Argue with this - I really don't think you can

[honest intellectual]

I was wondering if one of you intellectual giants of the right could point out the flaws (without resorting to childishness) in the theory of

From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs

It's simple really

[reagan lives]

Who determines ability? Who determines need?

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from reagan lives on 11:43 pm on April 4, 2002
Who determines ability? Who determines need?

There is no need to determine ability. Each worker will work and his output is his ability. It is self-evident and need not be measured.
As for need; that is only different from want in a selfish capitalist society. Commmunists have no desire for anything beyond what they need. In a communistic society, people will not ask for anything they don't need (like capitalists do). So need is determined by the individual

[Blackberry]

What about those people who work extra hard for their society, and those who just bludge all day, even though they get the same pay.

You can't assume everyone is a communist in a communist society.

[sabre]

what about luxuries? there would be luxuries in communism, jsut after all the needs are taken care of can the wants be considered

[Blackberry]

In a communist society, not everyone is communist, so there will be people who won't work to their full capacity. "Slackers" and "rebels" would be the word.


So "From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs" doesn't really work well, does it?

[Guest]

Quote: from AgustoSandino on 10:16 pm on Mar. 27, 2002
Although this argument was put forth, in a far more
eloquent fashion, by John Locke, Adam Smith and John
Stuart Mill, I suppose I'll have to recount about 350
years of Western tradition to you.

