up money - that's unnecessarily complicated for everyone.

Of course, when the production has been increased to practically unlimitedness, and when the economy and culture and man has been socialized, that is: when we finally leave the necessary transition between so different systems and enter Communism, rationing will be unnecessary, both in material and human terms (for none will exceed their limit if there is a need of a limit, and there is no need of a limit anyway). THEN we may consider giving up money (though money could still be useful for us on the interstellar economy[to be], which may not include other communist societies).

However, in a socialist society that is not democratised and is not ready for immediate democratisation, where the material and human conditions are not ready for all out democracy and which is governed by for example a one party dictatorship, one should try to leave this more and more to the people, as part of a gradual democratisation, for it is dangerous to allow a one party elite to decide the needs and abilities of the population, as it is dangerous to allow for a minority to control the majority in any case, especially when it is a central minority and not just a communal minority in an already decentralized society (just look at the historic abuses of power). On the other hand, revolutions is always the result of, and a creator of, chaotic conditions, and therefore a strong central government is necessary to purposefully build up the economy (as in Russia in 1917 and 1922, and several countries after WWII). The best way is perhaps to balance the alternatives, avoiding the dangers of too much or too little democratisation.

[VukBZ2005]

However, in a socialist society that is not democratised and is not ready for immediate democratisation, where the material and human conditions are not ready for all out democracy and which is governed by for example a one party dictatorship, one should try to leave this more and more to the people, as part of a gradual democratisation, for it is dangerous to allow a one party elite to decide the needs and abilities of the population, as it is dangerous to allow for a minority to control the majority in any case, especially when it is a central minority and not just a communal minority in an already decentralized society (just look at the historic abuses of power). On the other hand, revolutions is always the result of, and a creator of, chaotic conditions, and therefore a strong central government is necessary to purposefully build up the economy (as in Russia in 1917 and 1922, and several countries after WWII). The best way is perhaps to balance the alternatives, avoiding the dangers of too much or too little democratisation.

This depends. For instance, if a country was half-industrialized and half-unindustrialized, and if that country managed to actually reach a level of transition to real communism, then one of the best tactics would be to use de-centralized forms of organization as the organs of direct class rule by the working class and by the peasantry (if the peasantry is the minority, then they would have to be convinced that this is the only way for the country to go.)

Would you rather have capitalist landowners chasing you off of your land through various methods, the land that your father, grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors left for you, pushing you to the cities, where you and future generations are doomed to have no land, no property and are doomed to work for somebody and have to survive on the "scraps" that they give you?

Or would you rather collectivize the land and use that land you are working on to the fullest extent, where the benifits would go directly to you and future generations in the form of better educational conditions, better ability to do what you want to do etc..?

These kind of arguments (like the one above) demonstrate the importance of cooperation in such cases.

But a state would just not work.

If we have to use these direct organs, then while we are using them, we would have to ensure the total and complete expansion of manufacturing in urban areas, while ensuring the introduction of advanced manfactured agricultural machinery in rural areas.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Kamerat [email protected] 12 2006, 09:41 AM
I think the best way to decide is the democratic way.

When we decentralize the democracy and give the workers command over the production, what one needs will work itself out democratically, through practice.

And anyway, its easy to reason about this, because what a human needs to live a decent and enjoyable life is pretty universal, and only needs to be adapted to the special situations.

The easiest way of rationing, when we at this point have a economy with a purpose, is by just continuing to use money, so that people can buy what they need according to their ration which is according to their situation, their needs (which again is according to health of mind and body, family relations, amount of work, type of work, etc).
We should NOT aim at giving up money - that's unnecessarily complicated for everyone.

Of course, when the production has been increased to practically unlimitedness, and when the economy and culture and man has been socialized, that is: when we finally leave the necessary transition between so different systems and enter Communism, rationing will be unnecessary, both in material and human terms (for none will exceed their limit if there is a need of a limit, and there is no need of a limit anyway). THEN we may consider giving up money (though money could still be useful for us on the interstellar economy[to be], which may not include other communist societies).

However, in a socialist society that is not democratised and is not ready for immediate democratisation, where the material and human conditions are not ready for all out democracy and which is governed by for example a one party dictatorship, one should try to leave this more and more to the people, as part of a gradual democratisation, for it is dangerous to allow a one party elite to decide the needs and abilities of the population, as it is dangerous to allow for a minority to control the majority in any case, especially when it is a central minority and not just a communal minority in an already decentralized society (just look at the historic abuses of power). On the other hand, revolutions is always the result of, and a creator of, chaotic conditions, and therefore a strong central government is necessary to purposefully build up the economy (as in Russia in 1917 and 1922, and several countries after WWII). The best way is perhaps to balance the alternatives, avoiding the dangers of too much or too little democratisation.
I see a bit of a contradiction when you say that we should use rationing, as decided democratically, but we should still use money. Well, if we ration everything, there is absolutely no function that money can serve. Rationing is designating amounts of a commodity one may have. If we do this, and I agree that it will probably prove neccesary after the revolution, money simply serves no purpose. I argue that it is best to do away with money as soon as the dictatorship of the proletariat begins.

I completely disagree with you about the use of the state. You suggest that, first, a one party dictatorship may prove neccesary in those areas that 'aren't ready for democratization'. You say that the benevolent one party dictatorship will just allow the people more and more power. Unfortunately, this proposal, which stinks of Leninism, is completely unsupported by history. Once a one party dictatorship takes power, I assure you that all of its efforts will go toward preserving and probably even extending that power. Second, you suggest that a 'strong central government' will be neccesary after the revolution to build up the economy. This is just not possible. Once the state enters the scene, it will be extremely difficult, and probably impossible, to force it out. The revolution itself should have a few primary goals: abolish class, abolish production for profit, and abolish the state. So why should we ever think of using the state after the revolution? the state is hierarchy. We wish to abolish hierarchy. Therefore we must abolish the state. The logic is quite simple.

[Janus]

Considering present trends, it's debatable just how many "traditional families" will be left to consider. I imagine that every individual over the age of 8 or so will have their own personal "smart card" with provision for their own needs and consumption patterns.

I wasn't talking about traditional families specifically but family units in general. This would make it easier to distribute supplies since it would be extremely difficult to provide rations based on each individual. Think of all the factors that would have to be considered.


People who were particularly "hoggish" would be noted by the "central supercomputer" that stored all this information. If you happened to be such a person, you might discover that the supercomputer just sent a letter to all your neighbors...who would then show up at your door wondering just what you needed four computers for.
:lol: That would be a great technique. But card limits may be easier.