Questions on resources allocation

[dannydandy]

1. does or does not in the final stage of a communist society those who work not as hard (voluntarily, due to sloth and not because of their bodily or intellectual defects) will get the same as those who work very hard?

2. does or does not in the final stage of a communist society those who are not capable of produce as much (due to defects inborn or not) be given less?

3. is there an efficient way of distinguishing the two types of people - those who are in fact capable but chooses to work not as hard vs those who work really hard but just couldn't match the output of others due to their less talents or so?

4. does overproduction in a communist society be impossible due to environmental problems (climate change, depletion of fossil fuels...) in which we are forced to control our output?

[Niccolò Rossi]

1. does or does not in the final stage of a communist society those who work not as hard (voluntarily, due to sloth and not because of their bodily or intellectual defects) will get the same as those who work very hard?

Generally speaking such individuals would cease to exist. This may at first sound like an incredibly idealistic expectation, but this is not so. To Marx a communist society necessitated the abolition of the social division of labour, that is the force which "de-humanises" man's productive activity. When the social division of labour no longer exists and the product of a person's labour is not appropriated by a foreign class and appears as a force opposing him, that is, when the a person feels fulfilled in their productive activities, their labour, they are motivated to work.


2. does or does not in the final stage of a communist society those who are not capable of produce as much (due to defects inborn or not) be given less?

No. In the higher stage of communist society distribution would be organised on the basis of "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs".


3. is there an efficient way of distinguishing the two types of people - those who are in fact capable but chooses to work not as hard vs those who work really hard but just couldn't match the output of others due to their less talents or so?

That question is irrelevant.


4. does overproduction in a communist society be impossible due to environmental problems (climate change, depletion of fossil fuels...) in which we are forced to control our output?

When Marxists speak of communism as being a society of super-abundance this in no way endorses an over-productivity and waste of resources. Rather it refers to the development of the means of production to such an extent, along with their efficient use, so to allow for the fulfilling of real human needs.

[dannydandy]

if one person being lazy would not affect the whole economy, what would happen if everyone follow suit? would super-abundance then could not sustain?

is there a distance between 'real human needs' and 'unneccessary desires'?


then, who would be given the opportunity to consume the 'limited luxury' items? (such as gold?)

[eyedrop]

if one person being lazy would not affect the whole economy, what would happen if everyone follow suit? would super-abundance then could not sustain?


Well here in Norway at least you can easily enough live as an unemployed. When unemployed you got around 20% more than what a student lives for. Still almost everyone chooses to work if possible, just because there is such a social stigma with being unemployed. In fact there are always cases of people whining that they want to get back to work but they can only work 50% so they would lose money on starting to work again.


It is possible today to live without doing anything and I don't see why so many people have such problems with what would happen if people don't have to work. The social pressure would be enough to keep people working. People want to be respected by their peers, and someone who doesn't contribute wouldn't be respected.

[Kropotesta]

then, who would be given the opportunity to consume the 'limited luxury' items? (such as gold?)
Who would care about gold if it was worth no wealth or had no higher presidence over everything else? It can't be eaten or used unless it is made into something else.

[dannydandy]

Who would care about gold if it was worth no wealth or had no higher presidence over everything else? It can't be eaten or used unless it is made into something else.

it still has its decorative purpose, like it being beautiful or artistic

[Niccolò Rossi]

if one person being lazy would not affect the whole economy, what would happen if everyone follow suit? would super-abundance then could not sustain? I have provided an answer to this over in the "Equal Pay" thread.


is there a distance between 'real human needs' and 'unneccessary desires'?Yes and No. A communist system of production geared toward the satisfaction of real human needs in no way implies the elimination of luxuries, rather I believes it implies the opposite. The development of the means of production and the shift away from the appropriation of surplus-labour by a minority will allow for what may be considered "luxuries" today to be available on a wider basis.


then, who would be given the opportunity to consume the 'limited luxury' items? (such as gold?)With production extended to such a point where social and physical limitation can be superseded (that is in the context of the real material world), limited "luxury" items would be considered a thing of the past. Where some items are limited on the basis of material scarcity the community need co-operate so as to ensure a common arrangement over how such items should be allocated.