Capitalism is often taken to be synonimous to the
intangible institution we call the Free-market, yet to
define capitalism as the Free-market would be simple
minded. Unlike the free-market which is an ammoral
force (for the high schoolers among us that means, not
that its bad, but beyond the realm of "good" or
"bad"), capitalism, as envisioned by Smith, Bentham
and Mill, and as put forth by people from J.M. Keynes
to Deng Xaioping(somewhat) and Allen Greenspan, is
indeed a moral philosophy that stands at the
foundation of western liberalism.
Smith's capitalism is often encapsulated by the
phrase "laissez faire", yet the "leaving alone" of the
private sector is hardly what Smith prescribed in
Wealth of Nations. Rather than focusing his attention
on the wealth of the individual, Smith examines the
COMMONWEAL of society and its maximization. He comes to the conclusion that the maximization of society's welfare is achieved by the unfettered free enterprise of individuals in that society.
Yet unfettered does not transalate into anarchic.
Smith does not propose that de jure government
regulation be replaced by de facto corporate monopoly.
Unfettered free enterprise as smith conceives is a
result of competition. This is a very Lockian notion,
smith does not belief that unfettered capitalism is a
"natural state" in which wealthier individuals are
allowed to infringe on the freedoms of poorer
individuals.
Rather smith's capitalism is founded on the notion
that the Lockian process of exchanging FREEDOM for
LIBERTY (if you don't know the distinction I'm not
going over it know, you have to read the 2nd treatise
of government) has already taken place. Just as Locke
believed that liberty was characterized by the ability
to "disposse of your person and properties as you see
fit", Smith believes that capitalism should includes
the maintenance of this liberty. It is for this end
that Smith, like Locke, envisions the role of
government.
Capitalism then is not an anarchic state, by
unfettered free enterprise smith does not imply the
eventual victory of the wealthy, rather he explicitly
calls for the maintenance of competition. In present
day capitalist society this maintenance of competition
includes and is inextricable from civil liberties,
contracts and fair, efficient judiciaries to enforce
those contracts, fair and efficient property law, and
democracy- by which I mean representative democracy
with a system of check’s and balances.
Beyond these basic institutions which are inalienable
from capitalism, there are other faculties which the
state may exercise to maintain competition and social
mobility. Things which you may deem socialistic
(despite the fact that maintaining social mobility is
inherently unsocialistic as there are no classes in
socialism, right?), such as public education, labor
laws, minimum wages and even health care can be
reconciled with the governments responsibility to
maintain competition, or in a broader sense, to
maintain the individuals liberty to “dispose of their
person and possession as they see fit.” Many of these
supplementary functions of the state were outlined by
a man who many hail as the intellectual father of
libertarianism, J.S. Mill.
Beyond the pragmatic grounds for capitalism laid down by Locke, and beyond the benefits of capitalism
described by smith, there is the ethical argument for
capitalism as put forth by Mills. Like Smith (and
coincidentaly marx), Mill is ultimately concerned with
maximizing the welfare of society and not the
individual (funny how all these capitalists are
concerned with maximizing society’s welfare, makes you
think). He concludes that the best way to maximize
society’s welfare is not to handle society as a whole,
in the abstract, as Marx does, but to maximize each
individuals welfare. Furthermore Mill recognizes
something which hopefully no one here will challenge,
and that is that the individual knows what is best for
him/herself, so only the individual can determine
his/her wants, and here’s the big one, only the
individual can determine his/her needs. Therefore
Mill, in my rough version of his conclusion,
determines that there is no contradiction in the
apparently contradictory notion that maximizing the
individuals happiness and welfare will correspondingly
maximize society’s happiness and welfare.
To this end one must recognize that, just as you say
that communism has never existed before, a similar if
not more compelling case can be made that capitalism
only exists in certain parts of the world, notably the
West (defined as western europe and N. America) and
Japan. If capitalism is characterized by institutions
such as fair and efficient judiciaries then how can
africa or the third world in general have capitalism?
Even more revealing is the fact that capitalism is
defined by most modern capitalist thinkers as
including five basic freedoms:
1)the freedom of movement of labor
2)the freedom of movement of capital
3)the freedom of movement of information
4)the freedom of movement of technology
5)the freedom of movement of goods
How many third world nations have these freedoms? It
is irrational to say that capitalism and its boogeymen
are ruining the world, and particularly the third
world, when most of the third world suffers from a
dearth of foreign investment. Saying for instance
that capitalism is ruining africa is like saying that
the martians are ruining earth. Just as martians are
not active here on earth (unless you are privy to some
info to which I am not) capitalists are not active in
africa.
To this you will no doubt reply that I am simply
wrong, not only is capitalism active in africa, but it
is necessary in order for capitalism to survive that
africa and the rest of the third world remain as it
is. Well despite the facts which I’ve just presented
that, capitalists are hardly active in the third
world, let us present yet another argument. That is
that capitalism needs to be introduced at a faster
rate to the third world.
You will say that capitalism is built on the
exploitation of the working classes, “amerikkka’s”
wealth, you will say is a derivative of america’s
exploitation and that capitalism is inherently
exploitative. Yet you’d have an impossible struggle
ahead of you if you decided to scour history for any
other notion that has been so liberalizing.
Capitalism was neither based on slavery
or imperialism. The West did not invent slavery, every
other culture on this planet, every single one, has
had slavery. Similarly the west did not invent
colonialism or imperialism. The turks colonized the
arabs, the arabs likewise colonized the africans. The
zulu africans did so to the other sub saharan
africans, the chinese did so to the mongols, and the
mongols to the rest of the world. India the crown
jewel of the british empire was colonized four times
before the british got there. Every other culture had
slavery and imperialism, and you know what they didn’t
question the morality of these institutions. The first culture that questioned the morality of slavery was western civilization, and it did so as ideas like Locke’s, Smith’s and Mill’s became more popular. Western civilization was the first and only civilization in which a group of people who had every “legal” right to become slave owners not only decided that they didn’t want to be slave owners, but decided that they didn’t even want the right to be slave owners. The foundations of this notion arise from capitalism and the maximization of,
not rate of profits (anyone who’s read any serious
marx, like grundrisse, knows that marx believed that
capitalists were concerned with maximizing rate of
profits) but the maximization of total profits. That
the maximization of total profits can be found in the
abolishment of slavery and empire was recognized by
smith as early as 1776, and was used in his
justification for capitalism.
Let us take for instance the American civil war.
Popular belief holds that this war was fought to “free
the slaves”, but such an interpretation as most of you
marxists know is far too simple. Rather the war had
many economic causes, not least among them was the
northern industrial class (worker and owner) and their
interest in the abolition of slavery and the cheap
source of labor it provided for the southern
plantation owning class. The abolition of slavery desired by capitalists because it increased competition, northern republican industrialists were in favor of emancipation.
So imperialism and slavery are not notions that were
developed by capitalists, but it is the capitalists
that are doing away with these notions. But just who
are the capitalists. Many here hold to the notion
that the world is composed of two classes and never
the twain shall meet, but things are a lot more
complicated then that. The classes in a capitalists
system are not static, there is upward mobility and
downward mobility, being a first generation immigrant
I know this. Certainly capitalism has a rich and a
poor, there is no denying that, but within the
capitalist ethic there is no notion of material
entitlement. You are entitled by the capitalist ethic
to have liberty and a fair shot at success (the
institutions that I’ve mentioned above are intended
for this, but there are also more improvements that
are necessary even in the US) but you are not entitled
to have your needs met, that is something you have to
provide for yourself.




