Marx's famous quote..

[R_P_A_S]

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."

I know that I'll get flamed for this. BUT what does that technically mean? any examples.
I know I know! I'm retarded... :wacko:

[Connolly]

I could be wrong - but I dont actually think thats a quote from Marx.

Lenin possibly?

It would, I imagine, mean that a person gives whatever skill or labour they can contribute to society - and recieve what they need (as in consumption based on need and not greed!) back from society.

As in, for example, a person who has mental or physical disabilities could contribute whatever they can, or want, to society - yet, even though they may not contribute the same as a fully able person - they would recieve the same - as a disabled person would require roughly the same amount of food as a working able man.

So they contribute "according to ability" - and recieve "according to need".

Hope that helps. :D

[bolshevik butcher]

This is a Marx quote. And it means as has already been said a society (communism) in which a person puts in what they can and takes in what they require/want.

[gilhyle]

If I recall correctly Marx took this phrase from early utopian communists.

Anyway, it characterises what is possible in a society in which there is NO significant lack of material resources at all - a society in which there is an absolute surplus produced in the generality of consumables without recourse to compulsion of labor.

Hold your breath.

[KC]

It's from Critique of the Gotha Programme.


Anyway, it characterises what is possible in a society in which there is NO significant lack of material resources at all - a society in which there is an absolute surplus produced in the generality of consumables without recourse to compulsion of labor.

Hold your breath.

Close your mouth.

[Leo]

Anyway, it characterises what is possible in a society in which there is NO significant lack of material resources at all - a society in which there is an absolute surplus produced in the generality of consumables without recourse to compulsion of labor.

This doesn't make any actual economical sense, even if you are looking at Marx from the Keynesian model. Maybe according to the neo-classical bullshit, it might be making sense. Anyway, the quote by Marx; "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" becomes something like "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his labor power", and with that practical implication, this 'motto' becomes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat itself as the workers has unlimited political power and control of the means of production.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

unfortunately, that quote (which i don't think was marx) doesn't summarise modern communism well. disregard it, it's out-dated.

it suggests that each contribute all that s/he can to the community, and is given what s/he needs from the community. it proposes that the entire community (like, a village, neighbourhood, workplace, etc) lives and works as one single unit, and each is benefited equally.

personally, i think "equal pay for equal work" does good to summarise the concept of the ideal working condition of modern communism, while i think the concept the ideal communal situation under modern communism would, though remaining unchanged conceptually, be far less stressed.

the soviets tried a system like that and it failed. all soviet workers of any given industry were essentially paid the same - this doesn't encourage hard work.

as far as the communal society, 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs' would best benefit the whole of society via its use in the tax system: each pays an equal share of his or her earnings (a percentage) and those who need the assitance would be given it in appropriate proportion (this works well in socialist countries, like sweden and canada, in the form of government subsidised housing, schooling, health care, child care, etc.)

[KC]

This doesn't make any actual economical sense, even if you are looking at Marx from the Keynesian model. Maybe according to the neo-classical bullshit, it might be making sense. Anyway, the quote by Marx; "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" becomes something like "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his labor power", and with that practical implication, this 'motto' becomes the Dictatorship of the Proletariat itself as the workers has unlimited political power and control of the means of production.

If you want to talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you are talking about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deed." However, Marx is discussing the higher phase of communism and not the lower phase (dictatorship of the proletariat) so your analysis of the quote is incorrect.


unfortunately, that quote (which i don't think was marx) doesn't summarise modern communism well. disregard it, it's out-dated.

It's as relevant today as it was when he wrote it.


it suggests that each contribute all that s/he can to the community, and is given what s/he needs from the community. it proposes that the entire community (like, a village, neighbourhood, workplace, etc) lives and works as one single unit, and each is benefited equally.

personally, i think "equal pay for equal work" does good to summarise the concept of the ideal working condition of modern communism, while i think the concept the ideal communal situation under modern communism would, though remaining unchanged conceptually, be far less stressed.

It has nothing to do with equality.



the soviets tried a system like that and it failed. all soviet workers of any given industry were essentially paid the same - this doesn't encourage hard work.

as far as the communal society, 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs' would best benefit the whole of society via its use in the tax system: each pays an equal share of his or her earnings (a percentage) and those who need the assitance would be given it in appropriate proportion (this works well in socialist countries, like sweden and canada, in the form of government subsidised housing, schooling, health care, child care, etc.)

The Soviets didn't try any such thing, and there isn't money in a communist society so everything in this quote is wrong.

[The Bitter Hippy]

i think it's a bit overrated as a quote to be honest. OK, it describes one aspect of the communist society, but sets no context etc.

I'd forget it, if i were you. Not that it's irrelevant, but it is worthless without already knowing all the theory behind it, and when you do, you don't need soundbytes.

[rouchambeau]

personally, i think "equal pay for equal work" does good to summarise the concept of the ideal working condition of modern communism
That isn't really communism at all. When people are awarded a wage for their work--hell, when they're being payed for their labor at all--you still have commodification.

[ZACKist]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 15, 2006 08:33 pm
I could be wrong - but I dont actually think thats a quote from Marx.

Lenin possibly?

It would, I imagine, mean that a person gives whatever skill or labour they can contribute to society - and recieve what they need (as in consumption based on need and not greed!) back from society.

As in, for example, a person who has mental or physical disabilities could contribute whatever they can, or want, to society - yet, even though they may not contribute the same as a fully able person - they would recieve the same - as a disabled person would require roughly the same amount of food as a working able man.

So they contribute "according to ability" - and recieve "according to need".

Hope that helps. :D
Actually, it was taken from a Bible verse --by Marx. It can be found in Acts, Acts 4:34-37 to be exact.

[ZACKist]

Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 15, 2006 09:27 pm
unfortunately, that quote (which i don't think was marx) doesn't summarise modern communism well. disregard it, it's out-dated.

it suggests that each contribute all that s/he can to the community, and is given what s/he needs from the community. it proposes that the entire community (like, a village, neighbourhood, workplace, etc) lives and works as one single unit, and each is benefited equally.

personally, i think "equal pay for equal work" does good to summarise the concept of the ideal working condition of modern communism, while i think the concept the ideal communal situation under modern communism would, though remaining unchanged conceptually, be far less stressed.

the soviets tried a system like that and it failed. all soviet workers of any given industry were essentially paid the same - this doesn't encourage hard work.

as far as the communal society, 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs' would best benefit the whole of society via its use in the tax system: each pays an equal share of his or her earnings (a percentage) and those who need the assitance would be given it in appropriate proportion (this works well in socialist countries, like sweden and canada, in the form of government subsidised housing, schooling, health care, child care, etc.)
What you're describing sounds more like a welfare state, not a communist world.

[Leo]

If you want to talk about the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you are talking about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deed." However, Marx is discussing the higher phase of communism and not the lower phase (dictatorship of the proletariat) so your analysis of the quote is incorrect.

Although I haven't heard the specific usage of the term "deed", or its meaning in economics (English is not my first language), I am assuming that it means labor in the LTV. "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his labor" is the analysis adopted by Lenin. "Labor power" is measured by the length and intensity of and the ability to labor, whereas Lenin's "labor" is measured by the value of the commodities it produces. So when you pay accordingly to labor, the wage system of capitalism is not really changed. Of course, Marx was talking about the "second stage" when he said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and I never denied that, but the practical implication of that on Dictatorship of the Proletariat formulates, both from his economical analysis and our logical conclusions, is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor power."

[mikelepore]

It's in the end of Marx's pamphlet "Critique of the Gotha Programme" -- As I interpret it, Marx cites the proverb in the context of saying that it's NOT an appropriate goal for the socialist movement. He says the concept should be deferred until some future time when automation is so advanced that wealth flows out like water from a spring. He explains that socialism has to be established with the traditional practice of compensating labor by the hour and individuals spending their hourly income on goods.

The proverb is mainly used by those who believe that socialism can and should distribute all goods for free and have all labor unpaid. Although the phrase is from the Bible and elsewhere, in the actual form Marx quotes it, it's from Louis Blanc's book.

Some authors claim that Marx is quoting the proverb to advocate it, and I assert that he is quoting it in the context of saying he disagrees with it, but there is another consideration. If Marx were really advocating it, he would have said it in public. This pamphlet is the only place he ever used the phrase, and it's a printing of a private correspondence that was never intended for publication.

Mike Lepore
http://www.deleonism.org/

[encephalon]

wow.. the general lack of understanding concerning basic marxism and communism that new people here seem to exhibit is.. well, frightening.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 05:43 am
wow.. the general lack of understanding concerning basic marxism and communism that new people here seem to exhibit is.. well, frightening.
enlight us!