The notion of “from each according to their ability to
each according to their need is roundly rejected by
capitalist ethic, and why not, it is inherently
totalitarian. As Mill said, the only person who can
determine need is the individual, not the state, not
society and definitely not an economic system of
distribution as Marx proposes in the phrase above.
If this need is defined by the individual to be solely
material and beyond subsistance levels then that is
the individuals perogative. People in these forums
are always denouncing materialism as an evil that is
overwhelmingly american. Yet it is hypocritical to
lambast materialism as you type away on your keyboards in a web board that is obviously geared to a niche demographic within the market. What you guys have to realize is that, to paraphrase PJ o’rourke, the
average chiang, mobutu and juan want two or three
color tv’s, they want a jeep grand cherokee, they want
comfy reeboks and may god have mercy on the soul that stands in their way.
So capitalism, as a system founded on personal responsibility and private enterprise is ethical because it is the best way to maximize SOCIETY"S commomwealth.





I wrote this for another thread about the ethical basis for capitalism, to which no one responded with anything but conjecture.

[Xvall]

Human Needs (My Opinion):
Food
Shelter
Water
Education
Health Benifits
Transportation

An Equal Amount for everyone.. No one should have excessively more for any reason that isn't good. I.E A person with a big family should be granted a larger household.

[i]That's all that really matters, everything else is secondary. So to me that would be my main priority, to assure that every person has these things, in my opinion that's all a good society would need to definitely have. We can worry about the other things later. (I probably miseed a few things!)

- Drake Dracoli

[PunkRawker677]

augosto, i would respond but i havent and wont read it.. its to long, and i dont really have the time.. i can only get on for a few minutes at a time.. think u can just sum it up? just post the relevant points? or if anything.. email it to me, and ill read it tommorow... [email protected]

[Nateddi]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 1:05 am on April 5, 2002
Human Needs (My Opinion):
Food
Shelter
Water
Education
Health Benifits
Transportation

An Equal Amount for everyone.. No one should have excessively more for any reason that isn't good. I.E A person with a big family should be granted a larger household.

[i]That's all that really matters, everything else is secondary. So to me that would be my main priority, to assure that every person has these things, in my opinion that's all a good society would need to definitely have. We can worry about the other things later. (I probably miseed a few things!)

- Drake Dracoli


Energy

[Anarcho]

If someone with a larger family gets more, what's to stop me from having dozens of kids that I can't take care of?

Or, barring that, what is a true need?

A shack with a roof and a dirt floor=shelter
2 meals a day, of 1200 calories (oatmeal and vitamins)=food/water
3 sets of clothing, all interchangable=clothing
1 bus to take you to work and back=transportation

Where does one draw the line? It todays growing global society is a computer with internet access a requirment? Is a book that is not purely educational a luxury?

I have no problems with that philosophy "To each, etc..." but the trouble is determining where the lines lay.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from honest intellectual on 10:53 pm on April 4, 2002
I was wondering if one of you intellectual giants of the right could point out the flaws (without resorting to childishness) in the theory of

From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs


I'm no "intellectual giant of the right", I pride myself on having no political alignment, but I can see the flaws in Marx's basic theory. RL is right when he asks on whose authority ability and need are measured. The only possible answer to this is the authorities, which leaves plenty of space for corruption. And also, I do not think that it is ethically right for people to have their "needs" monitored and rationed by the authority, because that represents an infringement on basic human right.