[encephalon]

enlight us!

I apologize, I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the "it's unimportant" crowd, "forget it" crowd or the "it means equal pay" crowd. It is none of the above.

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" is what we are working for, people! It's the definition of communism!

It makes perfect economic sense, as opposed to some of the arguments above (who said it "didn't make sense even in a Keynesian context"--you're aware he was a bourgeoisie economist?). If a society can have a massive surplus of goods, services and labor power (which we even have today), then it can focus economy to meet the needs of its people.

Today, under capitalism, we have "each to his own ability, except when he is part of the bourgeoisie, and each laborer to his own subsistence, or the minimal amount of goods and services to keep him subservient." This is a far less efficient system than each to his ability, each to his need.. and I'm amazed that some of the newer folks here seem to think that the soviet system should replace our original goals of an equal and fair society.

Another Soviet Union is not our goal, nor was it the goal before the USSR existed.

Though I often have political disagreements with Khayembii Communique, he's right in this case. The quote is the epitome of all for which we stand.

[Leo]

It makes perfect economic sense, as opposed to some of the arguments above (who said it "didn't make sense even in a Keynesian context"--you're aware he was a bourgeoisie economist?).

I said it didn't make sense even in a Keynesian context, but I obviously was not referring to the actual quote. I was replying to the person saying that this system can only work when there "a society in which there is NO significant lack of material resources at all". Obviously, it can work in societies which has lack of material resources. What I said was that the quote worked in the DoP in this way: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his labor power". As for Keynesianism, it isn't just a bourgeoisie economic model, it is the capitalist mentality itself.

[gilhyle]

Didnt know this quote:

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul ; neither said any ofthem that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

And with great powere gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all.

Neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold

And laid them down at the feet of the apostles and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Acts 4:32-34

We are talking here about "the higher stage of communist society after the subjection of individuals to the division of labour - and thereby the antithesis between mental and physical labor - has disappeared, after labor has become not merely a means to live but the foremost need in life, after the multifarious development of individuals has grown along with their productive powers, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly"

Gotta face the facts : this is not like the apostles selling the family silver and spending the cash in the expectation the end of the world would come before you ran out of money. This is meant to be a sustainable form of social organisation. If there is a significant lack of economic resources, needs don't get met and abilities dont get to blossom: people are constrained. Only material wealth obliterates the confinement of the person : thats Marxism.

In the DOP phase, as Marx says " the operative principle is the same as under the exchange of commodities"

What distinguishes the higher stage of communism is that the law of value no longer operates - unlike under communist society "as it emerges from capitalist society".

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

It's as relevant today as it was when he wrote it.

if that is true, then communism would eventually fail us all because it would destroy the incentive to work hard, and hard work is the mighty foundation of communism itself.

lets put it like this:

why should some white-collar schmuck who sits in a chair all day and makes phone calls and watches over production make the same ammount of money as the guy ON the factory floor who is busting ass all day actually making the goods?

equal pay for equal work. if everyone gets paid the same, then what's the point of working hard? but... if you know that your hard work will be rewarded with increased pay, you'll bust ass.

that's why, where i work, it's probably one of the most efficient places in the world. we get production pay and efficiency bonuses. everyone works as hard as they possibly can because they want to make that money.



The Soviets didn't try any such thing, and there isn't money in a communist society so everything in this quote is wrong.

LMAO. :lol:

what do you propose? we trade sea shells? ... 200 sea shells for a playboy? 150 sea shells for a 10 sack? how much wampum will you need to buy a car? i think you'll need a semi-trailer FULL of wampum to buy a new car.

face it. the traditional, utopian communism concept is dead. it would never work with the modern economy. fortunately, though... communism is a theory based on the idea of evolution, and communism as a whole has evolved to accept the modern economy, but in an altered form: the economy run and operated by the workingclass.

[LSD]

if that is true, then communism would eventually fail us all because it would destroy the incentive to work hard

Because the only reason people work is material greed, right? And that greed is "human nature" so unless there's a wage system no one will work and society will collapse! :o

...or not.


In a communist society, such work will be undertaken by those with an interest in the field in question or those who chose to contribute time to it. You see, it really depends on what kind of factory we're talking about here.

For example, many people who are involved in, say, computer programming may also choose to spend some time by the computer factory to help contribute to construction as well as to tweak the designs.

Likewise, someone with an interest in cars would go down to the car factory to realize his ideas on the subject.

Under capitalism, people are forced to reduce their interests to hobbies. They're required to keep their secondary interests to minor size as they cannot afford to do anything else. In communism, however, there is no capitalist class and there is no ownership of production so anyone with an interest in the subject can go and get involved.

Who would work in the factories? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48269)


why should some white-collar schmuck who sits in a chair all day and makes phone calls and watches over production make the same ammount of money as the guy ON the factory floor who is busting ass all day actually making the goods?

He wouldn't, but then such a person woudln't exist under communism.

No managers, no bosses!


equal pay for equal work. if everyone gets paid the same, then what's the point of working hard?

Again, you're missing the point. Communism isn't about equalizing the wage system it's about ending it.

Equal pay still requires someone to dispense that pay and that requires someone to control the money and that requires capitalism.

What you're talking about is social democracy, a sort of capitalism-light, whereby some of the uglier aspects of the "free market" are ironed out by the strong hand of government.

Well, if that's what you're looking for, go move to Norway. On this board, however, we're talking about what comes after social-democracy. About the abolition of the market, "hampered" or otherwise.

Clearly you have no idea what communism is actually about, I would suggest that you do some research before you start mouthing off about how "modern" communists have abandoned the basic principles of the theory.


what do you propose?

Communism.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Because the only reason people work is material greed, right? And that greed is "human nature" so unless there's a wage system no one will work and society will collapse! :o

even under the influence of lysergic acid, you still cannot deny the fact that you are, after all, still human. we all are, and we behave in human ways. accept it.


In a communist society, such work will be undertaken by those with an interest in the field in question or those who chose to contribute time to it. You see, it really depends on what kind of factory we're talking about here.

For example, many people who are involved in, say, computer programming may also choose to spend some time by the computer factory to help contribute to construction as well as to tweak the designs.

Likewise, someone with an interest in cars would go down to the car factory to realize his ideas on the subject.

Under capitalism, people are forced to reduce their interests to hobbies. They're required to keep their secondary interests to minor size as they cannot afford to do anything else. In communism, however, there is no capitalist class and there is no ownership of production so anyone with an interest in the subject can go and get involved.

but nonetheless, the person interested in computers or cars would still have to be hired by the computer or car factory, and to be hired, they would have to be qualified to construct or design such items.

higher education, however, would certainly be funded by the government in a true communist society.

oh... and don't give me that bullshit that there is no government in a communist society - lack of government is anarchy is chaos is unreal. we are still human, and behave in human ways - we need government. in a communist society, the government would be a democratic one. period.


He wouldn't, but then such a person woudln't exist under communism.

No managers, no bosses!

i've said it before, and apparently, i have to say it again. there will always be someone in charge. under communism, the workers would either a) directly run their workplace via a council or b) elect their managers/bosses/supervisors to a specific term from a group of qualified persons. there will always be someone whose job is to make sure you're doing your job. the differences are: is this person chosen by the workers, and is this person being paid a fair ammount for the relative ammount of work that s/he does?


Again, you're missing the point. Communism isn't about equalizing the wage system it's about ending it.

Equal pay still requires someone to dispense that pay and that requires someone to control the money and that requires capitalism.

the wage system will end. no wage pay. only production pay.

and capitalism is not a requisite to have occupations. in a capitalist system, the pay dispence is determined by a single person who has never worked a single hard day in his entire pathetic life. in a communist system, the workers are in control of all the means ofproduction (this means corporations) and thus the workers are essentially paying themselves for their efforts. that's why i suggest production pay (that, and it's extremely efficient).


What you're talking about is social democracy, a sort of capitalism-light, whereby some of the uglier aspects of the "free market" are ironed out by the strong hand of government.

no i'm talking about modern communism - where the workingclass owns and operates all means of production.

socialism is alright, but it's only one stage in the progress toward communism. socialism is nothing more than a halfway point between capitalism and communism - its where most of the businesses are still owned by the private sector, but are strongly regulated by a pro-populus democratic government controlled by many socialistesque parties (labour party, social democrat party, syndicat party, workers' party, etc.) in coalition.