Another problem that needs to be addressed is the one brought up by Neutral Nation. Under a communist system, there would be no obligation to work, as the amount of "need" is not governed by one's personal input. Therefore, many people would not work to their full potential, or not at all. Stalin overcame this by rewarding the extra-hard workers, such as Stankanov, who was saluted as a "Soviet hero" and taken on a tour of Russia to help lift workers' morale. However, this is not Communism nor Marxism, but capitalism. Maybe Stalin is not the best example of Marxism, but this is still a problem which needs to be addressed.

A third problem is also one which became apparent during Stalin's time in the USSR. Because the factories were not producing enough, the factory managers starting lying and exaggerating their output, so the papers sent to the Food Distribution Committee claimed that there were more products than there actually were. This, of course, led to a lack of food, water etc amongst Russians as many food packets did not arrive because they simply did not exist. At some point any economy will go suffer a recession, communist or capitalist, so how would Marxists deal with that??

[Moskitto]

Ever heard of worker co-operatives? They're Private Limited Companies where the workers own shares in the company. In the most extreme cases, the workers do not get paid in wages but rather in shares which they each get the same amount of. If such a system were to be set up, there would still be motivation to work hard but there would also be workers getting paid a fair wage of what their labour is worth.

Does anybody think that this might me a way to go?

[Xvall]

Thanks Nateddi..
I knew I forgot something..
(Let's not forget plumbing system, waste disposal, and all that good stuff..)

- Drake Dracoli

[Guest]

well then moskitto, under current capitalism, workers are allowed to own shares in companies.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:41 pm on April 5, 2002
Ever heard of worker co-operatives? They're Private Limited Companies where the workers own shares in the company. In the most extreme cases, the workers do not get paid in wages but rather in shares which they each get the same amount of. If such a system were to be set up, there would still be motivation to work hard but there would also be workers getting paid a fair wage of what their labour is worth.


Maybe, but this is very close to the capitalist model. Also, wouldn't the stockmarket be banned under a communist system?? And we must remember that workers' input is not the only factor which affects share prices. In fact, in many cases, one worker's production in one factory supplying a huge global chain would not affect the share price at all...

[Moskitto]

No you don't understand, In a Private Limited Company the shares aren't traded on the stock market unlike a Public Limited Company. Also it's not that the workers would buy shares, They would be given shares when they join the company. Share prices would be irrelevant because shares cannot be bought and sold freely in a private limited company.

Imagine a commune that makes something, say, shoes. The money the commune makes get's distributed equally to all those in the commune. The more they make, the more they get to distribute to their workers which motivates workers.

[mdk az us]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 1:05 am on April 5, 2002
Human Needs (My Opinion):
Food
Shelter
Water
Education
Health Benifits
Transportation

As I stated before, I grew up in communist Poland. What you are suggesting may sound great on paper but it didn't work. Lets start from the top:

FOOD - there were numerous times that I can recall when food was rationed in Poland because there wasn't enough for everybody. That included meat products, sugar, flour, rice, etc. Not exactly luxury items.

SHELTER - multiple generations within the family were forced to live together. Grown up kids and parents, sometime even grandparents in the same apartment. It wasn't uncommon for parents to put their kid on a waiting list for an apartment when the child was born. It took almost 20 years of waiting to get a place.

WATER - Warsaw, a city of 2 million in which I grew up, got its drinking water from the Vistula river. The filtering system was 100 years old at the time and in ruins. At the same time there were signs along the rivers shore prohibiting people from swimming in its waters because it wasn't safe. There were enough chemicals in the river water to account for everything in the periodic table of elements.


EDUCATION - was excellent in Poland and most of the Eastern Block. That's the only thing I still consider good about living there. However, there was no equality when it came to performance in school. Students who did well were rewarded and given every opportunity to advance their education. Students who did not were left behind. But what was the point when everyone is supposed to be equal at the end. Why push forward and excell when the guy who dropped out will have the same opportunity in the work place.