Well, if that's what you're looking for, go move to Norway. On this board, however, we're talking about what comes after social-democracy. About the abolition of the market, "hampered" or otherwise.

sorry, i sincerely doubt that most of the people here are that backwards. i think a good many of us here realise that communism has evolvedand that this garden-of-eden, lack-of-technology, primitive-barter-economy communism shit is long dead; i'm relatively sure that we understand that free trade will go on, corporations will continue to exist, and the economy will not move backwards into the middle ages when the communist stage of human evolution arrives. there is no doubt in my mind that most of us here realise that communism will not take anything away from us (especially not the economy we worked so hard to build), but rather will give them to us.

modern communism will put the world in the hands of the workers. that is all there is to it. no back stepping, only forward. we're not going to do away with what makes us prosper, we're just going to take control of it and develope it to benefit the working man.

o... and before i forget:

i see that you view money as the source of all evil...

well that's just plain wrong. money is how we have an economy. take away money, we have no economy, and next thing you know, we'll be living in trees and hurling our own feces at one another again.

where's communism then?

-----

go back to your garden of eden. the rest of us will remain in reality.

[LSD]

even under the influence of lysergic acid, you still cannot deny the fact that you are, after all, still human. we all are, and we behave in human ways. accept it.

And what precisely is this "human nature"? Greed? Selfishness? ...racism?

I guess we&#39;d better give up on ending prejudice too. After all, "humans ... behave in human ways"... <_<


but nonetheless, the person interested in computers or cars would still have to be hired by the computer or car factory

"Hiring" implies employment which is an attribute capitalist production. The person in question would have to demonstrate some proficiency before the other workers in the field would trust him with anything sensitive, but production isn&#39;t nearly so centralized that he can&#39;t contribute right from the start.

Once again, I suggest that you read this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48269). It addresses most of your concerns in very ver simply language.


oh... and don&#39;t give me that bullshit that there is no government in a communist society

It&#39;s not "bullsit", it&#39;s the definition of communism. If you don&#39;t like it, that&#39;s fine, but then you&#39;re not a communist.

You can&#39;t redefine a theory to match your personal beliefs. If you think that a classless, stateless society is too "utopian" to exist, that&#39;s your opinion, but it&#39;s nonethess what communism is about.


there will always be someone whose job is to make sure you&#39;re doing your job

Only when that job is coerced. In other words, only when that job is capitalistic.


in a communist system, the workers are in control of all the means ofproduction (this means corporations)

No, it means production. "Corporations" are legal fictions invented to protect capital. They have absolutely no relevence to postcapitalist economics and most certainly will not persist in a communist environment.

Again, I would suggest that you do some reading on this board about what communism and socialism really are about before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.


socialism is nothing more than a halfway point between capitalism and communism - its where most of the businesses are still owned by the private sector, but are strongly regulated by a pro-populus democratic government

Again, you clearly have no understanding of what these terms actually mean. What you&#39;re describing is social democracy, a political theory that you apparently adhere to without even realizing it.

Seriously, buddy, you&#39;re clearly not a communist, nor any other kind of revolutionary leftist. Why you&#39;re even bothering to post on this board, frankly, is a complete mystery to me.

Clearly you&#39;d be better suited for Michaelmoore.com. <_<


sorry, i sincerely doubt that most of the people here are that backwards

Really? Care to actually ask them?

&#39;Cause having been here for 3 years, I can tell you with absolute certainty that the exact reverse is true.

Not only do most members of this board believe that a stateless, classless, wageless society can be created, believing so is a prerequisite for regular membership.

This is a revolutionary leftist message board. If you want to prattle on about "human nature" and the "need" for corporations (:o), go join the Democratic Party.

That kind of crap has no place here. :angry:


i think a good many of us here realise that communism has evolvedand that this garden-of-eden, lack-of-technology, primitive-barter-economy communism shit is long dead

Who&#39;s talking about primitivism? You&#39;re the one insisting that the world as it exists right now "must" continue into the future. You&#39;re the one refusing to acknowledge that socioeconomic relations could advance.

Communism isn&#39;t about "bartering" any more than it&#39;s about "selling". On the contrary, it&#39;s about transcending all that.


i&#39;m relatively sure that we understand that free trade will go on, corporations will continue to exist

What ...forever? :o

Welcome to OI&#33;

Restricted.