HEALTH BENEFITS - were given to all. Medical care and hospitalization were free. However, if anyone needed good care, they had to bribe their way into the system. My grandfather died of a heart attack because it took two hours for the ambulance to show up. And I am not talking about a remote rural area. It was in the middle of Polands largest city.

TRANPORTTION - Warsaw had a good mass transit system. There was busses, light rail, subway and train stations everywhere. The equipment was in bad shape and getting worse, but it worked. Only during "rush hours" the capacity of the transit system was maxed out. It was relatively easy to get around the city. However if one wanted or needed a car, there was about a 10 year wait and at the end people were asked "where did the money for this car come from"?

And in the end (1990's) the system collapsed. Russians lost control of the Eastern Block countries because USSR was bankrupt. They could no longer afford to pay the troops that kept the "masses" in order. If they still had the money they would still have 500,000 troops in Poland oppressing the very peole thay claimed to protect - the working class.


(Edited by mdk az us at 3:34 pm on April 7, 2002)

[Nateddi]

And everything is now improved. Everyone now is living in free market paradise, eh mdk az us?

I grew up in Ukraine. Most of the problems you listed came (or greatly escalated) after it became independant from the Soviet Union.

Nobody here is glorifying history. People new to the board may not realize that.

[Moskitto]

My canoe is made in Poland.

[Markxs]

would ppl under communism want luxury. when there are no commercials ppl dont want luxury.

is it bad for the ppl that the economy does not flourish not its not unless you have more militairy and police then ppl. so what if we just get rid of the useeles thing which is called military. and let the ppl order the leaders. and important not give the leaders much power beacause it corrupts. let the ppl decide what to do.

if not all ppl who live under communism are communists then some are opressed. they need to get to another part of the world when they not agree with the equality laws. ( just wandering how many workers want to be exploited by capitalists when they have a good alternative) . once there is one true communist society capitalism will die, down with greed [email protected]

[Guest]

when there are no commercials people don't want luxuries. Wow, you really dont know anything.

[Jurhael]

Commericals can get into people's heads, but that's all they do.

Anyway, as for the quote. The first part is plainly obvious. Not everyone can be a teacher or a fast food worker or can work 12 hours a day or can work only one. If a person's ability is to write, draw, farm, fish, whatever, they would be much more free to do so then if they were in a system where they have to work at some office job that doesn't suit them at all. Despite having the "freedom" to choose your job, most jobs available don't suit very many people at all.

[An Aside]
When you complain about "lazy" people, do bear in mind that these people are often poor workers and complained about at the workplace. These same people who ***** when the "lazy" person chooses NOT to work.

Poor lazy person. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. ;)

I say that if someone loses their motivation to excell because a "failure" has the same opportunites they do, then he/she is just weak and probably at heart as lazy as the "failure". Don't let the opportunities of someone who is percieved as a "failure" get to you and DON'T let it get to you to the point to where you honestly believe that others should do without because they're not what you want them to be.

A good example would be what gets published and onto best seller lists. A LOT of shitty writers get published and GET ON BEST SELLER LISTS while those who are truly talenented/hard working, etc. have yet to be published. Does that stop me? Nope. Did it stop Stephen Donaldson? Nope. Did it stop authors who were actually talented? Nope.

No matter how fair things may become, life certainly isn't always fair. That doesn't mean not make things better, it means that there's always going to be problems and some inequalities. That hardly means not to try for something better than the status quo.


When you progress, you should do it for yourself, not for anyone else and certainly NOT based on the achievements(or lack thereof) from others, unless you want to be inspired by someone. The only reason why people do it for money is because in this economy, money is necessary to survive.
[end aside]

As for the latter "To each according to their need", that's when things get difficult. Usually it's the people themselves who determine their needs AND wants. There's nothing wrong with having wants, the key is not letting the wants dominate your life. Like, "When you own something, don't let it own you."

There's nothing wrong with having luxeries, the problem is when they're at the expense of others. No one should have to work at a sweatshop for pennies a day, so you could have cool sneakers at a cheap price!

(Edited by Jurhael at 3:57 am on April 8, 2002)